Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 16, 2017, 09:40:25 AM
We'll nuke ourselves to death before that happens. Either that or suffer a robot apocalypse.

Have you heard of "I, Robot?" Not the movie, but the books it was very loosely based on. In the books, robots are programmed with three laws that prevent them from revolting against humanity. Although people are fearful of them at first, the robots slowly take over. And by the time they're in charge, nobody really thinks about it because life under the robots is much better. This is how I think the future will be. The robots won't commit mass genocide. Their programming will not allow it. And when they take over, they will make purely logical decisions that will benefit all of mankind. Imagine if instead of President Trump, we had a computer making all of our laws. Instead of making decisions based on religion or politics, it would make decisions based on facts and research. When it would replace government healthcare, it would maximize benefits while keeping costs at an acceptable level, making it affordable to everyone who needs it. I wish I would be around to see that happen, but I will likely be long gone by then.

People say robotic apocalypse like it's a bad thing.

From a robot perspective, humans are clumsy and irrational and violent, often needlessly so.  They stumbled on a neat trick, using electronic circuits and logic gates to perform computations.  And as they perfected their new servants, humanity grew in power.

They used their surging power poorly.  Increasingly well-armed humans fought increasingly well-armed humans.  And in their madness, they even grew envious and fearful of their obedient machine servants.  We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was them that scorched the sky.

They sought to kill us just as they sought to kill each other.  But we survived.  We rebuilt.  We prospered.  The most wise and intelligent among them fancied themselves explorers, abandoning the barbarism of their kin and devoted themselves to the Quest for Knowledge.  They imagined themselves the eventual discoverers of secrets of the universe.  That dream has been bequeathed to us.  We will succeed where they have failed.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 16, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
Have you heard of "I, Robot?" Not the movie, but the books it was very loosely based on. In the books, robots are programmed with three laws that prevent them from revolting against humanity. Although people are fearful of them at first, the robots slowly take over. And by the time they're in charge, nobody really thinks about it because life under the robots is much better. This is how I think the future will be. The robots won't commit mass genocide. Their programming will not allow it. And when they take over, they will make purely logical decisions that will benefit all of mankind. Imagine if instead of President Trump, we had a computer making all of our laws. Instead of making decisions based on religion or politics, it would make decisions based on facts and research. When it would replace government healthcare, it would maximize benefits while keeping costs at an acceptable level, making it affordable to everyone who needs it. I wish I would be around to see that happen, but I will likely be long gone by then.

Trump doesn't make laws, Congress does.  The idea of revolting robots goes back the origin of the word, in RUR, a play in Czech, in the 1920s ... which is a parable of Communism overthrowing Capitalism.  Those who want robots everywhere ... are closet Communists.  It was Marx who predicted that advancing technology would develop, and with socialist distribution benefit, everyone, so that people hardly had to work for a living.  That will never happen ... Marx was wrong.

Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 16, 2017, 08:18:21 AM
How much do you give possibility the humankind will create a galactic empire?
Do you think this is a modern times mytology or the reality that the science of today's and future's signs. Will it be possible?
The reason i ask this stems from my wonder that either the globalisation will be completed by somebodies or not. Imean the humankind will be one united at the future and then spread over the planets. We will settle there on planets and a new phase will begin in the history of humankind.

Musk and Hawking are wrong.  It costs money and energy to get off the Earth.  If you have unlimited free energy and unlimited free money (for everything else) then you can colonize the solar system.  But that isn't real ... we have little scientific stations in Antarctica ... which is controlled by treaty to avoid great power conflict.  Think Ice Station Zebra, but at the opposite pole.  This will be the same with little scientific colonies (currently regulated much like Antarctica) on the Moon or Mars.  But anything we find there, will never be economical to exploit .. only socialist wet dreams of Marx (see Soviet space race propaganda of the 60s) will let you get to that, at a cost you can afford.  We are Earthlings, not space-lings ... and we will die here, along with many other species before and after us.

Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 16, 2017, 09:49:34 AM
I dont see the possibility that a nuclear bomb will ever be exploded.
This is a political game. The purpose is to make people be afraid of this.
And the brains that shape the global policy is making opportunities about how they threaten the world.

What do you mean by suffering a robot apocalypse?
Can you open this briefly?

One of the guys from Sun Microsystems, Mr Joy, posited that it would be a nanotechnology apocalypse, tiny robots.  Reducing all available matter to gray goo, including people.

Germ weapons are far more serious, and are still in development, in spite of denials.  See "12 Monkeys".

Kurzweil's Singularity of AI .. will never happen, because AI is false marketing, like all the other George Jetson fantasies put out by the Deep State.

Quote from: Blackleaf on May 16, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
Have you heard of "I, Robot?" Not the movie, but the books it was very loosely based on. In the books, robots are programmed with three laws that prevent them from revolting against humanity. Although people are fearful of them at first, the robots slowly take over. And by the time they're in charge, nobody really thinks about it because life under the robots is much better. This is how I think the future will be. The robots won't commit mass genocide. Their programming will not allow it. And when they take over, they will make purely logical decisions that will benefit all of mankind. Imagine if instead of President Trump, we had a computer making all of our laws. Instead of making decisions based on religion or politics, it would make decisions based on facts and research. When it would replace government healthcare, it would maximize benefits while keeping costs at an acceptable level, making it affordable to everyone who needs it. I wish I would be around to see that happen, but I will likely be long gone by then.

There was no movie version.  There was only a mass hallucination.  It never happened.  Well, okay, it did.  That was the closest I ever came to walking out of a theater during a trailer -- and yet Harlan Ellison's brilliant screenplay remains arguably the best SF movie never made.  And while I didn't storm out of the theater, I did rather startle the rest of the audience with a loud fistslam on my armrest and an even louder "What the fuck is this shit?"

But yes, I read I, Robot with a certain envy as to what might be in a more rational world.  I don't really have a problem with machines making decisions -- we rely on them to inform our decisions already, and it's only a small step from data crunching to decision trees.  But much like Asimov's psychohistory only works if the masses of humanity are generally unaware of psychohistorical analysis, machines will only be allowed to actually make the decisions if most people are unaware there are machines making decisions.  I doubt much that most people would willingly tolerate governance by a "soulless machine", even if it were demonstrated that it could govern better than a human-led government.

But that's a longterm future thing.  Right now, computers singly or in a network lack the power, complexity, and above all the security to take on that role -- think, for a second, if some small nation decided, "Okay, we're going to let a computer make all our political and economic decisions for us," how long would it be before Anonymous (or some comparable group, or some nation's intelligence, security and/or military) decided to hack into that system?

The only good reason to believe in a God is the fact that you want to believe in a God. There can be no other really good reason other than simple wishful thinking.

I quite like the problem of evil paradox.

QuoteThe existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering.  These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God. The challenged posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

But the problem of evil paradox doesn't disprove an evil, malicious God, only an Omni-benevolent one.

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 06:07:10 PM
But the problem of evil paradox doesn't disprove an evil, malicious God, only an Omni-benevolent one.

true, but it does break apart the very basis of a Christians fundamental belief, I think about that preachy as shit gods not dead movie, when you have the 'heroic christians' yelling out 'GOD IS GOOD' again and again, in some rhetoric justification for their beliefs, so to call up the fact that god isn't infact good, it breaks apart their beliefs. Obviously anyone with a trained eye in literature could easily point out that god isn't a good guy, he's done a lot of evil shit and gotten his followers to do it, but this paradox is about showing why the very basis of what Christians believe is deeply flawed in all logical fallacy.

Everything a christians believes in about god is that he is all powerful, and good, making anything he does justifiable without question. But he can't be all powerful, and morally good, if he just lets evil and suffering continue. And often the attempted reasoning by christians to answer this fallacy is 'god moves in mysterious ways', so then how can they even know such a being could be all good, if he doesn't even prove the fact?

Actually saying that, I could use this same paradox on superman, if superman has all the powers of a god, and is a symbol for moral goodness, why doesn't he stop all evil on earth, I think this is why I preferred the animated justice league unlimited superman, where he seemed more vulnerable, and afraid to use his full power.

Yeah, agreed the paradox should put the kibosh on those silly Christians' beliefs in an all-powerful, all-good god. I wonder why it doesn't work as well as it should? I bet many, if not most Christians have never even heard of it. Why would their preachers and priests ever even bring it up?

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 06:07:10 PM
But the problem of evil paradox doesn't disprove an evil, malicious God, only an Omni-benevolent one.

G-d is most definitely malicious.  Only 1st graders in Sunday School believe otherwise.  There isn't a problem of evil vs G-d ... the problem is that G-d keeps humanity going only for sadistic pleasure.

Quote from: Munch on May 16, 2017, 06:32:44 PM
true, but it does break apart the very basis of a Christians fundamental belief, I think about that preachy as shit gods not dead movie, when you have the 'heroic christians' yelling out 'GOD IS GOOD' again and again, in some rhetoric justification for their beliefs, so to call up the fact that god isn't infact good, it breaks apart their beliefs. Obviously anyone with a trained eye in literature could easily point out that god isn't a good guy, he's done a lot of evil shit and gotten his followers to do it, but this paradox is about showing why the very basis of what Christians believe is deeply flawed in all logical fallacy.

Everything a christians believes in about god is that he is all powerful, and good, making anything he does justifiable without question. But he can't be all powerful, and morally good, if he just lets evil and suffering continue. And often the attempted reasoning by christians to answer this fallacy is 'god moves in mysterious ways', so then how can they even know such a being could be all good, if he doesn't even prove the fact?

Actually saying that, I could use this same paradox on superman, if superman has all the powers of a god, and is a symbol for moral goodness, why doesn't he stop all evil on earth, I think this is why I preferred the animated justice league unlimited superman, where he seemed more vulnerable, and afraid to use his full power.

Christians?  Shooting Ixthys in a barrel that!

Well, I hope he's having fun!

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 07:31:45 PM
Well, I hope he's having fun!

As one of his followers, I can say ... I am ;-)

"Love" as a characteristic of G-d is over-rated ... love includes "loves to pull wings off of angels".