Scott Adams on responsible, rational freedom (as the machines take over)

_{kairosfocus

November 17, 2016

Academic Freedom, Mind, mind and brain, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

. . . as in, it’s a delusion:

>>When the machines take over our important decisions we will do the same thing we do now – we will imagine that we are making the decisions on our own. Today our important decisions are made with emotions, and rationalized after the fact. We incorrectly call this process “thinking.” In the near future, our machines will make our daily decisions using Big Data and whatever they know about us as individuals to maximize our outcomes. You’ll like that future because the machines will make better decisions than you, and you’ll have better quality of life.

In the new world ahead, you will be the robot – albeit a moist one. The machines will be doing the thinking and making the decisions. You will simply do what they program you to do . . . >>

The pattern is adding up.

So, what does almost cavalier dismissal of responsible, rational freedom entail? (Apart from utter incoherence.) END

Comments

Since I teach decision-making, this whole discussion seems to miss all the key issues here. Machines cannot make decisions about the future for people. First, because they cannot predict any future in human society and second because, not being conscious, they lack a point of view, their own goals that are the basis for decision-making. All decisions are predictions of the future and no one can know that future. In competitive environments, plans collide creating events no one plans. There is no predictive method that can work or can ever work. All decisions are made from self-interest. Individuals make decisions to meet their goals. All people's goals are unique and a constantly changing but they only make sense from their own point of view. This is true both for "selfish" goals and "altruistic" goals. Both are based on a personal reference system, not group consciousness of such things. Since the future is unknowable and decisions about the future must be made from unique individual perspectives, how can they be anything else but emotional? I could go into the science of the valuable role that emotions play in decision making.GaryGag_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

With your postings Kairos you simply confirm my criticism, 'this is poor writing'. News is equally guilty, as is Mr Arrington, and me at times, I try to improve, it's hard. "with material and unwanted rhetorical effect"? "self referentially"? "self-referential, GIGO driven factors"? "PS:PPS:PPPS"? Do we get a, PPPPS? Why not write 'also', or 'as well', or 'in adition', anything! "Proverbs: Psalms: Mathew: Genesis: Kings etcetera"? At a science site? You are right, I am mocking your style, but certainly not sneering. To sneer would in some way imply I care. Mockery is just the use of overt irony to show a double standard, for example; "such as your emotions controlled by blind(ing) forces."?? My emotions are controlled by what I can actually achieve, see, understand, and control. Yours are governed entirely by myth, dreams, and fantasies. For example, your endless tirades against a practice that is as old as civilisation, that is legal in civilised countries, that is a personal free choice decision, that is no one's business but the patient's, and that if criminalized would not in any way stop the practice: abortion. You can in no way stop this practice, even if a law was passed to execute doctors, and women who supply, and have abortions. It would still go on, as it always has; this is a prime examle of emotion driven pointlessness. Abortions should be reduced? Agreed. How? Easy, education, not threats of jail or eternal damnation; grow up! Your emotions on the other hand, are controlled by an awkward desire that everyone in the world agree that what you believe is true. Which of us is truly driven by emotion? Be honest.rvb8_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

"So, short & “simple” (cheap to read), substantial (but takes much time and effort to both write and to read*), sound, pick any two." KF, I don't agree with this - there are many examples of great science communicators who have successfully explained complex topics to laypeople - and still address all three items in your list. I used to do a lot of writing in a corporate environment. Whenever people complained they did not understand what I wrote, I always took it as a challenge to improve how I communicated. I never blamed my readers.Fordgreen_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

F/N: on the iron triangle of writing as one addresses significantly technical and controversial, important subjects in a context where non-technical persons are apt to have picked up opinions (which, too often are fallacy-laced, with economics as case study no. 1). In project management, the iron triangle often makes an unwelcome but inevitable appearance: cheap, quick and good, pick any two. (Pay for it with the third.) In a controversial blog forum or the like, an analogous issue appears: short/simple & quick, substantial (including/pointing to details), sound. We all want something that gives a quick fix in a 140 character tweet. But that necessarily appeals to prejudice or background sense and sentiment. Which, on technically loaded, controversial material is utterly unlikely to be sound. The realistic alternatives are to go on in greater length and details (perhaps beyond a "typical" blog comment); or to use language that points to underlying considerations, both of which will require more time and effort than the typical dismissive objector is interested in. The point of the latter approach is to set the basis for deeper exploration while summarising a case on its merits. This invites the serious to go on. The former is likely to be off-putting right at the outset, and those who are looking for snip and snipe points will at best do just that, or more likely will pretend nothing has been highlighted. One of the underlying issues, is that too many objectors in and around UD are often unwilling to concede that there is a substantial issue that needs to be addressed, instead exhibiting the bigotry of implicitly assuming that ID-iots -- as they view us -- are inevitably ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. So, short & "simple" (cheap to read), substantial (but takes much time and effort to both write and to read*), sound, pick any two. (*Including the effort of rereading and following up on what is pithy but loaded.) What a contrast we find in the attitude of seeking profound understanding in The Laws Book X:
Cle. One such [misleading] teacher, O Stranger, would be bad enough, and you imply that there are many of them, which is worse. Ath. Well, then; what shall we say or do?-Shall we assume that some one is accusing us among unholy men, who are trying to escape from the effect of our legislation; and that they say of us-How dreadful that you should legislate on the supposition that there are Gods! Shall we make a defence of ourselves? or shall we leave them and return to our laws, lest the prelude should become longer than the law? For the discourse will certainly extend to great length, if we are to treat the impiously disposed as they desire, partly demonstrating to them at some length the things of which they demand an explanation, partly making them afraid or dissatisfied, and then proceed to the requisite enactments. Cle. Yes, Stranger; but then how often have we repeated already that on the present occasion there is no reason why brevity should be preferred to length; who is "at our heels"?-as the saying goes, and it would be paltry and ridiculous to prefer the shorter to the better. It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do. The demonstration of this would be the best and noblest prelude of all our laws. And therefore, without impatience, and without hurry, let us unreservedly consider the whole matter, summoning up all the power of persuasion which we possess. Ath. Seeing you thus in earnest, I would fain offer up a prayer that I may succeed:-but I must proceed at once.
On this matter, I am inclined to give Solomon, in the voice of Sophia, a key place:
Prov 1:20 Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice; 21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks: 22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? 23 If you turn at my reproof,[a] behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. 24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, 25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, 26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, 27 when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you . . . . 32 For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; 33 but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.”
KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

Sev, debates in and around UD and more broadly clearly demonstrate that "evolution" is commonly used in a slippery slope sense, with material and unwarranted rhetorical effect. It is high time to correct this. KF PS: Let us also note in passing on "information" -- which you clearly wish to falsely imply is being used in a slippery slope sense. Machine code such as runs this computer I am typing on or your device that you will use to read this comment, is based on digital [2-state per symbol], coded information, true or false? DNA and mRNA contain digital [4-state per symbol], coded information used by the ribosome in the same essential way machine code is used, true or false. (And your experience with machine code that enables you to say false is: _______ . Mine, that enables me to confidently say true includes designing and developing mpu based entities from the ground up directly using machine code and assembly language to the point where I began to "read" same.) PPS: Likewise, AutoCAD reduces 3-d engineered structures to coded sequences of bits in a description language, true or false? So also, when functionally specific organised configurations of systems can be similarly described in y/n answers to q's in a description language, it shows that functionally specific organisation is similarly informational, true or false.kairosfocus_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

PPS: If Adams had, in wider context, simply said, we are prone to blindly follow emotions and authorities (including automated ones) that would have been one thing, in fact above he is speaking of us as meat robots. Where, as relevant context, in the earlier OP I cited him:
"As I often tell you, we all live in our own movies inside our heads. Humans did not evolve with the capability to understand their reality because it was not important to survival. Any illusion that keeps us alive long enough to procreate is good enough."
There is a serious, unrecognised problem of self-referential incoherence rooted in such evolutionary materialistic speculation on mindedness.kairosfocus_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

RVB8, I first chose to draw you back to the focal matter -- kindly, go back and look at how you responded at 2 to the clip from Adams to see that your problem is not with me; it is general. I then decided instead of putting up a separate post of commentary, let me simply extend, as you can see above. You still need to do some rethinking and adjustment to a supercilious, sneeringly dismissive mentality that is all too tellingly typical of atheists (who seem to imagine they have cornered the market on intelligence). KF PS: If you refuse to see the implications of thinking that responsible, rational freedom is decisively undermined, that is your problem, which we will duly note in evaluating your further remarks as produced by self-referential, GIGO driven factors such as your emotions controlled by blind[ing] forces. Responsible, rational freedom is the premise of serious discussion and those whose ideology self-referentially undermines such are victims of an incoherent -- thus necessarily confused -- scheme of thought. In this case, evolutionary materialism, as Adams showed in his earlier clip which is also being currently discussed here at UD.kairosfocus_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

PPS: US NAS, to show this is not just one man out on a limb:
In science, explanations must be based on ~~naturally occurring phenomena~~ [--> accurate and reliable, confirmed observation, description and sound analysis]. ~~Natural~~ [--> reliably empirically observed] causes [--> add: meet Newton's vera causa, actually observed cause test and so] are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature,
[--> the false choice, natural vs supernatural, when the real and readily empirically testable choice since Plato in the Laws Bk X c 360 BC has been natural ( = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity) vs the ART-ificial working by intelligently directed configuration, aka design. This is a case of irresponsible red herring distraction from the real issue to a convenient strawman creationism target set up to be soaked with the ad hominems of anti-scientific motivation and underlying between the lines insinuations of right wing theocratic "christofascist" impositions, etc]
scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it.
[--> observe a case of configuration-based specific functionality beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complex organisation emerging by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and the design inference principle would collapse. the strawman tactic is used in a context where it is easy to see that on a trillion observation base, such FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration, AKA design, as key causal factor]
Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, p. 10. Emphases added.]
kairosfocus_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

PS: Lewontin, for those who came in late:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

I'm not talking about the opinion piece, I'm talking about your 'op' sized posts. Although there is a wealth of your ops that are truly opaque, and yes, my criticism stands; this is the hall mark of poor communication. Adams said; "Today our important decisions are made with emotions, and rationalized after the fact. We incorrectly call this process 'thinking.'" Yeah, so, your point is what exactly? That you take offense at the idea that you are not rational and that all of your decisions are based upon base wants and instincts, and if these decisions fail you say, 'it wasn't my fault he/she/it, is responsible'? We all do that, it's called being human/animal, and it is entirely true. It's also extremely comforting. Does this give me the right to act on all of those instincts? Well I could, but I'd end up in jail, sharpish. So as a self interested mildly rational individual I do a cost/benefit analysis, and come to the sensible conclusion, to leave the money in the till, and escape jail. To put it more plainly, there is no controversy here, Adams explained how humans behave, and why, and you have an emotionally negative response to that.rvb8_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

RVB8, your inadvertently telling root problem is, there is hardly any of my writing in the OP, I simply cited a clip from a well-known communicator, Scott Adams (who has apparently recently written a work on persuasion and is discussing themes from such in his blog). In short, your spiel about oh, we cannot understand your writing you incompetent is plainly exposed as being at best rooted in utter carelessness in reading; quite likely multiplied by malicious intent to dismiss substantial matters on any sneering, personality laced dismissal one can find. I suggest you think again and do better. As a first step, ponder the implications of evolutionary materialism that Adams inadvertently exposed. Now [extending . . . ] as for your attempt to sneer at:
Just to pick a couple of points, first evolutionary materialism is an ideology not a science, and “evolution” is a hopelessly ambiguous term that is too often used in a slippery slope sense, gliding from minor adaptations to a grand metaphysically loaded imposition on science. As for “climate change,” climate itself is an artificial construct, average of weather over 33 years and so necessarily changes as a moving average. The questions are actual trends of weather, our ability to observe accurately and in fine enough detail, correctly identify dynamics and exert material influences on relevant scales. Where, a computer simulation model is just that, a glorified computation not reality itself; and predictions of a known chaotic system cannot sustain accuracy in the long term, much less in an OPEN, often perturbed entity. There are significant legitimate concerns, limitations and errors all along that line and one would be ill advised to surrender common sense judgement to demonstrably ideologically motivated and manipulative elites and power brokers. (Well do I recall the declarations of “watermelon” sentiments and statist/internationalist ideological agendas among those I rubbed shoulders with while working in the field of sustainable development. That’s part of why I insisted on tracing the principle to Kant’s CI and on respecting the form of this, that we must not use or manipulate/control others of like morally governed order as mere means to our own ends.)
1: Evolutionary materialism is defined well enough by the notorious statement of Lewontin, and those of others, as well as being descriptive in its own brief right, so your pretended confusion fails. 2: Elaborating slightly, we can also speak of evolutionary materialistic scientism, which will again be summarised from Lewontin et al, and already brings out the issue of imposing a question-begging worldview assertion on the praxis and institutions of science 3: it is notorious that "evolution" is in fact commonly used in the rhetorical slippery slope sense, backed by the implicit imposition of evolutionary materialism. 4: I will soon provide the classic Lewontin clip, for those needing a reminder. 5: On Climate Change, which you injected into the thread without warrant, I have given enough of an in brief for those who actually want to think beyond the box imposed by a now utterly blatantly manipulative and corrupt media serving as propaganda arm of the global elites being repeatedly repudiated by ordinary voters in major nations even as we speak. 6: The gap between computer simulations as a form of modelling and actual reality only needs to be pointed out as a reminder, for any scientifically literate person. 7: My onward remarks on watermelon thesis environmentalism are based on direct experience of those using the green as a stalking horse cover for the red of a new form of internationalist socialism. Where, socialism has repeatedly failed because no centralised planner can concentrate, process and issue instructions regarding so complex and far-flung a system as an economy in real time. 8: In short, socialist (or fascist) central planning (and politicised state controlled cartels) fails the processor architecture test. 9: That is, economic planning is best effected by a vast network of small planning entities responding in real time to their specific conditions, communicated by market information. Many will fail, some will succeed; the robustness comes form the smallness and isolation of planning entities so that local failures are much less prone to ripple through the system as a whole and emulation of the successful will be relatively rapid. 10: A legitimate welfare role of the state then emerges as supporting those that need help, while helping to promote capacity to sustain the future. 11: In this context, environmental regulations, per the Kantian Categorical Imperative, should respect people (rather than manipulate them into marches of folly such as we see playing out in Venezuela as we speak) and should seek to husband natural, socio-cultural and economic resources such that there is a long term, multi-generational path of success. 12: As one consequence of all this, regulations should be sound on a battery of tests tied to the long-term well-being of biophysical, socio-cultural and economic context, rather than being premised on imposition and manipulation by an overly centralised authority. 13: Crashing major economies in order to delay projected trends by a decade or two does not pass this test. An economic transition to a different base rooted in exploration of feasible alternative energy systems, with bridging technologies in the meanwhile, makes better sense than trying to induce an undue global panic. 14: For instance, one of my tests for the reasonableness of an interlocutor on such matters is attitude to something like pebble bed, modular nuke reactors and molten salt thorium reactors (such as LIFTR). 15: Another, is whether such understand the implications of serious intermittency of many renewable technologies and the needs of the power grid. 16: A third, is whether such are able to understand the implications for transportation services of needing an energy system that is able to match the sort of concentration of energy we see in fuels such as gasoline or diesel. (Hence, my discussions of algae and butanol in relevant contexts.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of this, of course, pivots on my view that of Aristotle's famed three levers of persuasion, while pathos is most powerful in the short run, it cannot escape the long term impact for good or ill of facts, logic and controlling assumptions -- logos. Where, credibility or authority of a speaker or source also pivots in the end on soundness on the merits. So, yes Adams is pointing to a vulnerability to emotional manipulation and blind reliance on authorities (including, prospectively, programmers of the personal decision support systems we will increasingly use), but this does not undermine our responsibility and capacity to think for ourselves . . apart from imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism. Which is self-refuting. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

suckerspawn, thanks! ooops! But that simply means Will Smith has done no good work. Actually, that's a relief. Heh:) As usual Kairos, I must read your prose again and again. Orwell said the clues to good writing are that it is accurate, brief, and clear. The 'ABC' if you will, of good writing. He also said, ignore this rule, if you have to. You ignore this rule continuously, as does BA, but you don't, HAVE to! Now, 'evolutionary materialism'; this is a case in point. Because you can not, or will not, define it, it becomes meaningless. I know that you and the people here think you know what it defines, 'atheism', but it does a poor job. I suggest you replace this confusion with the word, 'atheism'. I like it, I embrace it, and I understand it, as does everyone else. It will also have the added benefit of bringing clarity to your prolix style. While your at it, replace 'evolutionary materialist' with 'atheist', I will be so much happier, and your readers less confused. Another example to help in accuracy and clarity; "eloutionary materialism is an ideology not a science, and "evolution" is a hopelessly ambiguous term". Ummm, 'No' and 'No'. 'Evolutionary materialism', might be an ideology, but you don't tell me what it is, do you mean 'atheism'? If so your simply wrong, atheism bares none of the hall marks of ideology, religion on the other hand. 'Evolution', this is not ambiguous, unless your dictionaries are written in a different language, it means, 'slow change over time', its antonym, 'revolution', means fast change over time. Explain to me please, the ambiguity?rvb8_{November 18, 2016
November
11
Nov
18
18
2016
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

The advent of intelligent machines or conscious computers has been a staple of science-fiction for many years. There's an underlying assumption that it is almost inevitable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but since we have no adequate theory of consciousness yet, it's difficult to say one way or the other.Seversky_{November 18, 2016
November
11
Nov
18
18
2016
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Albert EinsteinSeversky_{November 18, 2016
November
11
Nov
18
18
2016
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

The word "evolution" can be used in a number of ways, which is true of a lot of words in the English language. "Information" is another example. There is nothing wrong with it as long as you take care to specify what meaning you intend in a given context so as to avoid ambiguity.Seversky_{November 18, 2016
November
11
Nov
18
18
2016
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Eddie Murphy was the voice of the donkey in Shrek.suckerspawn_{November 18, 2016
November
11
Nov
18
18
2016
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

KF @ 3: Excellent points. Your following statement is well worth reposting: "...evolutionary materialism is an ideology not a science..." Amen.Truth Will Set You Free_{November 18, 2016
November
11
Nov
18
18
2016
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

RVB8, lesson 1: a robot is a programmed, computational, GIGO-limited strictly mechanical entity utterly incapable of free, rational, responsible contemplation, conclusion and decision. Lesson 2: due to the pervasive influence and incoherence of evolutionary materialism, there is a tendency to implicitly reduce human thought and freedom to that same status; not acknowledging consequences and contradictions to things like how we are able to have a reasoned discussion. The consequence is the sort of absurdities just outlined by Adams. KF PS: As for the strawman stereotyping and personalities you projected above, they are the direct parallel of the cloud of ink a squid sprays out in hope of escaping behind it. Fail. Have you ever designed and built a computational entity from the ground up, starting with a catalogue of chips? (From experience, doing so will be a salutory lesson on the realities of computational substrates. Rocks have no dreams, including when they are refined into Si chips.) PPS: Just to pick a couple of points, first evolutionary materialism is an ideology not a science, and "evolution" is a hopelessly ambiguous term that is too often used in a slippery slope sense, gliding from minor adaptations to a grand metaphysically loaded imposition on science. As for "climate change," climate itself is an artificial construct, average of weather over 33 years and so necessarily changes as a moving average. The questions are actual trends of weather, our ability to observe accurately and in fine enough detail, correctly identify dynamics and exert material influences on relevant scales. Where, a computer simulation model is just that, a glorified computation not reality itself; and predictions of a known chaotic system cannot sustain accuracy in the long term, much less in an OPEN, often perturbed entity. There are significant legitimate concerns, limitations and errors all along that line and one would be ill advised to surrender common sense judgement to demonstrably ideologically motivated and manipulative elites and power brokers. (Well do I recall the declarations of "watermelon" sentiments and statist/internationalist ideological agendas among those I rubbed shoulders with while working in the field of sustainable development. That's part of why I insisted on tracing the principle to Kant's CI and on respecting the form of this, that we must not use or manipulate/control others of like morally governed order as mere means to our own ends.) PPPS: You would also be well advised to take note that one of the pioneers of exoplanet studies is a design theorist, and was ideologically expelled from a university for his pains, through SJW type cultural marxist agit prop and slander.kairosfocus_{November 18, 2016
November
11
Nov
18
18
2016
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

The film 'I Robot' with Will Smith, like most of his work, (he was good in Shrek, as Donkey) was a travesty of Asimov's work. In Asimov's future the protagonists make the unnerving final discovery that Robot's are indeed deciding for humans, and introducing just enough errors to make the humans think, they are still screwing things up. That was fiction. But if a science fiction, and science writer in 1950 could think about the future, why with all that we know now about the pace of computer evolution, can't you?! I read of the development of nano-technology, and the building of the first molecular machines, of the 'biochip', of Quantum computers, and you airily dimiss it all? Wave your hand and say, 'never happen'? Wow, that is an amazing almost willful lack of curiosity, and denial of future possibilties and dangers. You dismiss with absolutely no evidence. Hmmm, sounds familiar. So let's take score; evolution? No proof! Planet hunting for earthlike objects? Waste of time. Sentient computers? Barren field! Climate change? No evidence! To name but a few. Barren indeed!rvb8_{November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

Saw this one also; sorry Mr. Adams but this is again all too aptly illustrative of a much bigger problem.kairosfocus_{November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply