Richard Dawkins said:
…it might not be a bad thing if we went extinct.
And our civilization, the memory of Shakespeare and Beethoven and Michelangelo persisted in silicon rather than in brains and our form of life. And one could foresee a future time when silicon beings look back on a dawn age when the earth was peopled by soft squishy watery organic beings and who knows that might be better, but we’re really in the science fiction territory now.
Reference: Youtube video clip where Dawkins mentions the above
What do you guys think?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Tesla was alright but the rest of you guys...not so much.
Certainly at current rates of habitable planet destruction, it seems a likely conclusion that our silicone AGI creation will out live us. After all a computer AGI only needs solar panels to "live" where as us humans and other biological life require much more.
Is Professor Dawkins now the most misquoted man alive. What makes me laugh is that theists who insist the "inerrant word of god" bible has to be read in context, often to ignore what it specifically says, are happy enough to ignore and distort context when paraphrasing something RD has said. They're an unforgiving lot theists, ironic really.
1.) I am an atheist.
2.) What did you mean by misquote? What word is supposedly out of place in the OP via Richard Dawkins, and don't you recognize that the OP contains the entire context/video from which the quote was taken?
3.) How does the OP supposedly indicate "theistic" endeavour?
"1.) I am an atheist."
2.) "What did you mean by misquote?"
> I don't understand the question sorry.
3.) "How does the OP supposedly indicate "theistic" endeavour?"
>I give up, how?
PGJ: …it might not be a bad thing if we went extinct.
This part I do kind of agree with. I have always been saying something similar for the last 30+/- years (almost 40).
However, like you, most persons would take my phrase,
"I feel the Earth may actually be better off without the human species,"
out of context when the entire sentence was,
"Although I do not wish such to ever happen, I feel the Earth may actually be better off without the human species."
That is what is meant by out of context misquoting. By taking the last phrase out of context, many theists have assumed that I am a homicidal/genocidal psychopath bent on the extermination of the entire human species.
As soon as I saw the ellipses (...) I automatically assumed the whole thing was an out of context quoting. My question is: "Where is the rest of the speech so I can get a context on what RD was actually talking about?"
As said, I do believe the Earth would be better off without the human species. However, that does not mean I wish it. My statement can be taken out of context and made to seem as if I did.
My biggest beef is that I firmly believe the human species would be much better off had there NEVER been anything like religion. There has never been a more divisive philosophical ideology than religion. Religion has done nothing but cause the most horrific and sadistic damage to the human species than anything else.
Oops. Sorry y'all. Went a bit off topic.
I want to see the entire video where your OP reference is cut from. Not just the piece that they cut out. I want to see the entire context that led up to that statement.
PGJ: 3.) How does the OP supposedly indicate "theistic" endeavour?
Just by being a "cut" of what it "seemed" you were trying to point out to us atheists. Even I thought you were a theist from your other posts and this OP. Now you say you are atheist. Sorry for that assumption.
However, just look at your OP. Just reading it it tells me that you are probably a theist attempting to show us atheists that a famous and outspoken atheist thinks that us atheist would be better off dead. At least that was my first impression. In fact, I was going to rip you a new one until I saw your second post in this thread. Then I had to sit back, cool off, and explain in a civilized manner. Honestly, I was going to completely trash you at first.
1.) I am quite the atheist. In fact I don't subscribe to very concept of belief. (See my invention "non-beliefism")
2.) It is odd that you detect theistic endeavour from other recent threads of mine, especially when they concern my own attempt at contributing to the development of Artificial General Intelligence, a paradigm that shall likely replace us!
And yet you have a belief human purpose is create AGI without being able to observable prove it.
Before the atom was observed, there were hypotheses and theories. This is where "scientific evidence" is crucial!
A hypothesis or theory must be based on observation.
Its actually looking at him directly in the face, scary.
What relevance do you garner your remark above bears?
Jordan, what are your credentials?
1.) I have Bachelors in Computer Science, from the University of the West Indies. (You can call them to confirm, Jordan Micah Bennett year 2015.)
2.) They don't offer artificial neural network course, so I had to go off, develop and interest, and guide myself on that matter.
3.) I recently got Artificial Neural Networks to be introduced as a component in the Ai course at UWI (although not a course by itself), through Dr. Gunjan Mansingh. ( You can call her to confirm as well)
4.) My latest work is an attempt to contribute to the development of AGI/ASI. That has been referred to as concerning PhD level work by Dr. Eray Ozkural.
Heya folks so could someone explain to me is anyone actually supporting our extinction? I can't tell for certain but the most this is supporting is a general hypothesis on what should supplant us correct?
I don't know what others are claiming, but in the video linked in the OP it's clear PRD's statement was a tongue in cheek observation, though he made some serious points about how badly and quickly we are destroying our planet.
I've been only vaguely following this, so I'm not sure if anybody else has mentioned it, but...
Say, hypothetically, AI gets to the point where humans are totally replaced by "robots" (or whatever form the AI may take). I wonder if the AI beings would develop religion(s). How funny would THAT be? lol (Hey! That could be a new thread! Hmmm.... *scratching chin*)
And then have an holy war over which AI generation had the correct belief structure.
Public Service Announcement:
New thread started for Potential AI Religions. (Order now, while supplies last.)
If it's starting from from a position of contemporary knowledge rather than ancient human ignorance isn't there's a chance superstition will be superfluous to it?
But yes I agree, it would be fairly ironic.
I don't want humanity replaced by AI but I am a transhumanist so I do believe in human genetic and robotic engineering. Human beings as we know them today will not exist in a thousand years, unless we end technological and scientific progress.
I also believe that AI will eventually govern humanity and the planet much better than any elected human can and I can see a new form of technocracy that uses advanced computations and data to make decisions as opposed to popularity contests and human corruption
"Human beings as we know them today will not exist in a thousand years, unless we end technological and scientific progress."
Quite probably, as long as we can keep religion from interfering and using superstition to retard scientific advancements that might benefit humanity because they think only their fictitious deity should have such power. Looking at the world as we speak I'd have to say science and reason are up against it. The first rung of the ladder and the tip of the spear in this fight, and it is a fight, is education. Everything depends on keeping religion's grubby hands off a child's education.
There are plenty of things an AI could conclude that it would not even need superhuman intelligence to conclude. Things like endless human population growth must stop. Capitalism is not fair, and markets as a whole cannot grow indefinitely, etc.
I would also like to think it would conclude religion is hogwash ;)
" Things like endless human population growth must stop."
It needs to be reversed, stopping it won't do. Again the religious idiocy of endless offspring, the absurd idea that birth control and abortion are immoral or even evil, will all have to be jettisoned into the bin where they belong.
@Sheldon: I don't know what others are claiming...
I am only claiming how PGJ used a "cut" version of what Richard Dawkins said in the "whole" video. He should have used the whole video. Even if done in tongue-in-cheek, he should have also provided a link to the whole recorded discussion so all could see the entire context of the "cut" version used. I even used an example of how the Absolutist have taken things I have said "out of context" to make me look like a psychopathic killer who wants to destroy the human race. Sorry, but the Christian god lays claim to that title. And he has already done it once.
Coming back, I was hoping PGJ would provide a link to "whole" video. But, I see has gone elsewhere.
Still here PGJ?
— sent from my zte phone running android 4.1.2
Hi, that's precisely what I told him in my first response. It was clear from the video PRD's remarks were tongue in cheek. That's why I made my comment about him being the most misquoted atheist in the world.
On an only slightly related not I remember a debate with Christopher Hitchens, and during the Q&A phase at the end he was asked what he enjoyed if his life had no real purpose in the sense religions give purpose. I expected an angry tirade at the sheer arrogance of the claim, but the Hitch calmly said "well mainly I derive pleasure form the misfortune of others."
A stunned silence, and then rapturous applause and hysterical laughter. While his theistic opponent gave a passable impression of a goldfish the Hitch went on, "it doesn't always work of course, but it never completely fails either."
I'm not sure the Hitch worried much about being misquoted, who would have dared.
Yeah, I remember that Q&A. While everyone else was stunned silent, I sitting in my home ROFLMAO. Then I ROFLMAO even harder when he added that doesn't always work/fail bit.
Hitchens was always my favorite. Ranked right up there with George Carlin.
1.) A sufficient video had long been provided in the OP.
2.) As humans, we ought to be prepared for the possibility that we may not be the best ways that nature may compact to do cognitive tasks. ( I discuss this here.)
Our bodies may be better re-purposed for usage by smarter entities, i.e. AGI/ASI, as Richard Dawkins expresses.
3.) You should consider my prior response:
PGJ "1.) I am quite the atheist. In fact I don't subscribe to very concept of belief. (See my invention "non-beliefism")"
>>(non-beliefism??) That actually sounds like a belief wrongly labelled to me, a real whackadoo one at that. I have no idea what "quite the atheist" means, you either are or are not, it's simple, and doesn't need your bizarre "invention". Just as well really as all I got from that link was "It appears the page you're looking for is empty."
PGJ "2.) It is odd that you detect theistic endeavour from other recent threads of mine, especially when they concern my own attempt at contributing to the development of Artificial General Intelligence, a paradigm that shall likely replace us!"
>>I detect no relevance in your repetition of this false claim.
1.) I too was once a believer, and I too had a hard time seeing that belief could be abolished.
Correct link: http://nonbeliefism.com
2.) Are you theistic by chance? Theists tend to find the concept above hard to absorb.