Science Fiction & Philosophy discussion

It is one of the deep questions explored in my new book.

I guess one should first define what human is/means and by checking adherence to the definition, find when it no longer true :)

The book description has some themes similar to 'Children of Men.' Is it based on a similar premise?

Check out Zoltan Istvan and his "transhumanist" views. He also wrote a good sci-fi book, the Transhumanist Wager.

@Khira, I've not read "Children of Men" so I'm not sure of that storyline.
I wrote this as a place to ask, and at least ponder if not answer a few of the "does life have meaning", "what does it mean to be human" type questions.
SB

Steve wrote: "@Khira, I've not read "Children of Men" so I'm not sure of that storyline.
I wrote this as a place to ask, and at least ponder if not answer a few of the "does life have meaning", "what does it me..."

If by 'meaning', you are referring to a purpose, and if by 'life', you are referring to lifeforms, then the mechanistic purpose seems to be to pass on genes. For me that raises deeper questions as it seems to designate humans as primarily hosts with lifespans much, much shorter than most of our 'passenger' DNA.

Steve wrote: "@Khira, I've not read "Children of Men" so I'm not sure of that storyline.
I wrote this as a place to ask, and at least ponder if not answer a few of the "does life have meaning", "what does it me..."

I was thinking of the 2006 movie 'Children of Men,' based on a novel by the same title by P.D. James, which tracks unravelling of civilization as the birth rate plummets. Although it is a plot line that has been explored in a few different works.

Peter wrote: "If by 'meaning', you are referring to a purpose, ..."

It's an interesting fundamental aspect of life (which I think I've mentioned in some other discussion thread) that life is designed to continue itself through any number of paths and mechanisms.

I recommend ‘The Singularity is Near’ by Ray Kurzweil: food for thought!

Maureen wrote: "I recommend ‘The Singularity is Near’ by Ray Kurzweil: food for thought!"

Yes, Ray Kurzweil has a few interesting essays on the topic of technological singularity, which is possibly another path in evolution.

Nearer than he thought, I would guess. The point at which AI/supercomputers reach beyond human comprehension will approach exponentially once we can program them to self-improve.

I believe we should not be misled by the capacity of AI's to outshine humans. AI's process information much quicker than humans. But that is it. Its algorithms and logarithms: If 00000001 is 00000011 then the answer, or output, is 00000111. So on and so forth.

If you went up to an AI and asked it why it hasn't spontaneously created a work of art it might say: Because I was not asked to do so. A 4-year-old would have already drawn pictures of its own volition. Just because something looks and sounds like a human does not qualify it as such or greater than. In my view, an AI is a glorified spanner and no more. Philosophy, spirituality, creativity, love, guilt, joy, humour, sadness, anger, hate, doubt are not and will never be part of an AI's profile.

In view of AI's limitations, I believe it would be unwise to give them oversight over our lives as we plan to do (autonomous driving apps). Question: Would such a driving system sacrifice itself and the occupants of the car, in swerving and hitting a tree to avoid a cat? Or would it evaluate the importance of the occupants over the life of the cat? If that were so then we are talking about risk/value/loss paradigms. Does the app take into account the number and nature of the people in the car? Does it give a rating? Does it give a cat a rating? Or does it stupidly correlate: object=avoid, while swerving into a tree/ravine/lake/building, killing all its occupants. Then who would be civilly responsible? The programmer?

But getting back to the subject matter of this thread, sorry, I believe organically and biologically the human body is fine and does not evolve. Anyway, we haven't found any proof yet. However, I firmly believe cultural and social evolution has been at work over the millennia on a superficial level. If you read the bible about happenings over 4 thousand years ago, nothing has changed. Men are good and bad, nothing new under the sun.

Mike wrote: "Question: Would such a driving system sacrifice itself and the occupants of the car, in swerving and hitting a tree to avoid a cat?"

There was an award nominated story a few years back, answering this very question :)

Oleksandr wrote: "Mike wrote: "Question: Would such a driving system sacrifice itself and the occupants of the car, in swerving and hitting a tree to avoid a cat?"

There was an award nominated story a few years bac..."

What was the story?

Khira wrote: "What was the story?"

It took some time o find it, ге it is STET: https://firesidefiction.com/stet#eleven

Mike wrote: "I believe we should not be misled by the capacity of AI's to outshine humans. AI's process information much quicker than humans. But that is it. Its algorithms and logarithms: If 00000001 is 000000..."

There are some subjective adjectives here, 'greater', 'outshine' - the comparison is not objective. There are plenty of children who don't spontaneously draw (sadly) and if we are to discuss the 'possible' as opposed to what AI can currently achieve, we must visualise potential future capabilities.

Hypothetically, it's reasonable to assume that many years from now we could teach AI to learn by playing - trying out things, practising activities, mimicking human activities. That is, after all a large part of how humans learn. We already know AI can be taught by rote, that's just programming. And all of the examples given of potential hazards and evaluations of risk in driving can be taught - it's how we learn to drive.

Contrary to Mike's statement, humans have evolved. Biologically, our toes are smaller as they are no longer needed for tree climbing and our brains are larger (there are countless other examples of human evolution). Evolution is adaptation, and adaptation can be taught.

I don't think we need to compare capabilities in this way, anymore than we need to compare human capabilities with other members of the animal kingdom. For me the big question about AI is whether it has the capability to feel emotions in the way humans do. Can AI be moved by a work of art, a piece of music, the night sky, the love of another person? Can it be angry, jealous, amused, sad? I'm hoping not, because angry AI could be quite a threat!

Oleksandr wrote: "Khira wrote: "What was the story?"

It took some time o find it, ге it is STET: https://firesidefiction.com/stet#eleven"

Thank you for finding it - it is quite incredible and originally styled.

Peter wrote: "Mike wrote: "I believe we should not be misled by the capacity of AI's to outshine humans. AI's process information much quicker than humans. But that is it. Its algorithms and logarithms: If 00000..."

I have a different question regarding AI feeling emotions, etc. Is there any practical difference between an AI feeling emotions and an AI simulating emotions in a way indistinguishable from the way a human would express it?

Khira wrote: "Peter wrote: "Mike wrote: "I believe we should not be misled by the capacity of AI's to outshine humans. AI's process information much quicker than humans. But that is it. Its algorithms and logari..."

The simulation is perfectly possible if you mean could we build a robot that enacts a sad facial expression in response to a predetermined 'negative' (let's say) input. But programming can determine what 'negative' and 'positive' inputs should be, along with a range of intermediate values, and it can determine the appropriate simulated response - my point is that 'feeling' requires a level of consciousness that so far we only associate with higher order life forms like humans. I think we can simulate the rest but that doesn't get the AI to feel.

Let me propose a different philosophical position:

It is based on the premise that technology (of any kind) is not an entity separate from humans but is an extension of human consciousness and is one of the ways humans interact with the world and with each other.

AI forms one of the more extreme examples of this. Being trained on data labelled by humans, the algorithms carry in them all the human biases, emotions, and suppositions, including the ones that we don't consciously recognise.

The consequence of this line of reasoning is that reflection on morality (or lack thereof) has to start with reflection on morality (or lack thereof) in human constructs of the world.

AI is an extension of human consciousness, I agree. But whether or not it is correct to describe human consciousness as emergent, we can safely say there's no indication it could emerge in AI.

The way AI/computers work is by 'tagging' information so that it can be stored and retrieved in a database. Even if the programmer held biases, emotions, and suppositions, conscious or unconscious, the database would only recognise them (in the sense that it could collate them) if they were tagged. And even if they were (a conscious act) they would only have the meaning ascribed by the programmer.

For example, let's say the programmer coded that a list of words should be ascribed the emotion, 'angry'. The AI or computer could react in a pre-programmed angry way but it wouldn't know what angry was - the word banana could just as easily be used to invoke the same responses from the machine.

Humans store information that can be emotionalised because the emotion is understood and tagged along with the memory, hence painful or pleasurable memories.

Peter wrote: "Contrary to Mike's statement, humans have evolved. Biologically, our toes are smaller as they are no longer needed for tree climbing and our brains are larger (there are countless other examples of human evolution). Evolution is adaptation, and adaptation can be taught."

Amazing.
Why have all humans evolved in the same way?

Mike wrote: "Why have all humans evolved in the same way?."

Why did all horses evolve the same way? or flies?

"Why have all humans evolved in the same way?"

Clearly the main characteristics like the examples given have to a certain extent but I'll wager there's a difference between most of our small toe sizes in relation to the other toes. However, the reason we've all broadly evolved the same way is that we've all broadly faced the same or similar environmental challenges - we lost our tails is because they were no longer needed and became a hindrance.

Where environmental conditions have differed significantly, there are adaptive differences eg skin colour due to greater or lesser exposure to sunlight.

Then why are humans, all humans, dogs, all dogs etc etc.? All can only breed within their species. If evolution were to have any credit, there would be as many variants as there are beings.

If I take the evolutionary narrative, why did the different races of humans on the earth, separated by tectonic plates for aeons, all evolve in the same way?

Also, if one considers human history (circa 10,000 years ago), all races came from the same area, south Bulgaria, Turkey at a time when the total human population is expressed in thousands only. Nomad races went to populate empty lands thus filling the earth. Would that mean that man evolved for aeons on a small scale in a limited area and only branched out 10,000 thousand years ago? Which doesn't make sense. On an evolutionary scale, this requires some explanation.

"Then why are humans, all humans, dogs, all dogs etc etc.? All can only breed within their species. If evolution were to have any credit, there would be as many variants as there are beings.

If I take the evolutionary narrative, why did the different races of humans on the earth, separated by tectonic plates for aeons, all evolve in the same way?"

They didn't.

Term term 'human', 'dog', etc are human created nomenclatures retrospectively applied to the species we observed on this planet. And they don't only breed with their species, you've heard of mules? As for evolving the same way on separate tectonic plates, the evolution is the same where the environmental conditions are the same but otherwise there are differences. I mentioned skin colour, there are also differences in height, and in prehistory even different species that eventually coexisted for a time. And (I think) the major movements of tectonic plates occurred before humans were around, by the time we existed, the plates were pretty much where they are now.

But if you don't believe in evolution (and I wonder about some aspects), what alternative explanation do you subscribe to?

Well, mules can't procreate.

Each species to itself. Which is a strange concept from an evolutionary point of view.

If one is to consider the biblical narrative, everything falls into place with regard to what we observe is science and history.

But this is shunned by the scientific and intellectual communities, relegating biblical to fantasy. I truly believe that to advance that the universe arose from nothing is more fantasy than accepting that there is a superior force at play. Evolutionaries, prone the big bang. Why not. If God were to create the universe, the ether, would he not continue on to create matter, as we know it, through a big bang. We see matter spiralling and expanding all the time. And Cern has proven that energy can produce matter. So to accept a God who created the universe through great power is not all that fantastical. Indeed, it answers a lot of questions. The crux of the matter is not whether creation or evolution is the correct path we have all taken. The problem is mankind's ability to accept all avenues until proven false. Something, evolutionists have shied away from. Unable to accept that a superior being exists and that perhaps a greater, spiritual realm exists over and above our own physical world. God may be just one of many, within some kind of spiritual universe, the confines of which are beyond our experience.

But mules are the result of inter-species procreation, which was your point.

You state that with a biblical narrative, 'everything falls into place with regard to what we observe is science and history'. But you must know this is not the case. The earth is much older than the bible states and there's no scientific evidence it was created in 7 days. There's a reason why the biblical theory is shunned by scientific and intellectual communities.

The most profound question though is, if God created the universe, who or what created God?

The Bible says the Heavens and the Earth were created in the beginning. Which could be billions of years ago (planets, galaxies etc.). However, it goes on to say that the creation, or kitting out the Earth, with vegetation, life and climate, took only 6 of his days. The Bible does say, a day to man is like a thousand years to him. Time is relative, as can be demonstrated. So time is certainly not a factor to judge if one idea is bad or not. Wobbly ground if someone bases their judgement on time.

There is no more scientific evidence proving that Earth (meaning life and vegetation, atmosphere etc) was not created in 6 thousand years.

Carbon dating, radiometric analysis:
https://www.slashgear.com/oldest-foss...

Time isn't really wobbly ground just because of relativity - that only changes it when accelerating at the speed of light. It doesn't change events that took thousands of years.

Back to my question, who or what created God in your view?

I was talking about God and the time it took to create the heavens and the earth. Does time exist for him? If so, what would it be like? Like I said wobbly ground. Humans think we have mastered time but I believe there is a realm of knowledge as yet undiscovered or understood.

With regard to who created God. Excellent question. This is clearly beyond our present knowledge and may well be for eternity. I admit when thinking about this question, the mind boggles. But just because we haven't yet discovered or understood a concept does not mean it is flawed and therefore should not be dismissed. Which is what the main scientific community seem to do. Strangely, this closed mind on the subject goes against their dogma of keeping an open mind and striving to attain knowledge. That can't be done if we exclude an avenue due to collective psychosis.

But I believe we can no better answer the question of where God came from than where the big bang came from. So I preclude nothing.

The difference is, we don't 'believe in' the big bang, we deduce it as the most probable scientific explanation given our current knowledge. It isn't based upon faith, it's based upon what we have learned empirically so far and deduction. I agree it isn't definitely proven but all the evidence points that way unlike God for which there's zero evidence.

I don't know any humans who think they have mastered time and I agree there is likely to be a realm of knowledge as yet undiscovered. The 'who created God' question for believers may be one such example but for non-believers it's simply a large hole in the deity argument.

You are wrong to say that the scientific community dismisses every concept we can't explain. The unexplained drives most scientific enquiry. As a thought experiment, it is feasible that there exists a single phenomenon that explains many of the unanswered questions - you might say this is God, I might call it a different name eg UFT (unified field theory) and if we are scientific we should each pursue knowledge that proves or disproves the existence of the phenomenon. How do we each do that?

I just stumbled on a short SF piece relevant to your discussion about the role of God and everything https://www.nature.com/articles/d4158...

Peter wrote: "The difference is, we don't 'believe in' the big bang, we deduce it as the most probable scientific explanation given our current knowledge. It isn't based upon faith, it's based upon what we have ..."

I agree that the Big Bang is a plausible idea and would explain what we observe with the Universe and the movement of the Galaxies. Similarly, I also deduce from observing the Universe and Life, that there is a greater force at play.

You say zero evidence of God. Really?

Evolution is a theory, yet it has been adopted as dogma for many. Which goes against the other dogma of basing their knowledge on empirical evidence. This is clearly not the case with evolution.

So to answer your question on how we do that, I would say that firstly a humble open mind is necessary. Uncluttered from preconceived ideas based on peer pressure. That goes for creationists and evolutionists.

If we limit our knowledge to what we deduce rather than what we are taught, this would go a long way for everybody. I agree, the physical universe (Galaxies, physical laws etc), its form and nature, can be deduced as coming from a big bang. That seems logical. Where the big bang came from is a question that should remain open. It would suggest some other "force" coming into play. The realm of our infinite universe, big bang, laws of physics, do not spontaneously happen or exist out of nothing. Clearly. So to dismiss the notion of a superior being is anti-scientific at best. It closes avenues of potential discoveries while favouring an unproven theory. Statistically, evolution is impossible. Furthermore, to expect that this has happened multiple times on other planets is pure science fiction. Once is impossible, twice is beyond insanity and multiple times is...

I am not trying to convert here. Only to fight back against dismissal (cancel culture) based on emotions and feelings rather than clear thought. I agree, the world's religions have not and still are not, shining diplomats to promote the existence of the creator of the Big Bang. But this should not hinder an open mind.

Mike wrote: "Statistically, evolution is impossible.."

Why? Or we have different ideas what statistics and its methods are :)

Mike wrote: "Peter wrote: "The difference is, we don't 'believe in' the big bang, we deduce it as the most probable scientific explanation given our current knowledge. It isn't based upon faith, it's based upon..."

I'm not sure you are really reading what I said. I don't dismiss the notion of a superior being, I simply state there is no evidence to support the notion - that's very different. And believing in something for which there is no evidence is not something I wish to do. You may say, that's where faith comes in, and that is equally objectionable to me.

As for evidence of evolution, there's a great deal. That doesn't mean evolution is all there is to it but it does mean we can be confident that it exists.

Oleksandr wrote: "Mike wrote: "Statistically, evolution is impossible.."

Why? Or we have different ideas what statistics and its methods are :)"

This article may enlighten you:
https://www.icr.org/article/mathemati...

In short, a 200 component functioning organism would see the day with a chance of 10 to the power of 60 or one chance out of a billion trillion.

The article goes on to say that a single cell plant or animal has millions of molecular parts.

Peter wrote: "Mike wrote: "Peter wrote: "The difference is, we don't 'believe in' the big bang, we deduce it as the most probable scientific explanation given our current knowledge. It isn't based upon faith, it..."

The evidence of intelligent design is all around us. To say there is no evidence is denial, especially in the light of statistical improbabilities of the evolutionary solution.

Where does love, hope, hate, anger, deception, desire, consciousness and the sub-conscience, come from? Why are humans to only ones to have them all? Beauty, who invented it? How did beauty know to be beautiful? Intelligent design answers these questions whereas evolution does not. So to say there is no evidence of intelligent design is to live in denial. And when someone lives in denial, it is very hard to coerce them out of their mindset.

Finally, you say, with regard to evidence of evolution that there is a "great deal". Why is it still a theory? Cannot the theory of god exist as well?

Everything points to intelligent design. It's pure common sense.

Sorry, but the existence of something is not evidence for how it came about. And I've seen dogs get angry and desire bitches, these aren't only human attributes. Beauty doesn't know to be beautiful! None of this is evidence of intelligent design, it certainly does not point to it and it certainly is not common sense to invoke a creator when you know full well that that creator also had to be come into existence somehow.

But yes, evolution is a theory and there absolutely can be a theory of god as well.