Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2018 2:41:42 GMT
tpfkar
Jan 5, 2018 1:34:36 GMT @miccee said:
Since you're too lazy; from above: mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it."
goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. "
It's on this page.
mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it."
And whilst I couldn't stop life, it's conceivable that a very powerful AI in the future could terminate life on this planet, if it was programmed to make decisions based on unadulterated pure logic and act in the best interests of the living inhabitants of the world."
goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare."
Addressing the whole of your of your garbage doesn't mean she was assenting to your repeated pleads of "intrinsically positive about life", whatever it is you're trying to suggest with it.
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."
Its entirely obvious that 'intrinsically positive' was the part being addressed by 'That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently'. That quote would have no bearing on the rest of the post, which merely consisted of a hypothetical scenario of ai ending sentient life (therefore evolution and natural selection have no bearing on such a scenario). Flagrantly dishonest backtracking on your part. You are also implying that sentient life is intrinsically positive when you state that non existent people are in a worse position than existing people, even though there is no cognitive mechanism to appreciate that there is any choice being missed out on.