On May 17, 2:10=A0pm, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 17, 11:59 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 10:19 am, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 8:46 am, neo <MAT...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > some robots are programmed to say that they believe in God and
some =
robots are
> > > > programmed to say that they are atheist.
>
> > > So they are programmed to be irrational? =A0If you wanted logical
bots=
> > > they would all be agnostic. Logically, they don't "know" anything
> > > their programmers don't know, and if their programmers /did/ have
> > > actual knowledge then the atheist/theist duality would be
unnecessary,=
> > > wouldn't it?
>
> > What you say reminds me of the end of a chapter in a philosophy
> > introduction;
>
> > Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
> > by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros
Pappashttp://www.amazo=
n.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
>
> > Since our capacity for scientific discovery is not matched by our
> > capacity to use scientific discoveries wisely, our survival as a
> > species may depend on our ignorance of the true nature of the world.
> > There is at least some chance that if our perceptual beliefs were not
> > slightly incorrect, then we would indeed destroy ourselves, as a
> > result of scientific discovery and mishandled technology based upon
> > it. Thus, we propose that there is at least some chance that erroneous
> > beliefs have survival value, and, moreover, that the erroneousness of
> > our perceptual beliefs has saved us from destroying ourselves long
> > ago. There is some chance, however small, that the erroneousness of
> > our perceptual beliefs has survival value.
>
> > Suppose, to illustrate, that there is some particular theory that is
> > especially dangerous to humankind. Imagine that some discovery in
> > physics would enable us to understand how to release vast amounts of
> > energy in a simple way with common materials. If we imagine, moreover,
> > that such devices might have the power of thermonuclear bombs and that
> > anyone could easily learn how to construct them from materials to
> > which we all have access, then we can see that such devices would
> > place us all at the mercy of demented and desperate people willing to
> > destroy themselves to destroy others. And then the holocaust would
> > result from the madness of the few.
>
> > The foregoing is but one way in which the discovery of some principle
> > might serve to destroy us. One might imagine countless others. If the
> > discovery of such a principle would obliterate life, then the failure
> > to discover it would be necessary for our continued existence. Now one
> > way in which we might be prevented from discovering such a principle
> > is by virtue of perceptual error. If we are misled at the perceptual
> > level, our attempts to check those theories that might lead to the
> > fatal one will be subverted at the level of observation. We shall, by
> > dint of our defective observational beliefs, be encouraged to accept
> > some slightly incorrect theories that are more probable, in terms of
> > our slightly erroneous perceptual beliefs, than those correct but
> > fatal theories we reject. In short, theory is based, either directly
> > or indirectly, on observation, and, therefore, faulty observation,
> > erroneous perceptual beliefs, can prevent us from arriving at correct
> > theories. We propose that there is some chance, however small you
> > might think it is, that our very survival at this moment depends on
> > our failure to accept some correct theory, because of our erroneous
> > perceptual beliefs. In this way, then, there is some chance that our
> > perceptual beliefs are erroneous, and, indeed, that our survival has
> > depended on it. If you ask how the error could have gone undetected,
> > the answer is that, had it been detected, no one would be here now to
> > re****t the result.
>
> > A bit of science fiction may help you to imagine how our survival
> > might depend on perceptual error. Imagine that a group of very
> > intelligent beings, living in a remote galaxy, have the means to
> > observe the earth from a scientific space****p concealed from our view.
> > Let us call these beings googols after the number googol, which is ten
> > to the hundredth power, Because their intelligence is ten to the
> > hundredth power greater than that of the most intelligent earthling.
> > One googol scientist, John, reaches an alarming conclusion about the
> > humans, namely, that their rate of scientific discovery will soon
> > enable them to create very inexpensive weapons with sufficient power
> > to destroy themselves. His computation leads him, moreover, to
> > conclude that the weapons will actually be used within fifty years,
> > due to the slow rate of moral development of humans and their
> > inadequate understanding of how to control their aggressiveness. The
> > humans are clearly an endangered species, and John places them on the
> > urgent concern list, offering a prize to any googol who can find a
> > method for saving the humans.
>
> > One googol genius, Mary, who has special fondness for the foolish
> > humans, comes up with an elegant solution. It is possible to introduce
> > a very small microbe that will live as a parasite on the brain tissue
> > of humans, being passed from one to the other, which will produce a
> > minor distortion in the way in which humans perceive the world so that
> > their perceptual beliefs will all be slightly inaccurate. This will
> > introduce errors into their scientific observations that will prevent
> > them from making the scientific discoveries that would lead to the
> > creation of the endangering weapons. There is a special elegance to
> > the solution resulting from the fact that errors caused by the microbe
> > will also prevent the humans from making the scientific discovery that
> > would reveal the microbe itself. Mary points out that a minor
> > modification of the microbe would reduce human fertility to a level
> > that would be more compatible with resources of their habitat and
> > proposes the modification be added.
>
> > After careful study as to whether the microbe would have harmful side
> > effects, or whether the humans might discover the weapons by other
> > means, it is concluded that Mary's solution will be effective and
> > benign. Mary, revealing typical googol integrity, points out that,
> > strictly speaking, all perceptual beliefs of the humans will be false
> > once the microbe is introduced. Indeed, she insists that it is
> > improper to describe the post-microbe-infestation perceptual beliefs
> > of humans as merely inaccurate, for they will be erroneous, even if
> > only very slightly so. Her point is thoughtfully considered by the
> > referees, but her solution is deemed much less invasive than other
> > alternatives, which range from turning the earth into a kind of human
> > park for googol visitation to preserving a sample of living human
> > brains in vats, and Mary wins the prize. The microbe is introduced
> > undetected onto earth, it functions as predicted, and the humans are
> > saved by their microbe-caused errors of observation. The googols
> > extend Mary the prize of their esteem and celebrate the survival of
> > the humans.
>
> > Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
> > by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros
Pappashttp://www.amazo=
n.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
>
> Of course, the question arises, what keeps the Googols from destroying
> themselves? =A0Is there a race of beings smarter than they are that has
> implanted a similar microbe in their brains? =A0There is an underlying
> circular premise, much like the Big Bang.
>
This is like the origin of life argument where a God started
everything but then the question arises, what started this God or the
Panspermia argument which is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist
already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated
through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered
life to other habitable bodies, and the question where these aliens
originated from, etc....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
> A simpler example of the survival value inherent in a lack of
> understanding, if we were to all truly know that existence was finite
> and meaningless, this world would be an ever more cynical and
> dangerous place. Instead of Christians warring with Muslims and Arabs,
> it would be every man for himself. =A0(Which indirectly underscores a
> flaw in atheism, if they know this is a one way ticket, why aren't
> they given to a life of complete and wanton hedonism? =A0What's stopping
> them? =A0Their careers?)
It seems that way but it is probably that we could have evolved those
abilities but they would have required to many genes to direct the
assembly of neural structures required. We know what we need to know
in order to survive on Earth and know these things very well, even
with emotions instinctually wired to guide us in decisions about
regular interactions on this planet.
|
