Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grakelin]

So only atheists can talk about morality?

No. but it certainly helps when talking about AI.

Yes. Only Atheists can talk about morality. Other viewpoints are incorrect.

[alway]

So only atheists can talk about morality?

No. but it certainly helps when talking about AI.

Yeah, the discussion otherwise goes something like this:
"Your beliefs are set in stone and we all know what they are. Now shoo so we can have an intersting non-preachy discussion."

[Nikov]

Actually that seemed like a fairly polite way to put it, but I disagree. The notion that sentient computers deserve special rights implies they are more than simply computers, therefore the arguement is already presuming that sentient beings are more than their sums. I am simply taking a theological step back, asking if humans deserve to be kept alive simply because they are human or only when they are useful. This prompts people to ask if they're viewing computers differently from humans, and if they're even giving computers more privilages than they do members of their own species.

[Criptfeind]

So only atheists can talk about morality?

No. but it certainly helps when talking about AI.

Yeah, the discussion otherwise goes something like this:
"Your beliefs are set in stone and we all know what they are. Now shoo so we can have an intersting non-preachy discussion."

That is... a interesting way of putting it.

[Grakelin]

Every time I say this, I hate it, but Nikov is right.

[Vactor]

Its interesting that you're religious, but don't model yourself after your god.  You observe in the world, and are taught in your texts that god dosen't obliterate and smite the "buggy" humans who don't work right to free up disc space (god's promise to noah.) But you have no qualms about doing such a thing to your own creation.

Its also interesting that you try to cast me as the nazi when you start off your post talking about other human's sentience being unimportant, the only important quality another person has is how similar they are to you. 

Incidentally, talking about your ability to not quite mention nazis by name dosen't pass muster for not being the guy who proved goodwin's law true.

And yes I do think it is the spark of sentience that makes humans special, not their similarity to me.  This belief has nothing to do with eugenics, or the euthanasia of disabled persons. 

Every time I say this, I hate it, but Nikov is right.

no, i think you're just impressionable

Actually that seemed like a fairly polite way to put it, but I disagree. The notion that sentient computers deserve special rights implies they are more than simply computers, therefore the arguement is already presuming that sentient beings are more than their sums. I am simply taking a theological step back, asking if humans deserve to be kept alive simply because they are human or only when they are useful. This prompts people to ask if they're viewing computers differently from humans, and if they're even giving computers more privilages than they do members of their own species.

oh wait i see what you're trying to say, that left wing death panelers are killing off elderly citizens to make room for their AI buddies.

[Grakelin]

I mean in terms of the exaggerated value we are putting on computers that we deem intelligent, not about exterminating humans.

[Nikov]

Vactor, why are you preferring to attack me instead of answering my questions about your world view?

[Vactor]

Vactor, why are you preferring to attack me instead of answering my questions about your world view?

what question?

I mean in terms of the exaggerated value we are putting on computers that we deem intelligent, not about exterminating humans.

But you've already been resistant to the concept that a computer could actually be sentient, this discussion is all predicated on the idea that something with the same awareness and sense of self as you was able to be made to exist as software.

[Nikov]

That whole block of questions that you didn't answer but instead claimed I was calling you a nazi while otherwise insulting you.

[Sergius]

Ok, let's for the sake of argument, for all theo-logo-somethingses in this thread, that the Creator pointed his magic finger at the computer and said "LIVE!!! u are now Person/God-clay/whatever lol". Now, eitheir y'all by default then decide that gawd said they're alive so they're alive, period, and there's no point in discussing it any further, or you decide that gawd doesn't want you to, period, end of discussion.

So, the rest of us can discuss it from the point of view of whether it has enough life-like-ness to be treated as living/human or not, and whether humans are nothing more than supercomputers with bodily fluids that make us feel all warm and squishy inside, or not (from a non-clay-madebyGod perspective).

[Vactor]

I'm bending Godwin's Law to a good 90 degree flex right now. Don't make me push it any further.

You did call me a nazi in everything but name.

And to answer your hyperbolic questions, no i do not regard a corpse as equivalent value as a living person, even though it contains similar genetic material as me, and is made of the same "clay".  I do not honor it in the same way as a living human, and given the choice i would rescue a living human from destruction rather than a corpse.

I'm also confused why you kept asking me who should be judging whom, as i'm pretty sure you came sailing into this thread with your mighty judgement hammer ready.

[Criptfeind]

That is a very ignorant view point Sergius. Please leave.

[Sergius]

That is a very ignorant view point Sergius. Please leave.

And you are...?

[Grakelin]

The problem with somebody coming in with a religious viewpoint often isn't the religious viewpoint.

It's the people who vomit at the idea of a religious viewpoint, are unable to cope, and say things that don't apply to the situation at all.