Quote from concrete

If the subject is to deep, then would not I, a part of the community, be to shallow to ask it?
and if it were to deep, then you, another part of the community, would not have an opinion about it.

You'll see.

[color=#ff0000]"“That's the difference between me and the rest of the world!
Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!” "[/color]

Quote from MasterOfMagic

For AI, I have read a book by Hawkins that says the concept of AI is impossible to accomplish in the current era. One cannot create AI because it goes against the technological capacities we have. To create something that thinks one would need to make it have certain analytical properties that we understand little in ourselves. For example, to an average human being we constantly accomplish tasks that would require almost constant attention in a non biological entity. The simple process of catching a ball is a good example. For a machine to do such a simple task one would have to calculate a plethora of factors, and in the end this process might not even guarantee success. Humans can do this and much more. We do not like machines remember everything. Our brain uses variant memory. We only remember parts of things not the whole picture. In addition computers use set programs and we do not. I suggest you read Artificial Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. Its quite illuminating. 😀

While this is true, it is beyond the point, as it was just an example.
i could just as well have given the role of the subjugator of human society to a common sewer rat, who have gained magical power from eating radiated New york white, and taken over human bodies by letting it's thousands of young burrow into them through the ears and installing highly elaborate cockpits (with a multitude of blinking lights and gizmos), and then go ont to win the presidential election.

And i will probably read it, it sounds facinating.
I just realized that sounded sarcastic, but i am quite sincere.

Being human is only a biological thing, we dont call people with mental disabilities or personality issues/disorders etc non-human.

Quote from Tachu

Being human is only a biological thing, we dont call people with mental disabilities or personality issues/disorders etc non-human.

But could not one not be human, even if the person is seen as one?
And how different biologically must one be to be something other than human?

i like your signature, concrete.

http://profurryartist.deviantart.com

"everybody and everything have a reason for being what society calls 'stupid', HOWEVER, people are too impatient or dont care111!! ROFL! =)" INCLUDING ME!! 😀

Quote from junesue

i like your signature, concrete.

thx 🙂

i would say mental because i saw this thing in the history channel about the brain and they examined some serial killer's brains and they realized that this 1 part of the brain is really small or didnt develop right and that part tells the person how would you feel if that was you getting chopped down and stuff like that

"when i'm sad, i stop being sad and be awesome instead."

• Barney Stinson

You people and your deep questions. 🤣
I feel that's it's a mentality and not biological.

If it weren't for the gutter, my mind would be homeless.

First of all, I think your questions are interesting. BUT they were thrown out in the wrong order.

The very first question you forgot to ask yourself first(& before all the other looooooooooooooong stuff):

What is "human" and what is "inhuman" ?

Quote from concrete

Are you saying that if human society were gradually taken over by inhuman elements, for example an artificial intelligence, it would remain human?

Or, would not someone who deviates from the general society be something else than human?

You seems to think that "human", "inhuman" as a convenient and fixed standard for everything in the universe...

IMO, they are merely a group of general definitions created in homo sapiens' only mind. Heck, among these "creatures", they have their own definitions and have different set of "traits" that they consider "human" or "inhuman"...

Therefore, (IMO ofcourse) "human" and "inhuman" are just relative set of traits (just like Einstein's theory of relativity). They are not bullet-proof from time and cultures and....blah blah blah...

So, I suggest that you should open another thread and ask the fundamental ^ WHAT ^ question first...(I bet you'll be suprise to see the variety of answers, especially "inhuman" definition
😀 )

"As long as we're seeing the same kind of musical vision, yeah, sure. But sometimes when things get hard, you balance out the pros and cons and say, am I being a wimp if I stay or am I being a wimp if I leave?" - D'arcy Wretzky

Quote from MasterOfMagic

For AI, I have read a book by Hawkins that says the concept of AI is impossible to accomplish in the current era. One cannot create AI because it goes against the technological capacities we have. To create something that thinks one would need to make it have certain analytical properties that we understand little in ourselves. For example, to an average human being we constantly accomplish tasks that would require almost constant attention in a non biological entity. The simple process of catching a ball is a good example. For a machine to do such a simple task one would have to calculate a plethora of factors, and in the end this process might not even guarantee success. Humans can do this and much more. We do not like machines remember everything. Our brain uses variant memory. We only remember parts of things not the whole picture. In addition computers use set programs and we do not. I suggest you read Artificial Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. Its quite illuminating. 😀

That's not really anything groundbreaking. Before we ask ourselves when we can make AI, we should be asking ourselves if (strong) AI is possible at all. Many philosophers argue that it isnt. Check out Searle's Chinese room arguement for one of the most famous rebuttals against strong AI.

For the OP: It might make things easier if you define terms. I think the term "person" might be more appropriate. I'm glad you made this topic though. I've been taking philosophy classes at my college recently and it's intriguing. I used to think that materialism is what all rational people believed but now I'm actually leaning towards dualism (either hylomorphic or Cartesian). I've also discovered that I like metaphysics alot more than axiology and I was sure it would be the other way around.

Edit: Had a few things I wanted to add.

OP: Not sure if you're taking philosophy classes, but it sounds like you'd really like them if you do. I'm not sure if you should take a metaphysics or a philosophical anthropolgy class but I encourage you to take them if you haven't. If you have, I'd love to have someone to debate with since I'm new to all this stuff myself.

@Mamsmilk: All you're doing is defining "human" in a way that brooks no further debate. If being humane means "done by a human" to you than a better question may then be "Do you think that being moral is unique to humans?" Of course, we'd first have to establish what being moral is.

Quote from Rain1

First of all, I think your questions are interesting. BUT they were thrown out in the wrong order.

The very first question you forgot to ask yourself first(& before all the other looooooooooooooong stuff):

What is "human" and what is "inhuman" ?

Quote from concrete

Are you saying that if human society were gradually taken over by inhuman elements, for example an artificial intelligence, it would remain human?

Or, would not someone who deviates from the general society be something else than human?

You seems to think that "human", "inhuman" as a convenient and fixed standard for everything in the universe...

IMO, they are merely a group of general definitions created in homo sapiens' only mind. Heck, among these "creatures", they have their own definitions and have different set of "traits" that they consider "human" or "inhuman"...

Therefore, (IMO ofcourse) "human" and "inhuman" are just relative set of traits (just like Einstein's theory of relativity). They are not bullet-proof from time and cultures and....blah blah blah...

So, I suggest that you should open another thread and ask the fundamental ^ WHAT ^ question first...(I bet you'll be suprise to see the variety of answers, especially "inhuman" definition
😀 )

The tought was that since there are about trice as many definitions of what it is to be human (mentaly, and physically) as there are people in the world, i could leave that open to who ever read it to define.
also, it is not that i see humanity and inhumanity as being so fixed that they don't need to be explained, I see them as being to fluid for me to be able to.
But you are right, i should make another tread.

Quote from shade449

For the OP: It might make things easier if you define terms. I think the term "person" might be more appropriate. I'm glad you made this topic though. I've been taking philosophy classes at my college recently and it's intriguing. I used to think that materialism is what all rational people believed but now I'm actually leaning towards dualism (either hylomorphic or Cartesian). I've also discovered that I like metaphysics alot more than axiology and I was sure it would be the other way around.

I disagree, since i belive that (in theory) one does not have to be human to be a person.

Quote from shade449

OP: Not sure if you're taking philosophy classes, but it sounds like you'd really like them if you do. I'm not sure if you should take a metaphysics or a philosophical anthropolgy class but I encourage you to take them if you haven't. If you have, I'd love to have someone to debate with since I'm new to all this stuff myself.

I am afraid that i have never studied the subject, i just happen to think to much...
although i think i might know enough to make a debate interesting, there is only one way to find out...