- Sep 22, 2013
- 4,956
- 250
- 85
This thread is about a very intriguing but potentially incendiary philosophical model of A.I. (Artificial Intelligence).
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was about the intellectual and moral dangers of tampering with nature and life and set the tone for various science-paranoia storytelling works such as The Terminator and Jurassic Park.
If scientists are able to synthetically 're-create' the human brain with computer chips and wires engineered to mirror/mimic the layered schema of the human mind, we could *hypothetically* create a new 'brand' of intelligence.
Would this intelligent 'creature' (robots) wish to serve or befriend its (his/her) human creator?
If human beings intellectually revel in the notion that free will affords them the right to entertain the 'logical motility' of Atheism, then certainly a hypothetical A.I. species created by human beings would revel in the notion that they too could entertain the 'logistical motility' (at least) of Atheism (perhaps they would call it 'Unhumanity' instead of 'Atheism'!).
However, there is no guarantee that this A.I. species would entertain free will notions of Atheism peacefully. They could resort to violence, terrorism, and even nuclear war to usurp their human masters. After all, didn't humanity 'rebel' against their 'hypothetical' all-knowing Creator God by creating industrialization-related manmade eco-pollution?
Imagine therefore that a modern-day sociologist-philosopher suggests (sarcastically perhaps) that to deal with the new age problem of racism, governments should require a certain percentage of their citizens to forge biracial marriages or adopt biracial children. While such a 'modest proposal' would seem politically 'wise,' it would certainly also be deemed as a fascist mandate.
In creating A.I., would human scientists be rightly pensive/conscious of the ethical complications involved with
ruling over a created species that desires to be ruled?
====
GOD: Robots would seek too much efficiency.
SCIENTIST: There's no such thing as 'too much' efficiency.
GOD: Of course there is --- Fascism.
SCIENTIST: What if the citizens of a Fascist State need leadership?
GOD: Condoning fascism or electing fascist leaders creates democracy.
SCIENTIST: Democracy and free will create crime.
GOD: Harsh punishment is the only solution for crime.
SCIENTIST: We could create 'public images' (e.g., art) of deformity rather than inflicting pain.
====
Frankenstein:
Frankenstein - Wikipedia
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was about the intellectual and moral dangers of tampering with nature and life and set the tone for various science-paranoia storytelling works such as The Terminator and Jurassic Park.
If scientists are able to synthetically 're-create' the human brain with computer chips and wires engineered to mirror/mimic the layered schema of the human mind, we could *hypothetically* create a new 'brand' of intelligence.
Would this intelligent 'creature' (robots) wish to serve or befriend its (his/her) human creator?
If human beings intellectually revel in the notion that free will affords them the right to entertain the 'logical motility' of Atheism, then certainly a hypothetical A.I. species created by human beings would revel in the notion that they too could entertain the 'logistical motility' (at least) of Atheism (perhaps they would call it 'Unhumanity' instead of 'Atheism'!).
However, there is no guarantee that this A.I. species would entertain free will notions of Atheism peacefully. They could resort to violence, terrorism, and even nuclear war to usurp their human masters. After all, didn't humanity 'rebel' against their 'hypothetical' all-knowing Creator God by creating industrialization-related manmade eco-pollution?
Imagine therefore that a modern-day sociologist-philosopher suggests (sarcastically perhaps) that to deal with the new age problem of racism, governments should require a certain percentage of their citizens to forge biracial marriages or adopt biracial children. While such a 'modest proposal' would seem politically 'wise,' it would certainly also be deemed as a fascist mandate.
In creating A.I., would human scientists be rightly pensive/conscious of the ethical complications involved with
ruling over a created species that desires to be ruled?
====
GOD: Robots would seek too much efficiency.
SCIENTIST: There's no such thing as 'too much' efficiency.
GOD: Of course there is --- Fascism.
SCIENTIST: What if the citizens of a Fascist State need leadership?
GOD: Condoning fascism or electing fascist leaders creates democracy.
SCIENTIST: Democracy and free will create crime.
GOD: Harsh punishment is the only solution for crime.
SCIENTIST: We could create 'public images' (e.g., art) of deformity rather than inflicting pain.
====
Frankenstein:
Frankenstein - Wikipedia
