--- J F V Vincent <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From the second para, it depends how you see
> yourself now, whether you see a
> change. If you think of yourself as an animal, as a
> complex machine which may
> be complex and conform to rules which we don't
> understand, then I see no
> problem. The problem begins if you think you do
> understand the rules, then
> find that they are different from your preconception
> and refuse to admit the
> evidence of your senses.
>
> Go with the flow.
> Watch your back.
>
hello, thanks for the reply. i just began reading
"mathematics and the image of reason" by mary tiles,
and she arguments the perspective where: "...
mathematics is neither an exemplification of
transcendent reason, nor mere calculation of logical
consequences, but human knowledge of structures gained
by employng reason beyond the bounds of logic." - page
4.
also she states that: "Regulation by an unattainable
ideal is possible only for a being capable of
reflective judgement and is to be distinguishable from
being rule governed. To characterize human rationality
in terms of rule governed activities is either to
reduce man to the level of a machine or to elevate him
to the level of a perfect rational being, the attained
ideal. It is precisely this oscillation that we find
manifest in the attitudes toward computers, the
embodiment of rule-governed, calculatory "reason";
they are alternatively mere machines and superior
intelects." - page 6.
so, in considering this, what would be the
repercutions of being friendly to computers,
considering them sort of semi-sentient?
would this enable humans to abstract diferences of
physical and psychological natures as well, perhaps
exterminating with prejudice altogether?
best wishes
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|