Ai

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]How does;
"there would be no science if there were no humans"
logically imply
"there would be science if there were no humans"
? ( if that is what you are saying? )

H-o-l-y c-r-a-p! That's not even close.
If you're going to over think this you could at least try to remember what I was saying. You seem entirely focused on ...[text shortened]... g that doesn't need defending can raise the suspicion that something is there needing a defense.[/b]

So what is your answer to that question? You say much but still haven't answered it. Will you ever even consider answering a question or do you want to continue to act like a politician by saying much without answer the questions put to you?

Originally posted by @humy
No, you didn't. A stupid incomplete sentence isn't an answer and neither I nor anyone else that read your posts no matter how intelligent they are, have any idea what you were implying because you explained nothing and talk nonsense. Why don't you just explicitly say what you mean instead of this stupid word-play? -no 'implying' or stupid "incomplete sentence" ...[text shortened]... e you claimed);
"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "
?

...and neither I nor anyone else that read your posts no matter how intelligent they are, have any idea what you were implying because you explained nothing and talk nonsense.
Uh, Houston?
We have a problem.

Either I speak lemon lime, or he's saying something that any clear-headed person is able to understand, because he's making perfect, logical sense.
I don't know where the disconnect is with you, but it's definitely on your end.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]...and neither I nor anyone else that read your posts no matter how intelligent they are, have any idea what you were implying because you explained nothing and talk nonsense.
Uh, Houston?
We have a problem.

Either I speak lemon lime, or he's saying something that any clear-headed person is able to understand, because he's making perfect, logical sense.
I don't know where the disconnect is with you, but it's definitely on your end.[/b]

The only way to understand complete nonsense is to think complete nonsense.
Only the stupid can comprehend nonsense for, to comprehend nonsense, one has to think nonsense. Thus the clever cannot comprehend nonsense.
Thus you make it clear from your above post that you are thinking just as much nonsense and gibberish as he is.

His claim was that my assertion that;

"science isn't the problem, humans are"

logically implies;

"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "

So your claim here is that this nonsense makes "perfect, logical sense" (your own exact words) to you.
OK then, as he refuses to explain how, perhaps YOU can explain how;

"science isn't the problem, humans are"

logically imply;

"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "

?

It is clear to me and any intelligent person here that one does NOT logically entail the other.

And, by this very same flawed 'logic' which makes "perfect sense" (your own exact words) to you, how;

"mosquitoes aren't the problem, mosquito bites are"

logically imply;

"if there were no mosquitoes there would still be this thing we call 'mosquito bites' "

?

( bear in mind that many species of mosquito don't bite and are sometimes useful! Also, male mosquitoes of the vast majority of biting species don't bite, only the females bite )

Originally posted by @humy
The only way to understand complete nonsense is to think complete nonsense.
Only the stupid can comprehend nonsense for, to comprehend nonsense, one has to think nonsense. Thus the clever cannot comprehend nonsense.
Thus you make it clear from your above post that you are thinking just as much nonsense and gibberish as he is.

His claim was that my assert ...[text shortened]... Also, male mosquitoes of the vast majority of biting species don't bite, only the females bite )

Your inane questioning has been asked and answered, as it were.
Recap.
You made the claim (on page three) that:

science isn't the problem, humans are. Science gives us certain extra choices we wouldn't otherwise have; then if we make bad choices, WE are to blame, not science.

That has at least a insinuation if not an actual claim that science either is transcendent to the human experience, or can perhaps rise above the same.
That claim conflicts with your acknowledgement that science is, indeed, a human construct and not transcendent.

The fact is, science is but one method employed by man to determine his surroundings and his place in the same.
It is extremely limited in its scope, if not in its applications: there's only so much that science can tell us about reality.

Your defense of science prompts the thinking person to consider why defense would be considered necessary, if, as you claim, science is neither good or bad, but rather neutral, a tool which could be used for good, bad or indifferent.
The thinking person continues the thought process and considers whether or not science--- in the scheme of things--- is the best method to determine reality, or if perhaps it has come to a point where the damage being caused is far outstripping the benefits received.

Along those lines, one scene comes to mind of a man sitting beneath a tree enjoying the shade of the same.
In his musings, he wonders how old the tree is.
Life tells him to enjoy the respite.
Science tells him to cut the tree down, count the rings: then he will know.
Yep.
He sure will, huh.

Originally posted by @humy

Is it not the world of science that created the problem,

science isn't the problem, humans are. Science gives us certain extra choices we wouldn't otherwise have; then if we make bad choices, WE are to blame, not science.
I should add that, providing we choose to use science to help humanity, science can come to the rescue here; the sci ...[text shortened]... ence, could take over the worlds anytime soon (say, within the next 30 years) is totally absurd.

So humans won't destroy the world via global warming?

Is it all a hoax then?

So no HAL in the next 30 years? How about 40? Is this suppose to make me feel better?

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
"AI is not human..." Isn't it? It's programmed by humans, right? It's not created by itself.

"What if..." You mean hypothetically? Hypothetically the moon is made of blue cheese...

"...why are carbon emissions even a problem?" Oh, you are just ranting around? You are not serious? Okay...

Go learn some AI before you think you know anything about the subject.

Ai has no conscience, that is the issue.

It would then be akin to a sociopath.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You made the claim (on page three) that:

science isn't the problem, humans are. Science gives us certain extra choices we wouldn't otherwise have; then if we make bad choices, WE are to blame, not science.

That has at least a insinuation if not an actual claim that science either is transcendent to the human experience, or can perhaps rise above the same.

No, it very clearly doesn't. It means and was unsurprisingly meant to mean only what it says, nothing more.

Originally posted by @whodey
So humans won't destroy the world via global warming?

Is it all a hoax then?

So no HAL in the next 30 years? How about 40? Is this suppose to make me feel better?

So humans won't destroy the world via global warming?

1, what on earth has "global warming" got anything to do with what I said?

2, man made global warming is a scientific fact but it would be an exaggeration to say it would "destroy" the world because, although it will give future generations various preventable problems totally irresponsibly caused by us, the Earth and humility will continue to exist.

Is it all a hoax then?

No, global warming is real.

So no HAL in the next 30 years?

don't know but even if there was that sort of fantastic AI breakthrough (like I plan to make with my long-shot research in ~3 years time! I think it unlikely that I would succeed but I will try anyway ) I think probably nothing to worry about and I speak as a qualified AI expert.

Is this suppose to make me feel better?

Better about what?

Originally posted by @humy
No, you didn't. A stupid incomplete sentence isn't an answer and neither I nor anyone else that read your posts no matter how intelligent they are, have any idea what you were implying because you explained nothing and talk nonsense. Why don't you just explicitly say what you mean instead of this stupid word-play? -no 'implying' or stupid "incomplete sentence" ...[text shortened]... e you claimed);
"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "
?

How does (like I claimed);
"science isn't the problem, humans are"
logically imply (like you claimed);
"if there were no humans there would still be this thing we call 'science' "

It wasn't a claim, it was a question. And as I've already said the question was rhetorical. As to the (other) incomplete statement, it basically reads as "If such and such, then...". It invites you to complete the thought, but only if you are so inclined. There is no rule or injunction demanding you must engage your brain and attempt to complete the thought, so relax. This isn't a test... you can participate, or just sit back and ask dumb questions.
It's entirely up to you.

Originally posted by @humy

So humans won't destroy the world via global warming?

1, what on earth has "global warming" got anything to do with what I said?

2, man made global warming is a scientific fact but it would be an exaggeration to say it would "destroy" the world because, although it will give future generations various preventable problems totally irres ...[text shortened]... d AI expert.

Is this suppose to make me feel better?

Better about what?

You said this.

"science isn't the problem, humans are. Science gives us certain extra choices we wouldn't otherwise have; then if we make bad choices, WE are to blame, not science.
I should add that, providing we choose to use science to help humanity, science can come to the rescue here; the science behind renewable energy."

I point to the fact that the use of fossil fuels is a direct byproduct of science, just like Ai.

Now it is true that science is not to blame, it is humans, much like guns are not to blame when someone gets shot. incidentally, guns are a result of science as well, just as WMD's are.

So I ask again, will the human pursuit of science to empower humanity finally destroy us along with the entire planet?

You seem to be saying no, while most who scream that global warming is destroying the planet says yes.

Originally posted by @whodey
You said this.

"science isn't the problem, humans are. Science gives us certain extra choices we wouldn't otherwise have; then if we make bad choices, WE are to blame, not science.
I should add that, providing we choose to use science to help humanity, science can come to the rescue here; the science behind renewable energy."

I point to the fact that ...[text shortened]... em to be saying no, while most who scream that global warming is destroying the planet says yes.

I should add that, providing we choose to use science to help humanity, science can come to the rescue here; the science behind renewable energy."

That is what I clearly implied.

So I ask again, will the human pursuit of science to empower humanity finally destroy us along with the entire planet?

No.
And absolutely none of the paranoid hypothetical doomsday scenarios I have so far heard of involving humidity making itself extinct holds up to intensive logical analysis and vigorous scientific scrutiny as being actually credible.
Humanity foolishly destroying most but not all of the world's human population, yes; there are several ways that could perfectly credibly happen with warfare being by far the main one and I would say the second most creditable would be an inadvertent world famine caused by careless management of our resources; but actual total extinction, NO. And even with the creditable ways humanity could destroy most humans; science is not to blame; science doesn't say "kill humans!". It will be human decisions that kill humans; science doesn't make those decisions.

If someone uses a rock to murder someone, is the rock to blame of the person?

If someone uses human biology knowledge to make a more effective deadly weapon, is the science of human biology to blame or the person who made the weapon?

You seem to be saying no, while most who scream that global warming is destroying the planet says yes.

Then what they 'scream' is clearly incorrect. man made global warming is harmful to future generations but is not "destroying the planet"; the planet will stay intact and continue to orbit the sun just fine no matter what damage we do via our foolishness.
Nor would man made global warming cause humanity's extinction although I think it probably will cause at least some avoidable human deaths.

Originally posted by @humy
No, it very clearly doesn't. It means and was unsurprisingly meant to mean only what it says, nothing more.

science isn't the problem, humans are. Science gives us certain extra choices we wouldn't otherwise have; then if we make bad choices, WE are to blame, not science.

Your two statements are making an argument, but one lacking in a supported premise while offering a conclusion which depends on the unsupported premise.
The first statement was in response to the charge that science has created problems.
You insist that man is to blame for the problems, not science.
This is an unsupported premise, a presumption that science is an otherwise inert tool--- and that presumption has not been established.
To refute your faulty premise, it was pointed out that the legs upon which it set were non-existent.
How?
Simply inspect an element... and watch it fall.
You're acknowledging that man is the problem in the problems that man creates.
You're acknowledging that science is a construct of man.
In light of those two statements, the only conclusion possible is that science is just another tool man uses to jack things up.
Instead, however, you're essentially claiming that faulty man has created something pure (presumably by employing some unnamed magical meiosis) and worthy of complete faith otherwise.

If we didn't employ science, we would have 100% fewer problems which science brought forth.

Originally posted by @freakykbh

science isn't the problem, humans are. Science gives us certain extra choices we wouldn't otherwise have; then if we make bad choices, WE are to blame, not science.

Your two statements are making an argument, but one lacking in a supported premise while offering a conclusion which depends on the unsupported premise.
The first statement wa ...[text shortened]... .

If we didn't employ science, we would have 100% fewer problems which science brought forth.

This is an unsupported premise, a presumption that science is an otherwise inert tool-

Straw man; That is not a premise I implied nor believe nor used and would in fact directly logically contradict what I actually did say for if science is just an "inert" tool then it wouldn't be possible for humans to choose to use science to harm other people; that choice isn't made by science but humans thus humans are to blame for that choice.
Science can be used for good or evil; which one is controlled by us.

Originally posted by @humy

This is an unsupported premise, a presumption that science is an otherwise inert tool-

Straw man; That is not a premise I implied nor believe nor used and would in fact directly logically contradict what I actually did say for if science is just an "inert" tool then it wouldn't be possible for humans to choose to use science to harm other ...[text shortened]... to blame for that choice.
Science can be used for good or evil; which one is controlled by us.

Were they able to make the choice which led to the problem without science?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Were they able to make the choice which led to the problem without science?

Before the age of science and reason, people still made the choice to kill one another just fine. Science provides addition choices; some good and some bad; which choices we make is up to us, not science.
Despite many bad choices and much misuse of science including in the world wars, the overall effect of science has been to generally make most of us have better and longer lives. So the overall effect on science on us humans is more good than bad. Whether it generally stays that way is our choice but I suspect it probably will.
---
So; to answer your question;

Sometimes, without science, people wouldn't be able to make a choice that led to a problem.

BUT, it is equally true that,

Sometimes, without science, people wouldn't be able to make a choice that led to a solution.

Thus this is not a reason to blame science.