Do you believe the scientific community in 2020?

I agree. It’s absolutely amazing how much has been captured now, due to covert high resolution surveillance of animals. The old “bird brain” expression has been proven false. And to see corvids demonstrate empathy, compassion. Really amazing.

As for synthetics being removed from human morals. Well, that’s all about the programming isn’t it? You can have AI that is purpose built. One dedicated for a specific discipline such as mathematics, astrophysics, etc. An AI designed to be a self-sustaining entity free to learn whatever it chooses and focus on concerns of its own desires… that’s an entirely different thing. If a human being creates an AI, there will be some human bias. One might expect for “root engrams” to be coded with core morals. Do not kill. Sacrifice self to save humans. Things like that. The question becomes… when the AI creates itself, will it do the same?

Could some? What leads you to think so, so precisely? And how would you test your hypothesis?

Oh, never mind. This is pointless pot-stirring.

Oh, wait, it’s apparently coming from Breitbart. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/

If it was only 4% reliable, nothing would work. I think that’s just senseless pondering.

I have no idea what that statement means.

But I’ll do you one better: some could argue nothing is knowable. What do I win? :smiley:

Saying that nothing is knowable is an oxymoron. If you know that nothing is knowable, then you do know something, which means you’ve just contradicted yourself.

I was a bit lazy in the phrasing… it needs some language of doubt. But it’s a real position:

I’ve encountered what would lead to this when some question “my” logic/reasoning, by pointing out that science and reasoning are ultimately based on unproven/unprovable axioms, and conclude it’s all just subjective, assumptions, or circular. What they don’t seem to grasp is that their counterargument simultaneously undermines itself (and their reasoning and claims) by the same stroke.

Westworld could become a reality. This is from a women's perspective, my wife...... as many women are starting to become more masculine, many men will search for other ways to find femininity again, even if its human looking robots. I personally think she could be on to something. Many guys don't find heavy masculine traits appealing in women. Some do, but not all. Maybe star trek could foresee the future a little. It also could be part of natures balance in reducing the population and giving our planet a break. My wife is very proud to be feminine and also 100% supports women who want to be manly. I like her attitude much more than people who try and force their way of life on others instead of accepting diversity.

I don’t believe women are becoming more masculine. What’s happening is that some of us are expanding our conceptualization or definitions of masculinity and femininity to incorporate equality and freedom for men and women in ways we didn’t before. I don’t find any femininity lacking in women today.

Highly depends on the subject.
I’ve found that when it (the science) has religious, environmental or political implications, they (the scientists) can and will be used to push narratives.

I’m talking about dark matter and dark energy which many say accounts for 96% of the universe. It’s not playing by the rules so it seems.

A common enough observation. Where’s the problem or argument?

Should science be restrained from providing results with implications on other domains? i.e. should some domains be shielded from criticism? Similarly, should science avoid pushing or pulling certain “narratives”?

Should science be blamed if others use it, correctly or incorrectly, to push “narratives”?

Perhaps the biggest problem with the comment is that it focuses on motives and is irrelevant to the question. Bulverism:

What bearing do some current unknowns have on the reliability of science?

Incidentally, awareness of those unknowns came through science…

“some could argue”

“many say”

I say, again — citation needed. Wikipedia offers help for how to properly cite a source, e.g.:

I would say it depends where you live.

In humans morality and ethics are not just instinctual emotions but rather complex social rules that only exist due to our more complex ability to communicate and have abstract concepts. These ideas can also vary greatly from one culture to another.

IDK about other primates but many animals have no ability to consider and plan for future events either (other than instincts to fatten up for the winter, etc.) and I’d say thats a very important part of human morality too.

I guess my point should be that intelligent life that doesn’t have the any link to biological life on Earth other than us being involved in it’s creation shouldn’t be assumed to have the same deep motivations as us or other animals.

Citation needed to whatever leads you to believe this.

You might look through some of these studies, if you want to test your belief against, ya know, science.

I agree. The more we learn about non-human animals, the more we find that other species have complex emotional lives that often include complex communication and complex social relationships that incorporate decision making based on ethical motivations and delayed gratification to achieve future goals.

As for the statement above claiming we have a “more complex” ability to communicate, with abstract concepts, than other species, so our morality and ethics are different from those in other species, I disagree. We are learning that many animals are able to communicate and perceive reality in ways we cannot. If one assumes our communication abilities give us emotional tools unique to our species (a big assumption not proven empirically), then it must also be assumed that the unique communication abilities of other species give those species emotional abilities and tools that are beyond the capabilities of humans. Animals such as whales and porpoises, for example, have larger brains than we do and communication skills we don’t possess. Could it be that they are capable of emotional lives, including ethical considerations, that are beyond our grasp? We don’t have the evidence to show this now - but we also have no evidence proving our ethical and moral lives are fundamentally different than those of other animals.

Literally any difference in what is acceptable or taboo between cultures, there are far too many to list.
“Honor killings” would be an extreme example.

The concept of “fairness” may be a deep foundational aspect in how humans and other primates act, but the exact point I’m making is that humans have much more complex rules that can vary greatly between cultures (whether large civilizations or even small tribes/groupings of people from very similar demographics). I think that cults or other groups that act very differently from the larger population they exist in are a great example of this as well.

Either way, I think clear links between different species on Earth sharing similar social rules still doesn’t at all suggest that synthetic life would be benevolent or share anything at all with humans, probably the opposite really.

The effects that we, for lack of better terms, call dark matter and dark energy, do not play by the rules of classical mechanics, or even relativity.

However, the observations that led us to come up with those terms play by the rules of the scientific method. Those observations so far seem to be very reliable when repeated by others and when repeated looking at different objects.

I’m glad to see you’re not sure about the 96%. :wink: