Are we becoming machines?


We are going towards a society where artificial intelligence will have more and more importance and power.

Descartes meant that animals are automates.
But if they are, we are too!

Animals are conscious, they have feelings and so on, even insects at some level.
Though we have more  intelligence than other animals.

But machines can be intelligent too.
Even more intelligent than we are (depending on what we mean with the term intelligence).

Yuval Harari and others mean that we will interact with AI and be super intelligent and become so different that we can call it a new specie. But just very rich people can afford it. So we will have different species on earth, as when the neanderthals lived here.

The physician Michio Kaku means that the brain is not more or less than  a biological machine.
And it may be replicated, even if it will be very difficult.



But what about ethics?  And what about art?
What about meaning?

Immanuel Kant meant that he had moralistic laws in him, absolute laws.
I don´t know if he always followed them, but he anyway meant they couldn't be just imaginary.

Don´t we from time to time feel the same - even if its different laws than Kant had?

We know what is right and what is wrong.
At least we talk about evil acts.
We want to see us as moral agents.
why?
Do we want to be better than other people?
Or is something happening that  we don´t know about, Mr Jones?



Veganism is something quite new. Why has it occurred as a word wide trend in our days?
Is some art. like Dylan´s, make our minds more subtle? Or are we still just the same  mammals as 10 000 years ago?

Michio Kaku means that we have some freedom, because of the phenomena at the quantum level.
Our acts are not totally deterministic.
Maybe the texts of Dylan can be an example of that.
Though most of us seem to be tragicomic predictable.











Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more