Mankind's biggest issues is due to?

Originally posted by sonship
One of mankind's biggest issues - How to make a machine totally in his own image and likeness.

Would you say that being so overly pleased with yourself that you decide to make beings “in your own image and likeness” is a bit of a narcissistic character flaw?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We believe this....
We own these....
In our hearts we behave badly....

We are all sinners against God and mankind.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We are all sinners against God and mankind.

I was excepting guns and religion, seeing the fault rest with us was refreshing.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Would you say that being so overly pleased with yourself that you decide to make beings “in your own image and likeness” is a bit of a narcissistic character flaw?

I am speaking on the trend of technology.

Japan, I heard, now has a hotel serviced by robots.
Robots and Artificial Intelligence, I think, are on the rise.

I think it is all around us that technology seeks to make smarter and smarter machines. They even seek to make learning machines. Nano technology is also in exploration. The tendency from the invention of the wheel and onward is to get a machine to do what the human can do, and do it better.

And I am not say all such efforts are inherently wrong somehow.

Chess Machine made by IBM defeats human world champion chess grandmaster.

I think the tendency is strongly to reproduce and even improve what humans can do [i[in machines[/i]. I simply phrased the tendency with words reminiscent of Scripture.

Originally posted by sonship
I am speaking on the trend of technology.

Japan, I heard, now has a hotel serviced by robots.
Robots and Artificial Intelligence, I think, are on the rise.

I think it is all around us that technology seeks to make smarter and smarter machines. They even seek to make learning machines. Nano technology is also in exploration. The tendency fro ...[text shortened]... can do [i[in machines[/i]. I simply phrased the tendency with words reminiscent of Scripture.

I don't think it is wrong for technology to do things better than people.
I think people will have to improve themselves in ways that can make the
most of the new world we are moving into due to that. Simply having a
chess computer beat a person is no different than a car out running a man
in my opinion, it is the way of things. Having any activity that is done over
and over the same way is begging for a machine to do it better, or a piece
of software to simplify the activity. While we do things that do not lend
themselves to computers hardware and software.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't think it is wrong for technology to do things better than people.
I think people will have to improve themselves in ways that can make the
most of the new world we are moving into due to that. Simply having a
chess computer beat a person is no different than a car out running a man
in my opinion, it is the way of things. Having any activity that ...[text shortened]... he activity. While we do things that do not lend
themselves to computers hardware and software.

The chess computer does not get to be able to beat humans on its own, but has to have someone with enough intelligence to understands chess with the knowledge to program it. The chess computer also need someone to assemble it with the proper parts, etc. The same idea must also apply to living things.

I don't believe anyone would think it is wrong for a refrigerator to be able to cool something better than a human either. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay

I don't think it is wrong for technology to do things better than people.
I think people will have to improve themselves in ways that can make the
most of the new world we are moving into due to that. Simply having a
chess computer beat a person is no different than a car out running a man
in my opinion, it is the way of things. Having any activity that is done over
and over the same way is begging for a machine to do it better, or a piece
of software to simplify the activity. While we do things that do not lend
themselves to computers hardware and software.

I agree completely.

I only muse on how far this tendency will be taken.
To what extent will technology go to create a human assisting technocracy?

You know theoretically what an android is.
While this may not be the "biggest issue" it might be somewhere up there at the top.

IE. Man attempts to recreate something as close to or superior to human life as possible.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I don't think it is wrong for technology to do things better than people.
I think people will have to improve themselves in ways that can make the
most of the new world we are moving into due to that. Simply having a
chess computer beat a person is no different than a car out running a man
in my opinion, it is the way of things. Having any activi ...[text shortened]... .

IE. Man attempts to recreate something as close to or superior to human life as possible.

As I said computers already are better then humans at chess and so on,
but they are just computers nothing more, and they will never be more
than that either. They maybe able to fool us from time to time, but that
will be as far as it ever goes.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said computers already are better then humans at chess and so on,
but they are just computers nothing more, and they will never be more
than that either. They maybe able to fool us from time to time, but that
will be as far as it ever goes.

You don't think there is a lot of money and intellect pursuing the dream that "Just maybe we can do even better" ?

Think of the world your children are growing up into or your grand children.

My feeling is that if they can get a computer to out play chess against a human, someone is dreaming that maybe they can get it to out do humans in other more emotional psychological aspects as well.

Think of a computer that could analyze the expressions on your face to detect whether you are sad, glad, lying, confessing, in love, about to loose your temper, etc.

My opinion at this point is that the envelope WILL be pushed more in coming years. Machine parts are already being added to the body to assist in human physical or emotional activities.

How far will it be taken is what I contemplate, not the intrinsic goodness or badness of the matter.

Originally posted by sonship
You don't think there is a lot of money and intellect pursuing the dream that "Just maybe we can do even better" ?

Think of the world your children are growing up into or your grand children.

My feeling is that if they can get a computer to out play chess against a human, someone is dreaming that maybe they can get it to out do humans in other ...[text shortened]... far will it be taken is what I contemplate, not the intrinsic goodness or badness of the matter.

Computers do what we tell them, if they didn't they would be useless. Now
sometimes we design them to do tasks that make them interact with us to
the point where they could fool us into thinking they are not a computer
but a person, that is not them becoming more of a person it is only our
awareness getting fooled not the computers getting more self aware.

We can apply ourselves to be better at anything, or we can sit on our hands
and do nothing! We will live with the results no matter what we do or don't
do.

With respect to machine parts being added to our bodies, I like the idea of
us being able to give missing body parts, I like the idea of those with Type
1 or 2 diabetes getting a machine that can help with their insulin therapy,
and if we can improve the quality of life, lets do that.

We will not being turning people into Borg or robots, as I said, computers
will not become self aware, they are just adding machines, but they can do
several things that help us live out lives with greater quality.

Originally posted by KellyJay

Computers do what we tell them, if they didn't they would be useless. Now
sometimes we design them to do tasks that make them interact with us to
the point where they could fool us into thinking they are not a computer
but a person, that is not them becoming more of a person it is only our
awareness getting fooled not the computers getting more self aware.

Yes. But I think the fact of the matter is that a large number of people CAN be fooled. They may be fooled because they really want to think of the machine as almost being human.

Now, I agree, that somewhere back there are some engineers and programmers who know that they have simulated something human like in the machine. But often the people in positions of power are not as aware and may wishfully impose the device in their quest to "manage" society.

In addition to this, some of the people may become naively influenced though a limited elite smaller number are not. If an android like device is in the making some 25 years from now, granted, some engineers and programmers will know its just nuts and bolts and software.

I think though that the appeal and impressiveness of what is accomplished could be a fooling factor to less initiated masses. A large number of people think technology can solve every problem. If you ever consider the average TV commercial. What is the message? Too often the message is that technology has an answer to this or that problem.

The other thing to consider is that is if there is money to be made someone will find a way to provide something that people will pay for. Those Japanese technocrats knew that someone will pay to stay in a hotel that is serviced only by robots.

I don't argue that someone/s know that the plug can be pulled out of the socket no matter how good the machine.

IF Stephen Hawking floats the idea that a computer virus should be considered as form of life, as he has, don't you think we are not that far away from considering robots or androids as living persons ?

If not now then consider the addition of another 50 years.

We can apply ourselves to be better at anything, or we can sit on our hands
and do nothing! We will live with the results no matter what we do or don't
do.

I didn't suggest that going to the other extreme is some answer. I am not Amish. They made a decision that they would stop with the horse and buggy. Possibly that is an opposite extreme.

With respect to machine parts being added to our bodies, I like the idea of
us being able to give missing body parts, I like the idea of those with Type
1 or 2 diabetes getting a machine that can help with their insulin therapy,
and if we can improve the quality of life, lets do that.

We will not being turning people into Borg or robots, as I said, computers
will not become self aware, they are just adding machines, but they can do
several things that help us live out lives with greater quality.

Now, I agree for the most part. But think now in terms of the addition of another, say, 50 to 70 years.

The PC on your desk which you are now using, will look as obsolete as hand held washboard for washing cloths does today, as old fashion as a as a old fashion large box camera with its external flash bulb compared to the digital camera in your smart phone.

Maybe I overstate the case. But in the past there have been a few books about this technological explosion.

"The Gathering Darkness"

"Future Shock"

"The Soul of a New Machine".

(None of which I read entirely, except some of Future Shock)

Originally posted by sonship
[quote]
Computers do what we tell them, if they didn't they would be useless. Now
sometimes we design them to do tasks that make them interact with us to
the point where they could fool us into thinking they are not a computer
but a person, that is not them becoming more of a person it is only our
awareness getting fooled not the computers getting more ...[text shortened]... of a New Machine".

(None of which I read entirely, except some of Future Shock)[/b]

have you ever come across the 'turing test'?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
have you ever come across the 'turing test'?

I'm reading up on it now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Give me another half a minute and I'll be an Internet expert on it.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote]
Computers do what we tell them, if they didn't they would be useless. Now
sometimes we design them to do tasks that make them interact with us to
the point where they could fool us into thinking they are not a computer
but a person, that is not them becoming more of a person it is only our
awareness getting fooled not the computers getting more ...[text shortened]... of a New Machine".

(None of which I read entirely, except some of Future Shock)[/b]

" IF Stephen Hawking floats the idea that a computer virus should be considered as form of life, as he has, don't you think we are not that far away from considering robots or androids as living persons ? "

You'd have to quote this exactly, if Hawking thinks that he isn't as sharp as
I thought he was. A computer virus is just unwanted code introduced
into something not by the designers or users, if it were something wanted then
people would be paying for it, it is just software not a life.