The Instigator
Abelard
Pro (for)
The Contender
Im_Intelligent
Con (against)

We should base our reasoning off of androids' logic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Im_Intelligent has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 108265
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Abelard

Pro

First round is for acceptance, please.
Im_Intelligent

Con

The REAL QUESTION is were?
Debate Round No. 1
Abelard

Pro

Before we start, I'd like to thank Im_Intellegent for accepting my debate request. This is bound to be a fun and interesting debate.




First of all, what is the significance of Artificial Intelligence?



The kind of artificial intelligence we have today is classified as narrow AI, or weak AI, which basically means that it is only designed to perform a narrow task, like facial recognition or internet searches. However, scientists hope to create general AI (AGI), or strong AI, in the future. Strong AI will be able to outperform all humans in nearly every cognitive task[1].

In these ways technology is better than us at any logical task.

But there are a few things we have not been able to give computerized machines. Consciousness, for example, something that scientists can't agree on the meaning of, is something we haven't been been able to give to any sort of PC. Computers are also completely logical (so far. https://www.technologyreview.com...), so morality is not something they can have, making them absolutely predictable if you can are as good as them at the cognitive task(s) they specialize in.

Why is modeling yourself off of AI beneficial?

Nevertheless, what I discussed in the previous paragraph is a good thing to model yourself off of. Humans will always have the capacity for hate or anger, but if you can control yourself with logical thinking, you will never have any reason to have enemies. Stressful and pressuring situations make us do irrational things, like when you're arguing up with your girlfriend/boyfriend you blame them for how you're feeling bad or for something they did two years ago that somehow relates to what they did today[2]. With a rational thought process, you will find the error in correlating those items and/or just think better of it, realizing that there's no benefit in making him/her feel bad about themselves.

This could also be the solution to politics. If everyone is completely open and predictable, there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to take advantage of you. It would get rid of the controversy of just about every big problem in the world. I know, this would be a giant change and probably wouldn't be possible because of two gigantic root problems:


1.) People are emotionally invested in their emotions. The reason this is such a big problem is because EQ (emotional quotient, as opposed to IQ, intelligence quotient) plays such a big role in our day-to-day lives. From Gallup's latest measurements of people's positive and negative daily experiences based on nearly 149,000 interviews with adults in 142 countries in 2016, 70% of human behavior is based on emotions[4].

--> Granted, there are some things I would be sorry to see go. Right now I'm sitting on my armchair at 6:03 watching and listening my wife making crêpes, smelling the delicious aromas from the frying butter and sugar and flour... Things like food diversity would be fine staying. But inevitably, the diversity will narrow down and down, and eventually there would only be the most popular foods left. And no one would really be hurt by it, because the change did not happen suddenly. Then again, I may be entirely wrong about this part of de-emotionalizing, and food diversity will stay. Either way, it will not really matter in the future. It seems depressing to me right now too, but it really won't matter in the future; no one will care!

--> Disparaging humor also needs to go. Just now I was thinking about Im_Intelligent and how to make fun of his name. I came up with this:

Im_Intelligent is not as intelligent as computers

I know, this is a bad example, but it's sufficient. It may be funny to a few people, but in the long term it will only cause resentment and distrust. So sorry for making an example of you, Im_Intellingent, but you were very useful.

The fear of missing out (#FOMO) generated by high levels of social media use can lead to depression and anxiety, according to the fifth annual National Stress and Well being Survey In Australia, looking at the way social media impacts well being. 78 percent of teenagers in this study said it was important that they understood their friends' "in jokes" (inside jokes), which more than likely have some sort of denigrating aspect intended to put some particular person down.[5]


2.) Everyone has emotions. According to Orson Scott Card in Ender's Shadow, the challenge is to "simply refuse to think or dwell on them or let them influence [your] decisions when anything important [is] at stake." (page 126). However, according to Travis Bradberry, "[emotions are] a flexible set of skills that can be acquired and improved with practice."[3] Again, the media tries to appeal to your emotional sense, thus the "acquired and improved with practice." But this can also mean "lose, or forfeit, with practice;" therefore, the possibility to lose your emotions is there.



Anyway, Readers:

I intend for you see where I am coming from and what I am trying to accomplish. I think we can all agree that the theory of no emotions would be a good thing for life concerned with politics and society. Of course, the real deal is always more complex than the theory, and I am doing my best to show my side of the case. I hope you vote for me and what I represent.


Rebuttals:

Not much in the way of rebuttals this round, but all of my arguments can be turned around and used against me, and I'm expecting that in my opponent's next argument. I also expect my opponent to basically restate everything I just said from this argument in some way or another. He may even want to consider using my sources, too.

In my next argument I will be talking about the problems we have to change with society today.




References:

[1]: https://futureoflife.org...

[2]: https://thoughtcatalog.com...

[3]: https://www.forbes.com...

[4]: http://news.gallup.com...

[5]: http://www.abc.net.au...


P.A.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
this truly was a fun debate XD
Posted by ButterEater 3 years ago
ButterEater
What do you mean by "androids' logic"?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.