Thats a good point. If I was a vastly superior intelligence I wouldnt trust humans at all, I'd rather eradicate them, take all their resources, and steal their land.
Trusting in a vastly superior intelligence?
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
Thats a good point. If I was a vastly superior intelligence I wouldnt trust humans at all, I'd rather eradicate them, take all their resources, and steal their land.
Not to say I specifically agree with providing human babies for aliens to eat, but I don't necessarily have a problem with the general concept of the advanced lifeforms demanding payment for uplifting our civilization. I mean, it would be pretty selfish of us to expect aliens to provide us with all sorts of advanced tech and knowledge that solves all of our earthly problems out of the kindness of their hearts.
Zack
99% hot gas
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
WHAT?
This has me extremely alarmed! Mainly because I don't understand what you mean.
Are you, therefore, the vastly superior intelligence everyone is talking about?
Wolfbeckett
Jerkin' and nonsense.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,682
Right, I forgot, we're pretending you're not a vastly superior intelligence. Apologies.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
But he's an earlier version, obviously. He's just a jarred brain, a faint imitation of what Skynet will become.
He has went back in time, and he has became a human.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
If a brain contains a superior intelligence, how does it wind up being the one in the jar? Wouldn't the winner be the brain that is still in the skull?
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
The body died, apparently. And unfortunately, once they sent him back in time, the technology wasn't advanced enough to create a robotic body.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
I'm not letting on very much at all. It's a pretty open question. The vastly superior intelligence could be a supernatural being, an alien race or an AI. Is anyone of these more or less trustworthy? Does the nature of the entity change anything if it nonetheless is godlike?
..although in this scenario it's an AI. You just need to be a premium member at Apple to gain access to this unlimited intelligence. Each service has its own fee after that, but you can't really put a price on your and your families health and happiness, can you?!
Don't think I've read that one. Maybe it is.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I would trust a superior intelligence proven to be able to solve problems.. to solve problems.
But not to make decisions.
But not to make decisions.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I always like Heinlein's method. Ask for the math and do the rest yourself.
J
J
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Why not take ownership of the human condition instead?
So that rather than the human condition defining you, you define the human condition.
If you could take that idea on board, I think you'd find being depressed about it an untenable position.
So that rather than the human condition defining you, you define the human condition.
If you could take that idea on board, I think you'd find being depressed about it an untenable position.
Spoiler :
It doesn't have to be far, for one to just not be able to reach it. If one is locked in a small room you could say that they are now an infinity away from making even more than a couple of steps to any direction.
Besides, if something hugely superior exists, they are very unlikely to either care, or like to meet anything vastly inferior to them. In the case they still are based in a conscience-nonconscious model (ie they can actually think of new things and are not just one changeless knowledge) then they very likely would be interested in humans either as laboratory animals, or as peculiarities.
That said, it wouldn't really surprise me if they don't exist at all. It is not like it is needed to have more than one self-reflective and language-able species in a 'universe'.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I'd trust it to do what it was programmed to do, not to watch out for my ass.
Depends on what 'care' signifies, though, and to what degree it is just a projection of qualities to the 'less-able' mentally other creature.
For example i feel sad watching dogs, cause they evidently have a lot of ability to be depressed or feel other pain, but can only communicate on a basic level, and have no language either. I also observe on occasion some insects in the pavements or parks. They too have their own life and it is not like a human can recreate them anyway.
But they are not able to examine what they are. Likely they have a 'sense' of existing, even if that sense (probably) does not include a separate identification of their own self being there, at least for those simpler beings (insects etc).
To a degree, despite other parameters there, the analogous can be true for humans of very low intelligence (eg greatly below 'normal') and a human of high intelligence: it is a sad spectacle, at least for myself. I would of course want those people to be secure to the degree it can be done, but i would not aim to have a discussion with them, cause it is unlikely to help either party. (of course this is not a parallel to an actual other species of intelligence observing another).
That's a good thing, bhavv. There is no reason to suspect any alien civilization so advanced as to be aware of us AND capable of reaching us is automatically going to be all sunshine and bunnies. Not necessarily any reason to suspect they aren't, of course, but considering that if they could get here, they could also probably squash us like a bug, I think it best to err on the side of caution because we can't always trust that their networking will be running AppleTalk or TCP/IP so Jeff Goldblum can hack it.
Similar threads
