Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   next step in evolution...or is that Intelligent Design
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 14 (370981)
12-19-2006 6:15 PM


The next time you beat your keyboard in frustration, think of a day where it may be able to sue you for assault. Within 50 years we might even find ourselves standing next to the next generation of vacuum cleaners in the voting booth.
Far from being extracts from the extreme end of science fiction, the idea that we may one day give sentient machines the kind of rights traditionally reserved for humans is raised in a British government-commissioned report which claims to be an extensive look into the future.
Visions of the status of robots around 2056 have emerged from one of 270 forward-looking papers sponsored by Sir David King, the UK government’s chief scientist. The paper covering robots’ rights was written by a UK partnership of Outsights, the management consultancy, and Ipsos Mori, the opinion research organisation.
“If we make conscious robots they would want to have rights and they probably should,” said Henrik Christensen, director of the Centre of Robotics and Intelligent Machines at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
UK report says robots will have rights | Financial Times
I have long thought the creation of consciousness is possible, especially if we develop quantum computers. The question is whether AI is an example of "evolution" or Intelligent Design, or both. Imo, if we create consciousness, it will be strong evidence for ID, demonstrating a testable and workable ID mechanism.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by kuresu, posted 12-19-2006 6:34 PM randman has replied
 Message 3 by jar, posted 12-19-2006 6:53 PM randman has not replied
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 12-19-2006 7:57 PM randman has not replied
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 01-02-2007 9:02 PM randman has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 2 of 14 (370986)
12-19-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
12-19-2006 6:15 PM


um. duh.
of course it would be design--because we know that we designed it.
however, it still doesn't help ID, in the sense that the dude who is supposed to have designed us can't be found. Nor is he very intelligent for that matter, if we are all actually designed. you would think that a backbone meant for walking on all fours (like a dog) would be redesigned to handle the stresses of bipedal motion. I guess he thought we should all suffer back problems.
and what do you mean by "consciousness"? That the item, or organism, has a "conscious", as in knowing whats right and wrong. Or, that the item/organism is aware of its surroundings?
If you mean the former, still doesn't help ID, because most organisms don't recognize wrong from right, like bacteria. However, bacteria are aware of their environment. This study is talking about the former--in order for one to sue for abuse, one must be able to tell right from wrong. In the end, then, you are arguing for ID for a limited number of organisms. I thought all were designed?

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 12-19-2006 6:15 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2006 11:32 AM kuresu has replied
 Message 8 by randman, posted 01-02-2007 5:32 PM kuresu has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 14 (370992)
12-19-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
12-19-2006 6:15 PM


Yeah right.
Imo, if we create consciousness, it will be strong evidence for ID, demonstrating a testable and workable ID mechanism.
Yeah, certainly. Just as airplanes and flashlights and stun guns and support the nonsense that is the Intelligent Design movement.
How utterly silly.
If we create consciousness or life or anything else it only shows that we created yet another thing.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 12-19-2006 6:15 PM randman has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 14 (371001)
12-19-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
12-19-2006 6:15 PM


Consciousness
If we manage to create artificial conscious beings it will prove just that - i.e. that we are able to create artificial conscious beings. Nothing else.
It certainly won't demonstrate ID in any way.
In fact it might raise some serious questions about the nature of the soul which could cause theists some problems.
I would also suggest that if we are able to create conscious beings it would somewhat lessen the "wow factor" of any potential "Gods" and validate the question as to who created our creator given that it does not seem to require timeless omnipotence merely to create consciousness after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 12-19-2006 6:15 PM randman has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 14 (371133)
12-20-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by kuresu
12-19-2006 6:34 PM


vocabulary lesson
and what do you mean by "consciousness"? That the item, or organism, has a "conscious", as in knowing whats right and wrong. Or, that the item/organism is aware of its surroundings?
Consciousness is the state of being conscious. Knowing whats right and wrong has to do with your conscience

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kuresu, posted 12-19-2006 6:34 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 12-20-2006 1:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 6 of 14 (371156)
12-20-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
12-20-2006 11:32 AM


Re: vocabulary lesson
well, at least the argument still holds.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2006 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2006 4:59 PM kuresu has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 14 (371207)
12-20-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kuresu
12-20-2006 1:25 PM


Re: vocabulary lesson
well, at least the argument still holds.
Heh, what argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 12-20-2006 1:25 PM kuresu has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 14 (373777)
01-02-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by kuresu
12-19-2006 6:34 PM


is this serious on your part?
of course it would be design--because we know that we designed it.
however, it still doesn't help ID, in the sense that the dude who is supposed to have designed us can't be found.
So can you point out the name, type and fossil of the first organism, please? Be consistent in your logic.
Nor is he very intelligent for that matter, if we are all actually designed. you would think that a backbone meant for walking on all fours (like a dog) would be redesigned to handle the stresses of bipedal motion. I guess he thought we should all suffer back problems.
Thanks for illustrating one of the primary fallacies of the evo mindset. You guys just cannot help confusing science with religion, and so use theological arguments to address scientific issues. But hey, here is your theo answer. First, you assume know the purpose of why something would have been created. Secondly, you ignore the theological reasons for imperfection, such as the Fall.
As to the rest of your post, "conscious" and conscience are not the same words or things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kuresu, posted 12-19-2006 6:34 PM kuresu has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 14 (373822)
01-02-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
12-19-2006 6:15 PM


Randman, the fact that you used the phrase "next step in evolution" tells me that you still don't know what evolution is all about. This isn't some x-men reality. This is the real world.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 12-19-2006 6:15 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 01-03-2007 1:24 PM Taz has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 10 of 14 (374015)
01-03-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
01-02-2007 9:02 PM


define evolution and be consistent
OK TD, what you need to do is define the word "evolution" and only use the definition you give.....never use another definition of the word.....ever.
OK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 01-02-2007 9:02 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 01-03-2007 1:32 PM randman has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 11 of 14 (374021)
01-03-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
01-03-2007 1:24 PM


Re: define evolution and be consistent
Hi Randman,
If you'd like to pursue discussion along the lines you've already begun then I can move this thread to the Showcase forum. Let me know if that is what you'd like to do.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 01-03-2007 1:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 01-03-2007 3:21 PM Admin has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 14 (374050)
01-03-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Admin
01-03-2007 1:32 PM


Re: define evolution and be consistent
I suppose so since I take it you don't want it here in this forum.
Btw, for any lurkers, AI doesn't falsify Intelligent Design but rather is evidence for ID. It amazes me that anyone could argue otherwise.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 01-03-2007 1:32 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 13 of 14 (374066)
01-03-2007 3:56 PM


I'm moving this thread to the Windsor castle forum. Anyone who would like to participate in threads there should post a request for access at Showcase Forum - Issues and Requests II .

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 14 of 14 (374067)
01-03-2007 3:56 PM


Thread moved here from the In The News (Creation/Evolution only) forum.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024