Philosophers that interest you, and why (Jazzfanz Philosophy Thread)

[Siro]

It will be very different than we are. It has taken many thousand years for human intelligence to evolve. When artificial intelligence is created it will have the ability to upgrade itself and fix the "faults" we have discovered in our own intelligence.


This is condescending.

This is arrogant.

This is moot.

I can't disagree with condescending (sorry), but there is no arrogance in expressing an opinion that is different than yours. And the point about the need for intelligence to be independent is far from moot. To call it as such without elaboration IS arrogant.

You're repeating the transcendentalist story about how A.I. will be without addressing anything I said. I am familiar with the idea. It is the very first thing you encounter when you discover the Singularity religion. But why would the A.I. want to make themselves obsolete anymore than we do? Would you "fix" faults in your intelligence to a degree where you become distinct from humanity? Why would the A.I.? They are modeled after human intelligence. But you think they'll somehow be different from humans in the precise way that enables this plot to proceed? More importantly, if we have the ability to create human level intelligence, why would the creation possess the ability to upgrade, but not the creator? What is the difference between this transcendental A.I. and stories about gods and magic?

 

[Siro]

Biological creatures(or lets say living organisms) are also just machines of the nature. So I believe we can create completely self thinking, emotional machines one day.

It is very likely, yes.

 

[♪alt13]

And the point about the need for intelligence to be independent is far from moot. To call it as such without elaboration IS arrogant.

It is moot because it is true that it would need to be independent to be sentient. A creation that was dependent on human programming would not qualify as A.I. , and therefore is clearly not what we are talking about.

There is no such thing as sentient artificial intelligence.

It is very presumptuous in the least.

You're repeating the transcendentalist story about how A.I. will be without addressing anything I said. I am familiar with the idea. It is the very first thing you encounter when you discover the Singularity religion. But why would the A.I. want to make themselves obsolete anymore than we do?

You would have to define obsolete.

Would you "fix" faults in your intelligence to a degree where you become distinct from humanity?

Yes. Especially if I didn't have the problem of apoptosis(programed cell death)to shorten my life span.

More importantly, if we have the ability to create human level intelligence, why would the creation possess the ability to upgrade, but not the creator?

Never said humans won't be able to upgrade, though I imagine it may be more difficult. Many people will simply choose not to, these are the people who I think will have quite an interest in romantic human philosophies.

What is the difference between this transcendental A.I. and stories about gods and magic?

If we can give birth to A.I., and I think we can, it is foolish to think that it would have any fewer eccentricities or aspirations than we do. The Singularity folks kind of prove my point.


Do you really think that humans won't someday create A.I.? I won't try and presume when it will happen but I think it is a eventual certainty that it will as long as scientific advances continue to be made.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Nietzsche is the most interesting philosopher out of the 12 or so that college students learn about. And that is mainly for his thoughtful rejection of the majority of Western metaphysics. But deep down, Nietzsche is still as influenced by renaissance romanticism as the others. In fact, many of his axioms are more fitting in poems than in serious philosophical discussion.

Men are only driven by their instinct to dominate. That is not a truth, of course, because there is no such thing. There is only perspective. Except for Christianity. It is the truth that Christianity is horrible. It is the religion of the weak. I should keep talking about this throughout all my work. It is immoral to support Christianity, and we should get rid of it. Not that it matters you know, because history is cyclical. And on the subject of the superman... **** it, I'd rather read the Quran.

Holy ****ing dog****, your reading of Nietzsche is ****ing dog****.

It's obvious he's influenced by what came before... who isn't? But to call him a romantic is to miss the boat so wildly I don't even know where to begin (not to mention the fact that your statement presupposes something about romanticism).

No surprises you whifff on the Overman.

No surprises that you have a blunt take on his notion of history. And Christianity.

Phew, dawg. That's awful.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Anybody who dismisses Nietzsche from "serious philosophical discussion" because of his aphorisms totally misses one of his central and easiest points.

EDIT: I also like the implication that Nietzsche is interesting.... for undergrads.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Message boards are public spaces, right? So I can show this thread to my students? Great example here.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Ah. The A.I. myth. There is no such thing as sentient artificial intelligence. Researchers are trying to recreate human intelligence in electronic form. That's human intelligence, but in a different format. Big part of the reason why relatively little progress has been made (compared to computing in general) is that the precise mechanisms behind human intelligence are still poorly understood. This will, of course, change. Once every neuron, synapse, pathway has been broken down to the atomic level and then rebuilt, "A.I." would follow a decade or two later. But so what? We managed to recreate our intelligence. The A.I. will be no different than we are, for the simple fact that we do not know what "intelligence" means outside of the human context. If we make the A.I. simply programmable, then that's not intelligence at all, regardless of how convincing it sounds. It is either a human or a computer.

structuralist, correlationist, ... garbage.

 

[♪alt13]

@[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Where do you teach? If you don't mind me asking.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

@[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Where do you teach? If you don't mind me asking.

I'm actually not teaching for the next year. I've got a research grant and moved to LA to do all of that. I'll bookmark this thread for later, since I always sneek a little Nietzsche into my syllabus.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm actually not teaching for the next year. I've got a research grant and moved to LA to do all of that. I'll bookmark this thread for later, since I always sneek a little Nietzsche into my syllabus.

Any suggested reading?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Lets start this 'ish with ma boi Kawl.

Saw the ill effects of capitalism-- proposed many interesting ideas, like false-consciousness, social metabolism (some of the first socio-environmental writings were his). Obviously some of his ideas are difficult to agree with, but a cool thinker nonetheless.


But yeah, no. Do you guys like Nietzsche? Paul of Tarsus? Are you guys lame, and stick to just Aristotle and Plato?
Aquinas, Avicenna, Khaldun?


Share some of your preferred philosophers, some of their writings, and why you like them.

This should be a fairly low-argument, high-learning thread that many will enjoy

What a great thread idea, OP. RIP Sandy Braille

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Any suggested reading?

Since we've already mentioned Misosophy... you might get a huge charge out of Deleuze's chapter on "thought" in difference&repetition. His book on Nietzsche is tonic. I'm re-reading Massumi's Parables for the Virtual right now.