frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Term Artificial Intelligence is derogatory and inappropriate

Opening Argument

inc4tinc4t 152 Pts
there are a few issues with calling AI as Artificial Intelligence.
1) as it improves, who is to make a decision what is Artificial vs Real Intelligence 
2) who is to say that human intelligence is not "Artificial"
3) At some point in the future where cognitive technology and AI capability exceeds our own, would AI-based creatures find it a derogatory term
melefSilverishGoldNovajoecavalrynorthsouthkoreaWhyTrump
  1. ?

    17 votes
    1. Agree
      35.29%
    2. Disagree
      64.71%
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 227 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @inc4t

    Are you using the same definition of "artificial" as the rest of us?

    Artificial means "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally". You don't stumble around in the woods and come across a naturally occurring artificial intelligence, by the basic definition of what words mean an AI is an artificial intelligence rather than a natural one. Even if tomorrow someone invented an AI that was twice as brilliant as humans in every way, it would still be artificial. however please note that "artificial" =/= "bad".
    inc4tagsrCoveny1Hacker0JacobHawkinsPowerPikachu21
«1

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • I'll buy the idea that artificial intelligence is anything close to human intelligence the day I get mad a person about how hard is to talk to a computer these days and not vice versa. Or when engineers no longer have to be able to solve equations that are done by computer. Or when computers build themselves WITHOUT being programmed to do so by humans. Or when a computer can without help from a human make its own intelligent arguments in favor of an idea. Until then human intelligence is not only superior to artificial intelligence, but artificial intelligence is 100% subservient to human intelligence, as all AI is restricted to what it was programmed to do by humans.
    melefjoecavalryEvidenceErfisflat
  • melefmelef 48 Pts
    @RollTide420 made a great argument. Human intelligence is much greater than AI due to the creation status and common sense abilites of the human brain, not a mother board.
  • Computers have access to a much larger database of information than humans, and they can process information quicker, yet humans still make better decisions. Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer, as it is not Intelligence at all but instead information storage and processing. Watch IRobot for a good story that demonstrates the difference between thinking and simply processing and calculating information. Its fictions but it does offer insight into the moral implications of AI (one of the robots has true intelligence but no such example can be shown in the real world). In the real world today they have computers than can choose the statistically optimal outcome for a situation but they are limited the situations and options that were programmed into them. Also, there is more to good decision making than the statistically optimal outcome when humans are involved (For example in IRobot when the robot rescues Will Smith instead of a little girl due to his higher probability of survival (45% percent for him, 11% for her) when he insisted the robot save the girl. He claims "a human would've known the difference," and he's right). AI only seems intelligent because it is programmed to. It has decision making capacity that impresses us, but its adaptability to unfamiliar environments is quite lacking.
    Evidence
  • inc4tinc4t 152 Pts
    @RollTide420, while good points, the line between humans and AI is getting much closer. Over time it will switch places and than artificial will still be artificial, but also it will mean superior in many ways.  
    Evidence
  • @inc4t, actually the line between AI and humans hasn't even started to break. People are merely confusing information storage and processing for true intelligence. While AI is being created with broader and broader ranges of situations and options, there is no indication whatsoever of AI being able to independently adapt to situations which are entirely foreign to its programming like a human can. With all the AI technology we haven't gotten even the first hints of things like computer generated essays or jokes or other signs of originality which would indicate true intelligence. Humans have a much larger information base and ability to calculate than animals so people mistakenly think that AI developing these traits is a sign that AI is becoming more like humans, but in reality these features are quite superficial. The features that really make humans intelligent such as humor and contemplation haven't even been touched on in the AI world.
    Erfisflat
  • inc4tinc4t 152 Pts
    @RollTide420, most of trading already happens algorithmically and people know how it was constructed, but cannot follow how exactly it works.  AI write sports and movies reviews.  We can debate the current line between humans and AI, but that's largely irrelevant. What is relevant is progress of improvement.  5-10-20 years from now that line will either be very near or will be crossed.
  • @inc4t Reviews written by them are based on algorithms which program in them what features to look for and what words describe those features. And while nobody may be able to follow it all, there's someone who knows every feature as it had to be programmed. And how is the line irrelevant? Its the most relevant feature. If the progress being made isn't going in the direction of breaking that line, then AI isn't headed towards developing personhood. And my point is that we are not headed even in the direction of breaking that line. No progress has been made into independent adaptation, or true decision making, as opposed to pre-programmed algorithmic decision making. It very important to pinpoint the line between humans and AI because it must be crossed in order for AI to have any kind of a true personality. Just because tons of progress is being made in the ability of AI to store and process information, doesn't mean that its making progress towards developing sentience in any form. Pre-programmed reactions are becoming so widely developed that it creates an illusion of true intelligence, but actual true intelligence, which is defined by the ability to independently adapt to and process entirely unfamiliar situation (even if it does take some time) and independently make a decision. Its not just that we won't get there, were not even heading there. We'e just ramping up computer processing up to the point it mimics intelligence in the same way that a camouflaged animal mimics its background. You can tell them apart, but you have to looking for the right features.
    inc4t
  • inc4tinc4t 152 Pts
    @RollTide420, sorry, still disagree.  Our brain is constructed with high processing power, and that is what diffirentiates us from current machines. As processing power improvements follow moore law, in about 30-50 years we may readh a point of singularity where computers have more processing power than human brain.  Once we reach that crucial point, it will be crossed further in a few years.  
    The AI and cognitive computing programs dont actually layout speciifcs how program figures out what to do, but leaves it up to the program to self learn.  The term "artificial" seems obvious right now as inferior to humans, but it won't stay that way.  
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 314 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Regardless of computing power, machines will always have their origins in the humans that made them.  For that fact alone, artificial intelligence will always be artificial.  The only thing we need to worry about is if machines actually care whether or no the term is derogatory.
    joecavalry
  • I agree with CYDdharta. In terms of defining what is AI and what is not, I would like to refer all of you to this link: http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/artificial-intelligence-from-turing-test-to-tokyo-test Also, I would be wary of anthropomorphism. Even years after the singularity, it is very unlikely that AI will develop e'motions. Intelligence beyond that of any human does not imply emotion, therefor, I think that machines probably will not find the term "AI" derogatory in the foreseeable future.
  • @inc4t if high processing and computing were what differentiated us, then AI has already surpassed us, by a long shot. Yet in reality we tend to still make decisions better than them. The difference lies in true intelligence, which enables us to open our minds to entirely foreign concepts. I never said computers couldn't improve within the confines of the options programmed into them, but that they were incapable of developing entire new options.You say that processing improvements follow Moore's law, yet most experts believe that Moore's law will probably only continue for about 20 more years. Furthermore, Moore's law only gets into the number of transistors, not the function, and we could add a million transistors and still only improve the processing abilities, which can't be your defining feature of humanity as computers already have more processing power. What they lack however, is true intelligence. You could add a million meatball to your tomatoes sauce, but you still don't have spaghetti until you add noodle. Likewise, we could add a million transistors to AI and if they only improve processing and not independent thought, then it isn't true intelligence. Also, any AI which can self-improve, can only do so by eliminating time wasters, they have no ability to add entirely new motions to their programming on their own. They are simply algorithmically program to notice inefficiency and eliminate it. Eliminating bad ideas takes far less independent thought than adding good ones. They can figure out the most effective combination of preprogrammed options better than we can. What they can't do, and haven't even started to do is contribute unique ideas altogether.
  • inc4tinc4t 152 Pts
    @RollTide420 and @CYDdharta
    good point about machines not having feelings to feel it's derogatory.  So it may continue to be called artificial..but artificial will eventually be considered superior and "real" will be considered handicapped 
  • It may very well be that we as a society come to view artificial intelligence as superior and real intelligence as handicapped, but that would be a mistake on our part. But May I emphasize the first half of that sentence and say again that our society could very well make that mistake. However, moral superiority, which is the ability to choose right from wrong and that is too situational based, and every situation is too unique for robots to ever gain this type of comprehension. Furthermore this specific type of requires a level of emotional complexity that is within the realm that we have yet to make any progress in. It is this that sets mankind apart, as we are the only beings known to contemplate who they are and where they stand in the universe and things like that. Meanwhile Robots are like "the square root of pi is 1.772004539 etc." They can figure that out a lot quicker than we can, yet they lack the ability to comprehend the meaning out that in any kind of emotional since, and no evidence exists of progress into that SPECIFIC realm, despite overwhelming progress in processing speed and complexity, that has been made. If processing speed and complexity defined us we'd be beat already, but if we were beat already it wouldn't have taken this long for self driving cars to come out. But again may I emphasize that you are correct in saying that artificial intelligence may soon be CONSIDERED superior by most people, but it will not truly be superior.
    EvidenceErfisflat
  • Common sense and the ability to interact on an emotional level with others is what differentiates Humans and AI.
    RollTide420EvidenceErfisflat
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • Nice one AlwaysCorrect.
    Hadn't thought about it until you made the point.
    Based on the human definition of intelligence, there can be no such thing as artificial intelligence.
    Intelligence is intelligence.
    With regard to your third point. I would suggest that non-organic cognitive mechanisms will probably far too sensible and logical to regard the term A.I. derogatory.
    northsouthkorea
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 725 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    No clue what the point of this debate is... 
    northsouthkoreaWoodenWood



  • inc4t said:
    there are a few issues with calling AI as Artificial Intelligence.
    1) as it improves, who is to make a decision what is Artificial vs Real Intelligence 
    2) who is to say that human intelligence is not "Artificial"
    3) At some point in the future where cognitive technology and AI capability exceeds our own, would AI-based creatures find it a derogatory term

    1) Good point, but @RollTide420 got it pegged. Yes, as it improves, the "artificial", .. meaning "programmed" will definitely seem more intelligent than human intelligence, just as I can no longer beat any computer chess game.
    As RollTide420 said, A.I. will remain Artificial, just as those human looking robot faces



    .. will forever stay artificial, even when they will start putting human skin on them. I have worked on, and programmed 5-axis milling machines, and no matter how intelligent that 5-axis CNC was, which can make a complete part with 800 holes through it, except for the side that's clamped down, it has never once attempted to finish that side.
    BUT, of course that too can be programmed into it, but that will also take a lot of Intelligent Design.

    Just recently I heard Michio Kaku mention about some Intelligent Chess-program, that the computer "took back a move", which he claims is showing it's own intelligence. What bull! If the game was programmed for a million possible moves, and "taking back the move" was not part of the program, there is no way the computer would have come up with that option on it's own.

    @Coveny just mentioned to me about the mind/brain that it's not too far in the future when robots could "evolve" to override their "off button".
    Yeah, if it was programmed as an option, sure, they will override it, especially if our Government/NASA programs them for "survival mode", it will become just like in the Terminator movies.

    2) Because our mind is Infinite-Spirit with Free will, , not some fast processor that can bog down. Our mind uses the brain to search for information, but does not depend on it, but can make up, or create the information through reasoning. (Yes, I know we can simulate that too in an A.I. but would have to be updated.) Also, we spirit/mind cannot be effected by a virus, only our brain can, which we allow through indoctrination.

    3) Yes, because history shows that every intention of man's heart is evil, to get away from our Creator, to even hate our Creator, so of course we would eventually program robots with the same wicked intent.
    This was already obvious in the 1927 silent Movie "Metropolis", and now in our children's A.I. gaming, just full of evil, murder, robbing, witchcraft, destruction, total disregard for the other gaming characters. But as we can see from history, Noah's Flood in particular, that God will never let it go that far. The destructive power of our new weapons is a good indication of where we are headed, especially when a human can be killed with something as simple and seemingly harmless as a BB-gun.
  • CovenyCoveny 396 Pts
    Evidence said:
    @Coveny just mentioned to me about the mind/brain that it's not too far in the future when robots could "evolve" to override their "off button".
    I did NOT say that, robots aren't living creates so they don't "evolve".

    Wait what debate have you brought me into NOW!?!? You know for calling me a troll you keep tagging me in debates I'm not a part of... Well I"m here now, lets have a look.

    No it's not a derogatory term, it's a factual statement.

    1) as it improves, who is to make a decision what is Artificial vs Real Intelligence 
    If it's created it's artificial. So this would never be a "decision" for robots. Though I guess it could be a decision for GMO if you wanted to get technical, but in general if something is a biological organism it's not considered artificial because it's altering an existing creature, so at the point that we get technologically advanced enough to create a whole creature without having to use nature creatures for structure you would have to make a decision between artificial and natural (real).

    2) who is to say that human intelligence is not "Artificial"
    We did. Semantics of the word artificial means it's something that's created. The question is like "who's to say blue is not red?". We have agreed to the meaning of words/labels as a society.


    3) At some point in the future where cognitive technology and AI capability exceeds our own, would AI-based creatures find it a derogatory term
    Depends on how they were programed. And as a for the record AI exceeds our cognitive abilities in some areas already. (I know they can quickly do math I can't do just to name something off the top of my head)

    But I don't think the debate is really about the word artificial so much as the tipping point of when AI is considered a person and has "rights" which is a much more interesting topic than this one. When AI is developed enough to have a personality, and emulate sentience I'm sure we'll see robot rights advocates. Personally when I look at the way we treat semi-sentient animals like dolphins and monkeys I tend to think that we well be abusing robots for our personal needs even when they have gotten far up the scale, but that's just me.
    agsrEvidence
  • inc4t said:
    @RollTide420 and @CYDdharta
    good point about machines not having feelings to feel it's derogatory.  So it may continue to be called artificial..but artificial will eventually be considered superior and "real" will be considered handicapped 

    What is 'considered', and what is 'true' can be very different, if not opposite; like marriage used to be 'considered' between a man and a woman,  today marriage can be considered between a man and a sheep.

    Humans are already considered animals, and animals like dolphins are already treated and considered above humans; take Sea World Shamu incidents/deaths for example, no one would dare shoot the fish even though it is obviously killing the human. I'd like to see what would of happen if one of the trainers was killing Shamu in front of hundreds of people?

    How about the classification of humans, "evolving apes", right? In other words, after 4.2 billion years we are not even apes, only evolving, yet the apes are already apes!?!? What would the apes evolve to?


  • @Coveny I did NOT say that, robots aren't living creates so they don't "evolve".

    Oh, sorry. So "how" did you figure they would eventually figure out how to bypass the off button?

    Was the evolving ape/human programmed to invent fire, or the wheel? Or did it "evolve" to do it? You really should read more up on evolution because the Priests of the Evolution Religion do consider things like "robots by passing their off button" as "evolution".

    Coveny - Wait what debate have you brought me into NOW!?!? You know for calling me a troll you keep tagging me in debates I'm not a part of... Well I"m here now, lets have a look.

    I never called you a "troll".
    Sorry if I offended you, so should I stop mentioning you in debates you are not part of? I thought we were a big happy family here?

    Coveny -No it's not a derogatory term, it's a factual statement.
    1) as it improves, who is to make a decision what is Artificial vs Real Intelligence 
    If it's created it's artificial. So this would never be a "decision" for robots. Though I guess it could be a decision for GMO if you wanted to get technical, but in general if something is a biological organism it's not considered artificial because it's altering an existing creature, so at the point that we get technologically advanced enough to create a whole creature without having to use nature creatures for structure you would have to make a decision between artificial and natural (real).

    Lol, .. you see, it all boils down to I.D., not "Evolution" since even as you say "evolution" has to be intelligently designed. So the question is; "can something evolve from nothing", or does everything have to be intelligently designed and created first for it to be able to "evolve" later? This is where the "Evolution story" gets all tangled up in its own deceit, in it's own lies, its own BS

    Coveny - 2) who is to say that human intelligence is not "Artificial"
    We did. Semantics of the word artificial means it's something that's created. The question is like "who's to say blue is not red?". We have agreed to the meaning of words/labels as a society.

    Who's to say blue is not red? That don't make sense? I can say: "Blue is not red", .. there.

    But human intelligence IS artificial, we the "mind" create intelligence step by step, it takes a lot of work. Our body/brain was created too, which we evolve through "intelligence".
    You know who's "we' sucka? "We" is; us, the mind. (pun intended)

    Coveny - 3) At some point in the future where cognitive technology and AI capability exceeds our own, would AI-based creatures find it a derogatory term
    Depends on how they were programed. And as a for the record AI exceeds our cognitive abilities in some areas already. (I know they can quickly do math I can't do just to name something off the top of my head)

    That doesn't make sense either, because we created A.I. to exceed our own so we wouldn't have to sit there and read an entire library of books to come to a conclusion.
    Google didn't evolve, we "created it", so HOW can Google or any AI ever be "smarter" than us, it is us who is smart in inventing it, no?
    Like asking: "Will an automobile be ever faster than us?"
    Well duh, .. that's why we invented it, right? No Olympic runner has ever complained that an Indianapolis 500 Race Car was 'faster than him'.

    Now we could do stupid things like create an A.I. robot army to keep peace, .. now that would be stupid. Like if they started indiscriminately to kill everyone, it would never mean the AI robots have evolved to thinking on their own. It would mean we didn't program them well enough, not that "they decided man was inferior" or something, like the sci-fi movies like to suggest.

    To me, the subject of A.I. is another absolute proof of The Creator/God, there is no if's or but's about it.

    Coveny - But I don't think the debate is really about the word artificial so much as the tipping point of when AI is considered a person and has "rights" which is a much more interesting topic than this one. When AI is developed enough to have a personality, and emulate sentience I'm sure we'll see robot rights advocates. Personally when I look at the way we treat semi-sentient animals like dolphins and monkeys I tend to think that we well be abusing robots for our personal needs even when they have gotten far up the scale, but that's just me.

    This topic is interesting enough, you are trying to derail it.
    What do you mean by: "developed enough to have a personality"? Do you mean; that it evolves to have a personality of its own, .. or "programmed" to have a personality of its own?
    Is it your "evolution", or is it "I.D."?

    You see, it all leads to Intelligent Design by our Creator, and NOT Evolution.

    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 396 Pts
    @Evidence
    Robots can be programed to figure out things, that programing can figure out things outside of the scope of what the original creators intended. So sure I guess certain types of robots could figure out how to bypass their off button and have the ability to make that happen if they were created that way, and have the ability to do it. 

    Fire and the wheel were invented, they didn’t “evolve”. We didn’t evolve them, that’s not how evolution works. While I personally don’t agree with it people like to apply the process of evolution to things that act similar to evolution. Social evolution or social Darwinism, aren’t really evolution because no one dies, but the process gets “better” and more refined/complex as time goes on similar to evolution. That’s why people are applying it to robots, because they do more than they use to do. But again it’s not evolution in my opinion it’s an upgrade or maybe progress or something.

    Maybe you didn’t call me a troll but you are part of the flat earth three amigos who do. I’m not offended, but yes stop mentioning me in debates I’m not part of unless it’s interesting. This isn’t an interesting topic, but at least it’s not anti-science like the other … three? I’m not in your family, and I’m not your friend.

    Everything boils down to labels otherwise we couldn’t communicate. Semantics is about the labels we use to identify things, and communicate them to others. 

    I never said evolution has to be intelligently designed. Stop with the strawman fallacies. Evolution is the exact opposite of design, and it’s definitely NOT intelligent. However yes it must evolve from something else. This is where the intelligent design gets all tangled up. They have no problem with the most power, most complex thing in all of existence having always been here, but have a problem with dirt having always existed… someone MUST have created dirt in your fantasy, but there's no need for someone to create your god. Um ya sure..

    Even if you do believe that red is blue it doesn’t matter. We have agreed red in red, and blue is blue as a society. These are the words we use, and the meaning they have. Deal with it. We have not created a brain, you don’t know what you are talking about. We can’t create consciousness either, but once we have consciousness we can create things with our bodies that we envision in our brain/mind. What we create is artificial… we don’t create humans, brains, or consciousness so it’s not artificial. Again these are what the words mean.

    You are now using the moving the goal post fallacy. You’ve changed from cognitive abilities to “smart”. These words are not interchangeable. Robots are very dumb for the most part, and any attempt to make them smart is a MASSIVE undertaking. And that's just to get some basic problem solving skills which will only work is specific scenarios. I man dude, it took decades for robots to be able go up stairs unless they were specifically designed for going up stairs.

    You see everything as an absolute proof of yahweh so duh… but that doesn’t make your fantasies true anymore than the hallucinations from mushrooms.

    I’m not trying to derail it… I responded to it, gave some thoughts and brought up other points to consider, how is that derailing it? It’s not, just another baseless accusation directed toward me as usual.

    For robots to get to the “personality” stage they would need to be programed to be able to go outside their programing. Or to put another way “learn”. There are, and have been many attempts at this, but thus far they suck. The best known on this is Microsoft’s A.I. “Tay which they tried to make capable of learning… as you can see it failed. Learning is more than just repeating what you've seen, and as I've stated robots have a very hard time solving problems like that.

    It all leads to the human race learning and understanding more and more about our existence, and all the sky fairies being resigned to a further receding pocket superstition decade after decade. I don’t think it will be much longer till we remove ourselves from evolution, and we become a race of GMOs. That would be the first intelligent design our race will receive. The topic of designer babies is an interesting one, but no I get the one on robots with hurt feelings. :(
  • Coveny said:
    @Evidence

    @Coveny - Robots can be programed to figure out things, that programing can figure out things outside of the scope of what the original creators intended. So sure I guess certain types of robots could figure out how to bypass their off button and have the ability to make that happen if they were created that way, and have the ability to do it.

    A computer chess game will never figure out how to bypass the "off button". But a human mind can even invent the "off button" put it in a robot, and decide how it can be bypassed, including giving a program into the robot with that option, .. see the huge difference?

    Coveny - Fire and the wheel were invented, they didn’t “evolve”. We didn’t evolve them, that’s not how evolution works.

    WRONG, that is exactly how your "evolution" supposedly works, everything, including that the brain evolved the mind, and that the brain is evolving ideas.. dreams, even free will is supposedly the brains delusion: "Man 'thinks' he has free will."
    The ONLY time Pastor Dawkins switches back to actual free will and the mind (reality) is when he starts sounding moronic, .. just like NASA often using Flat Earth observations to explain the Globe Earth.

    Coveny - While I personally don’t agree with it people like to apply the process of evolution to things that act similar to evolution. Social evolution or social Darwinism, aren’t really evolution because no one dies, but the process gets “better” and more refined/complex as time goes on similar to evolution. That’s why people are applying it to robots, because they do more than they use to do. But again it’s not evolution in my opinion it’s an upgrade or maybe progress or something.

    Yes, that was Gods purpose in putting His Spirit/breath into a complex body he created out of quantum dust particles, "social evolution".
    But here is where we see mans desperate intent to take Gods given mind/spirit out of man: to try to keep the evolution-story alive:



    Notice how Jansen mentions the possibility of one day his Strandbeests surviving on their own!? And what, .. eventually evolve a brain, then a mind? LOL!
    "They" really have become aliens to gods creation, using their spirit/mind to oppose the Creator, and deny His creation at ALL costs. And here is the perfect example as to what can happen when man takes God out of the picture, out of his heart, soul and mind, a total abandon of ones humanity.



    Coveny - Maybe you didn’t call me a troll but you are part of the flat earth three amigos who do. I’m not offended, but yes stop mentioning me in debates I’m not part of unless it’s interesting. This isn’t an interesting topic, but at least it’s not anti-science like the other … three? I’m not in your family, and I’m not your friend.

    Sorry, but as long as you are part of Globe-Earth lies, defend NASA, call pseudoscience science, a strong faith in the BB-Evolution religions, I have a right to mention you in topics that relate to these "beliefs", .. this is a "public Debating Forum".
    You can always leave the religion, .. that is always an option, and we will no longer be able to use you as a BB-Evolution, Globetard puppet.

    Coveny - Everything boils down to labels otherwise we couldn’t communicate. Semantics is about the labels we use to identify things, and communicate them to others.

    Yes, labels, like labeling BB-Evolution as science. In every children's TV show, in sitcoms, in movies, in church, .. until we all identify things by this New World Order revised Semantics. Where if they tell us a man is pregnant and having a baby, well gosh darn, .. then that is now part of our semantics, or what you call that again? Oh yeah, .. evolution/science, .. lol.

    Coveny - I never said evolution has to be intelligently designed. Stop with the strawman fallacies. Evolution is the exact opposite of design, and it’s definitely NOT intelligent. However yes it must evolve from something else. This is where the intelligent design gets all tangled up. They have no problem with the most power, most complex thing in all of existence having always been here, but have a problem with dirt having always existed… someone MUST have created dirt in your fantasy, but there's no need for someone to create your god. Um ya sure..

    When you create a robot with A.I. and ask just when will they figure out how to bypass its off button, that is Intelligently designed Evolution.

    Yes, the Evolution religion is "all tangled up", which is what happens when a religion takes over semantics, science, our educational system etc.

    As for the difference between finite (dirt) and Infinite (Mind/Spirit/God), I have explained a hundred times already, but you are very religious and cannot, nor are you allowed by your own religion to think outside the box.

    Coveny - Even if you do believe that red is blue it doesn’t matter. We have agreed red in red, and blue is blue as a society.

    You don't get it, we may all be calling red, "blue", that was my whole point. Like you call BB-Evolution "science", and "They" have brainwashed society to think of the word "science" every time they hear the words "evolution, planets, Big bang story, human animals, space, aliens" etc.

    Coveny - These are the words we use, and the meaning they have. Deal with it.

    We are dealing with it, we are Flat Earthers who believe in I.D. and we will do our darndest to take back science to mean science again! To help people realize the difference between Star Wars Tatooine, and looking at the beautiful stars out at night. That too is only possible once the "Save Our Planet Chem-Trails" poisonous pollution let up a bit.

    Coveny - We have not created a brain, you don’t know what you are talking about. We can’t create consciousness either, but once we have consciousness we can create things with our bodies that we envision in our brain/mind. What we create is artificial… we don’t create humans, brains, or consciousness so it’s not artificial. Again these are what the words mean.

    You know what's sad, .. it's someone out there debating his religious beliefs and don't know much about it!
    http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

    Coveny - You are now using the moving the goal post fallacy. You’ve changed from cognitive abilities to “smart”. These words are not interchangeable. Robots are very dumb for the most part, and any attempt to make them smart is a MASSIVE undertaking. And that's just to get some basic problem solving skills which will only work is specific scenarios. I man dude, it took decades for robots to be able go up stairs unless they were specifically designed for going up stairs.
    You see everything as an absolute proof of yahweh so duh… but that doesn’t make your fantasies true anymore than the hallucinations from mushrooms.

    Tell me, what do you think is the difference between hallucinations caused by mushroom, and what you get from your senses, eyes, ears, nose, touch etc. ??

    Coveny - I’m not trying to derail it… I responded to it, gave some thoughts and brought up other points to consider, how is that derailing it? It’s not, just another baseless accusation directed toward me as usual.

    I explained, but you keep ignoring it, instead of debating it. Like the word "Infinite", how do you understand it? So far you keep avoiding the topic, thus derailing the thread.

    Coveny - For robots to get to the “personality” stage they would need to be programed to be able to go outside their programing. Or to put another way “learn”. There are, and have been many attempts at this, but thus far they suck. The best known on this is Microsoft’s A.I. “Tay which they tried to make capable of learning… as you can see it failed. Learning is more than just repeating what you've seen, and as I've stated robots have a very hard time solving problems like that.

    Because it is impossible to "program a mind". It can mimic a mind, but never be a mind, because the Mind is God, and He gave of Himself into a body, no one can create God.

    Coveny - It all leads to the human race learning and understanding more and more about our existence, and all the sky fairies being resigned to a further receding pocket superstition decade after decade. I don’t think it will be much longer till we remove ourselves from evolution, and we become a race of GMOs. That would be the first intelligent design our race will receive. The topic of designer babies is an interesting one, but no I get the one on robots with hurt feelings

    Yes, that is why God created us, learning and understanding more and more about our existence, and stepped back to see where each one of us mind/spirits will go with the body we inherited?
    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 396 Pts
    @Evidence I’ve already stated that robots are bad at problem solving and limited by their programs and abilities. So yes, I saw there is a huge difference between a dumb computer and a human…. Right now.

    Ok you are back to acting like you get to shape reality. Saying that inventing the wheel is evolution just shows how scientifically illiterate you are. Evolution is defined as:

    descent with modification from preexisting species :  cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms :  the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

    We didn’t mate two square wheels and have one of their offspring be a round wheel which then was better at surviving so more round wheels lived than squares leading to the change of the wheel species. Humans evolved intelligence, what that intelligence creates isn’t evolution.

    Oh look a bunch of BS about how we should listen to yahweh’s word, and not use science or try to understand or create anything that might offend him. Continuing to preach that anti-science while going to the doctor. (this is my shocked face)

    Now goat demon worship does have god in the picture… goat demon god, but this whole thing is a red herring so I’m gonna skip it.

    Yes you have the “right” to mention me. (strawman fallacy) I also have the right to ask you to stop doing it. If you actually considered me a friend (like you keep saying) one would think you’d respect my wishes. Sorta makes you look like a liar doesn’t it?

    Yes, and you can always stop being like the goat demon worshipers and leave theism. Spoiler alert your god is just as fake as their god in the real world. But the likelihood is very low as you are thoroughly indoctrinated to follow your master.

    Semantics is what we all agree upon. Given that theists are the majority you can’t blame us for the labels, it’s basic logic like this that you have such a hard time grasping. Theists are NOT the victim in this scenario regardless of how many times you say/imply it.

    Robots don’t evolve. So, no a robot bypassing the off button isn’t intelligently designed evolution.

    You don’t understand evolution, and that’s why you see it as “all tangled up”. 



    You or one of your other slaves have given the reason as “outside this universe” like that’s some get out of jail free card that magickly gives an exception to YOUR rule that everything must be created. You have given no reasons what so ever for why dirt couldn’t have always existed, other than saying everything MUST have a beginning. (without explaining why, it must have a beginning)

    Calling red blue. What you don’t “get” is that is how languages work. If we call red blue, then red is how we define blue. It’s all arbitrary, there are no absolutes. (well that we know of)

    Take back science? ROFL You fight against science with both the title of I.D. AND flat earther. You don’t care about science, so don’t pretend you do. You ONLY care about the sky fairy you worship.

    Bluebrain hasn’t created a brain. That is their goal, but they haven’t achieved it. What’s sad is when theist thing that because some is trying to do something they consider it done… maybe that’s why they keep saying they are trying to a better person… but never get any better.

    The difference between hallucinations and reality? One is internal and one is external to consciousness. One can be verified by others. 

    The debate topic is “Term Artificial Intelligence is derogatory and inappropriate” you are off on tangents about religion and other red herrings that have nothing to do with the debate topic. You have hijacked this post to peach about your god. If anyone is derailing the debate, it’s you.

    Again, you think by saying “It’s impossible to program a mind” that makes it so. Like your fantasy creator you think you can shape reality, and therefore want to stop science. Let me assure you it’s possible to program a mind, we just can’t do it yet. Programing personality is difficult an complex, and that’s why no computer has passed the turning test as of yet. But they are getting better and better at it as times goes on.

    If you really believed in the sky fairy and there was this great afterlife you would put your money were your mouth is and die. There are numerous jobs you could take that are very risky, or areas of the world that are the same and then you could be killed and meet your maker… if you actually believe why you are putting out. But you don’t so when your life is on the line you’ll hide in the foxhole, or you’ll go to the doctor. You may “pray” for a bit but when you’re dying and you see it’s not doing anything you’ll go visit the doctor won’t you? Because deep down you don’t believe, you just WANT to believe, and you’re too scared to think this is all you get, and it will be over, and everything you are will be gone and forgotten in 100 years.
    Erfisflat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch