|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: next step in evolution...or is that Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
well, at least the argument still holds. Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
well, at least the argument still holds. Heh, what argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'm moving this thread to the Intelligent Design Courses Taking Hold forum. Anyone who would like to participate in threads there should post a request for access at Showcase Forum - Issues and Requests II .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread copied to the next step in evolution...or is that Intelligent Design thread in the Showcase forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024