Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10640
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:00:34 EST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization
In a message dated 2/22/00 10:20:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ascii@hum.auc.dk writes:
> Then a natural question would be : !why! do we want these machines? What
> problems are they going to solve? What tasks are they going to perform? How
> are they going to augment the premises of what we do? How are they going to
> make our lives easier and better?
I think it's more like when you ask a climber why he climbs mountains. Of
course the answer is because it's there. As to the rest of your questions, I
think we'll just have to wait and see. These same exact questions creep up
when any future tech is discussed i.e., cloning, nuclear power, television,
the automobile. The questions seem to be only answered in hind site.
> > Fact is, if it can
> > be done, it
> > will be.
>
> Unfortunately I agree on this. Point is, this fact disregards questions on
> the value of what we are doing. We tend to create something to which we
> eventually find a use. If we are to take on the challenge of creating
> capable biomorphic creatures we have to question the premises of our work.
> In the end that is what will lead to higher expressions of quality.
That's a grandiose view of reality in my opinion. Nothing is done using those
guidelines. I wish they were, but they aren't. Bruce reminded me lately that
most of what is produced and becomes common is usually not the best or most
quality use of the ideas. I know that scientists and engineers see the world
this way, but reality is more of a quagmire of hidden agendas and greed.
> At times we seem to have a blind faith that technology in itself will solve
> all of our problems. If we could just get faster computation we could make
a
> neural net that would be just as complex as our brain. Technology has never
> solved !any! problem on its own. It is the application of technology that
> solves problems.
Well, yes I agree. But, technology in and of itself has it's roots in
violence. The first use of technology was simple weapons and tools to
simplify hunting and killing. Some of our greatest advancements come from the
military applications. And, by the way, you do realize where Mr. Tilden goes
to work each day. No, solving problems is a side benefit of the true nature
of technology. In truth, technology is advanced through greed (Microsoft)
and violence (particle physics and Mr. Tilden's paycheck so he can eat and we
can peak at what he's doing) (I'm speaking generally here). I find this a
little depressing at times, but it doesn't change the nature of man. All we
can hope for really is to scrape enough benefit off the edges to get by. And,
I just thank God that Mr. Tilden occasionally exposes enough edge to scrape
:).
> > It may well be that the created must inherently create.
> If you are to suggest that we as a biological phenomenon are to replace
> ourselves with an alternate organism - electronic or biological - I'd
reckon
> we would be just about the only creatures to do so ever. In the entire
> universe.
Unless of course you are one of the believers in a dead God. Not to mention
that covering the entire universe in that statement includes everything
beyond Neptune, which we know little to nothing about yet. It could also be
said that we are just destined to do so if you consider the amount of damage
we have already done to the environment that we need in order to survive. I
mean, how far fetched is it to consider that because of greed and violence, a
machine may one day be built that will take our place. Whether we like it or
not. A machine that can survive holes in the ozone and unbreathable air. I
just had an image of a world populated by inert automobiles because their
creators asphyxiated on the exhaust fumes. What would big headed gray aliens
think upon setting foot on such a world :)?
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
10641 Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:30:04 -0500 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization "Wyzyrd1" > Well, yes I agree. But, technology in and of itself has it's roots in
> violence. The first use of technology was simple weapons and tools to
> simplify hunting and killing. Some of our greatest advancements come from
the
> military applications. And, by the way, you do realize where Mr. Tilden
goes
An interesting possibility DOES come out of this line of thought - Those of
you old enough
to remember the Steve Jackson game "OGRE" may remember the outcome of the
set of tactics that were pretty much dictated by the game - "get the humans
off the
battlefield and let the bots slug it out". Robotics may not change human
nature -
we always have been and probably always will be a bunch of violent buttheads
at heart-
but it MAY (if we play our cards right) make our most dangerous forms of
violence
into something that just costs money and bots, not lives.
too philosophical today I guess
Wyzyrd
<:)}
Home