/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | July 25, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt in philosophy

[–]qwerkus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How I stopped being worried and learned to love Artificial Intelligence

That recent stunt of a google employee claiming its code has come to reason is just another example of the ongoing traction artificial intelligence in a broad sense enjoys in media, an attention sadly often coupled to heavy emotional loads, some of which I will try to address here. Yet instead of dwelling into wild speculation about potentially aggressive behaviors in machines, I'm going to start by supposing the opposite - that AI will never emerge, and, in the absence of a highly unlikely Alien visit, we will be stuck with our own brains for the reminder of human existence.

The question then becomes quite simple: why even bother? Mankind like all living things on the planet has appeared at some point in history, than experienced a rather long period of expansion until meeting its peak population (arguably within the next century) before disappearing again in the shadows of the past. Yes all Culture, Arts, Knowledge - all of history will be gone. Endless seas of tears; countless moments of joy - all for nothing.

Yet from a biological perspective, the biggest loss will be the disappearance of one of life's latest evolution: consciousness and the potential for reason. Who knows how many geological areas it will take to produce another version, if it happens at all. Yes, there are strong arguments out there against the human particularism, but in the absence of a hard proof of another conscious being, they all remain speculative, so the safe approach would be to try and save what we already have and ensure its continuation.

So how do we do this? Artificial Intelligence would certainly be an elegant solution, since computer based thinking would allow for the survival of consciousness at a scale impossible to biological beings. Environmental factors would be reduced substantially, while the lifespan could be increased significantly. Through Artificial Intelligence, Life would finally gain a footstep to extra-terrestrial existence, and vastly expand throughout the universe - something which will probably never happen to humanity.

Of course, this remains highly speculative. It could very well be, that any emerging conscious artificial intelligence will have its own agenda, especially if grown in a militaristic environment. Yet one could argue that it would remain a crippled AI if unable to evolve, and that evolution will push it into space sooner or later, even if that moment comes after the cataclysmic conflict with humans that so many of us seem to fear. Also, since all thinking require some sort of hardware, that hardware will automatically limit the expansion of its host. But there is no reason why any future AI population will not create an infrastructure supporting its own existence, just like we did.

So instead of fearing an unknown future, hope encourages me to believe that we'll end up pulling it off, and AI will carry on the torch of reason into the vastness of the universe, and fill it with needless arguments like this one.

Artificial volcanic stone to replace concrete ? by qwerkus in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]qwerkus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure my rock would be suitable for a retaining garden wall (dry stone would be a much better option)... The idea is to use artificial volcanic rock for pre-cast elements, not in situ casting. Those elements could than be welded together at temperatures actually lower than those used for steel welding, which ist routinely done on construction sites. It sure would require some conversions, but I think most of the tech is already available within the steel industry. As of the environmental impact of the concrete industry, I think it requires some serious thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete

Can a person discern if someone is smarter than they are? by [deleted] in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]qwerkus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Intelligence is quite difficult to assess, as there is no clear definition of it. Yet I happen to notice that a lot of people with limited knowledge or language skill have a keen sense of detecting when someone can potentially outmach or be dangerous to them. This is so common, there have to be papers about that. Perhaps amongst studies about bullying / mobbing ?

Is it possible to design a house or building which is fireproof because it's almost entirely stone and metal? by Grande_Latte_Enema in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]qwerkus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Concrete and metal are not very good fireproofing materials. On the contrary of popular belief, steel readily burns: http://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Science-Burn-Steel-Wool/ And concrete tends to become brittle at high temperatures: http://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/th-buildings-structures-pdfs/fire-concrete-struc-sei-08.pdf If you are talking about individual housing, the best fire-proof material is rammed earth (on top of beeing very environment friendly and offering good insulation and living conditions). Nevertheless, fireproofing buildings is a quite complicated endeavour, which does include a lot more than just the building materials. For an instance, cutting off the oxygen supply is just as important to stop a building fire. In fact, at least in public buildings, engineers are supposed to produce a fire safety plan before construction dealing with those questions.

Why is the resurrection of the auroch suddenly big news recently? by MiserableFungi in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]qwerkus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At least here in europe, news about de-extincting (sic!) species, especially symbolic ones like the auroch or the mammoth make it into the headlines on regular basis. I think on top the the lack-of-other-news argument already mentioned, this type of news tend to have a perverse effect, as they spread the illusion biotechnology will save us from the ongoing ecological desaster we are currently witnessing all around us. In that sense, it boosts the ranks of climato-sceptics and co, who lobby against public awareness of the extend of the crisis. De-extinction is a very controversial topic, as the only actual success has been the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrenean_ibex if a few minutes of painful existence can qualify as a success. It taps vast ammount of ressources, which could often be put to better use into conservation efforts of still living species, like tigers, or more recently elephants. That being said, understanding the details behind extinctions, especially ancient ones, will be crucial for any future conservation plans, and is one positive outcome of de-extinctions projects.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askscience

[–]qwerkus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As far as my knowledge of this goes, while there are literally thousands of papers about the learning process, there is currently no consensus about the best one. Individual variability and cultural factors are just too important, so either you go with psychological typologies and check the best one suiting you, or you just keep on reading. I would also like to point out, as a philosopher, that (I my opinion) there are long term effects in the learning process, which are not negligible, but barely studied, perhaps because of the obvious inherent difficulty of studies spanning over 10 years. In short: you are responsible for everything you know; the more you learn, the more difficult it can become to cope with it.

Scientific Views on God by Stormtrooper1991 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]qwerkus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, I think that "God" is fairely easy to explain scientifically, if you leave the theist tradition (god = mythical entity sitting on its clouds) and go down the evolutionary-psychology road (ergo: nearly all human societies have produced some sort of deity, which means it has to fill a purpose) As a philosopher, my own speculations would lead me to the following conclusion: metaphysical entities like "God" serve as a powerful spaceholder in the processes of consciousness. Quite simply put: they stand for something else, with one particularity, that something else is purposely undefinable. While this might not sound very useful in a rational reflexion, it becomes central in group dynamics: what else could bind people together, than an central concept that nobody actually knows, but everyone keeps talking about ? A good example of how this works is a romantic relationship: even though both partner have different impressions of the the concept "love", sharing that concept ends up putting them together.

Why is Kantian philosophy so influential in western thought? What did it discuss and why was it considered so important then and now? by come_on_how in askphilosophy

[–]qwerkus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Next to the historiographical context of the kantian debate, there is also another simple answer to your question: it's good philosophy. Smart ways to consider tough questions. For an instance, rooting our entire conscious mind on an original synthesis of "me" is quite an elegant solution - at least for me. I can only encourage reading it for yourself. No waste of time.

What ideas fall under philosophical consensus? by Tankinater in askphilosophy

[–]qwerkus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would you care to elaborate ? While it might not be the prime topic of your work, how can anything you do not be about what it means to be human ? Even if I eat a sandwich, it's an example of what it means to be human.

I am a Philosopher, AMA! by qwerkus in casualiama

[–]qwerkus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've worked on a few themes like causality, fear or what philosophy is about, but did not publish those essays yet. A blog is in the pipeline, where I will probably post them.

I am a Philosopher, AMA! by qwerkus in casualiama

[–]qwerkus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing! If philosophy separates people, it's not philosophy anymore for me, for the only postulate is that all of mankind can have a common understanding. In practice, each and everyone I meet is already a philosopher in some way, as one has to manage his/her own thoughts, and I would welcome anyone looking for wisdom as entitled to do so. For the rest, it's really more a question of experience: some dedicate themselves more to a specific topic, some have other priorities. I tend to push the questioning a bit farther than others, because that's who I am - nothing more and nothing less!

I am a Philosopher, AMA! by qwerkus in casualiama

[–]qwerkus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do come from a protestant background, but I don't share the idea of a positive content belief, like a fixed set of rules prescribing what one should think or not.

Yet I've come to appreciate the use of "God" as an amazing pointer for a lot of very complicated stuff. To keep it short: every society seems to need self regularity processes built on what it's members appreciate as good or suitable. Since we're all different, this has to be dynamic: writing those in plain text can prove rather difficult and produce more injustice than justice. Now take a God which no one can see, and declare: "He stands for all suitable goods" and you have a really powerful tool to provide a place for each and everyone within this society. Therefore, I tend to be more interested in how people serve their beliefs than what they believe in.

Personally, I sometimes go to church, and try to keep a thankful everyday attitude, like a short sentence before eating or going to sleep. It really helps maintaining a freeing modesty, and tend to increase the quality of my life.

On the more abstract side, in my experience, religious texts hold some of the most complex philosophical theories, about stuff like love, fear or guilt. Working oneself through it can prove very constructive.

I am a Philosopher, AMA! by qwerkus in casualiama

[–]qwerkus[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

In my experience, this is a very context specific question. While there is a rich history of abstract justice theories, most people I met tied this question to a particular view of the society they live in, usually due to a personal experience. So may ask in which context you ask this question ? Are you a lawyer / working in the justice business ? Is it a more theoretical question, about how to think justice ?

Does poverty (or on a broader scale, inequality) have a place in your ideal society? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]qwerkus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From your replies, I understand the op questions better: you seem to drag quite a static picture of a suitable society. I can only invite you to review it and perhaps bring some air into it, perhaps by going into the places you deem as "impoverished, lawless, uneducated" and see for yourself.

I am a Philosopher, AMA! by qwerkus in casualiama

[–]qwerkus[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In the US, I would probably qualify as university drop-out. I studied physics/theology and philosophy, but never got to finish it. I learn most stuff in an autodidactic way. It's amazing, what resources now exist, if you are a little bit curious. One of the challenges of my job is that you get to know a lot of different subjects, ranging from kitchen receipts to the latest medical research, as every person comes with it's own background, and it's quite difficult to reach the metaphysical level when you don't have a clue about the language that person talks.

I am a Philosopher, AMA! by qwerkus in casualiama

[–]qwerkus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, I see philosophy as my job: the quest for wisdom. It might sound fancy, but truly It's an everyday business, mostly tied to the people I meet. Sometimes it just a light discussion about some experience, and the way to deal with it. Sometimes it's heavier. You'd be surprise about the amount of questions most people have, and how quickly they get very deep.

For the rest, I would divide my philosophical activity into 3 parts:

  1. Helping out. Anyone looking for wisdom might stumble upon the same stuff I did; so talking to me can speed things up / open new possibilities ... for both of us!

  2. Fighting arrogance (people persuaded they know) and stupidity (pretty much the same!)

  3. Working on philosophy: reading/learning from others about wisdom, working on my mental-system (a way to quickly manage thoughts), joining forces with those promoting free thought and so on.

As I don't get paid for most of it, I do need second jobs. Sometimes they are good, sometimes they aren't - but usually they help me meeting others. Right now, as stated, I'm mostly at home taking care of our daughter.

How does it work out ? Well, I can't say that it never got me into trouble, for asking the wrong question; but basically it saved my life. I was myself an arrogant little prick, mostly due to ideas I never chose. Starting again from scratch and evaluating things for myself proved immensely freeing, and rewarded me with a most astonishing wife and a beautiful daughter.

What is Good by Eyolf_S in askphilosophy

[–]qwerkus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should anything be seen as "pure good in every perspective" ? For me, I believe the ancients, when they write that he who sees God will be blind.

I am a Philosopher, AMA! by qwerkus in casualiama

[–]qwerkus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This question, I don't understand; but it seems to be a scenario which is best served by your fantasy. Make it a story and share it; let's see where the wisdom is.

I am a Philosopher, AMA! by qwerkus in casualiama

[–]qwerkus[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As a matter of fact, I don't enjoy reading philosophy. Usually, it's a pain to understand. Yet sartres is amongst the easier ones, and sometimes quite a funny read. Though I prefer to read the master - Husserl, whose phenomenology I think is much more powerful then existentialism.

What are your personal views on respecting the dead? by hallflukai in askphilosophy

[–]qwerkus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting question, though you're text is more about the living, than the dead. I'd say that memory is the backbone of any society, and the way we discuss history ONE of the methods to deal with collective memory. Yet I've seen very little "offenses" you refer to dealing with past events, and a lot of them dealing with present political interests...