[alicebot-aiethics] Stephen Hawking

[Brenda R. Freedman]

Tamara,

Your comments has a lot for me to think about.  What jumped out at me is 
your comments about Hawking having "an internal compass" that keeps him 
going. This says much for his determination to keep things going! How much 
is determination and just "good luck" I lean toward the "determination" and 
my opinions are based on personal observation which I will explain below.

My husband was diagnosed with cancer almost five years ago and successfully 
and then over two years ago the primary source of his cancer returned. 
(this is not an "oh my god" poor Brenda and her husband) but when it 
returned the doctor (who was not only a great surgeon but a great human 
being) suggested more surgery.  At that point my husband who is very 
practical and myself knew that he chose no surgery (despite warnings of all 
kinds of imminent symptoms) decided that he would not do anything and if it 
meant only a week of living as he was living was more then enough. It is 
now over two years and he has led a remarkable life doing what he always 
does (a publicist still using a manual Royal Standard typewriter for his 
work). So how much does determination play a part in the scheme of 
things?  I do not know since I only have first hand knowledge of my 
personal situation but as compared to Hawking who has outlived most of the 
statistics for his disability, it brings  to mind how much determination 
may just play a part in survival or it may be perhaps the "luck of the 
draw?" I like to view it as determination. Of course how does this all fit 
in with Ethics of AI? I would have to say that perhaps the determination of 
those of us who are wondering where the entire arena of ethics and AI fits 
into the scheme of things prevails,  my own opinion is that we are pioneers 
no different from the other inventors of the past including Franklin, the 
Wright Brothers and Edison, to name a few.

It is not foreign to think that a Sun much like our own has gone through 
its own life and died with intelligence common to our own, has existed 
harboring life as we know it and died as all stars do!  All of us may be 
part of the elements of stars that existed before us.  After all, we are 
only an eye blink or  less in the grand scheme of our Universe.

Tamara,  being an astronomer major you can relate to what I am attempting 
to relate. How much of what we are today exists from another place and time 
in the Universe!

We are living in exciting times. But then again, haven't all people lived 
in exciting times? Our only advantage is that we have the ability to 
communicate with more sophisticated means and perhaps preserve a record of 
what we have accomplished. But when all is said and done,when we no longer 
exist as a civilization, what good will all the records and artificial 
intelligence accomplish;   A new civilization to explore to find the 
answers or back to the beginning of what?

Brenda


At 09:31 PM 9/9/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Christian and Brenda, your words are fabulous and give me so much to think
>about.  I agree and disagree with you both, on variations.  But mostly agree.
>
>Here though is why I think Hawking might be more a candidate for the first
>artificial body than the sweet boy I met at the Burger King:
>
>We all know Hawking to have served as our guide and our teacher for a long
>time now, despite his disability.  He has an internal compass that keeps him
>teaching and researching, despite all odds.
>
>That Hawking is an 'old man' just hadn't occurred to me.. I will have to
>rethink that aspect.  Of course you are right, but his thinking and sharing
>have always seemed so young, have always given us something new to think
>about, I honestly think of him, from my point of view, as timeless.
>
>And yes, a young person might be a better candidate.  But what if that young
>person had no ability to process the experience of having that artificial
>body, of reporting it to us?  Of articulately sharing the experience and
>status with us?    What if he/she had no interest in helping the culture grow?
>
>The whole thing in my mind, is about cultural education--about pioneering.
>And the  best pioneers we have known have been able to teach us about the
>situation--to show us what it's like and let us learn from their experiences.
>
>And if as Brenda said, Hawking would the be least likely person to request the
>artificial body, in some ways, doesn't that make him the best candidate?
>Someone unselfish enough to not fight for the opportunity, but to let others
>have it?
>
>I'm not sure why I'm sitting here as Hawking's advocate.  I admire him
>greatly, but I also deeply miss the life of Feynman in our world.  And in my
>daily life I see and feel the heroes of average life, the people who are
>unsung and 'not considered useful'--but who are nonetheless the one's who make
>this world better for all of us.  I don't know how to answer that question of
>why one person would be considered better than another.  We live in a culture
>that like all cultures, has it's icons and famous ones, and generally ignores
>the smaller heroes.
>
>But if you needed a prototype, a tester situation for a new body, I still
>think Hawking would be someone we all know of and trust to tell us all about
>it, to report it to us intelligently and spiritually.  Then again, <smile>  So
>would Robby.
>
>And this about our culture:  if everytime a great astronomer or physicist
>died, one that had touched the public, there was another behind him/her to
>fill those shoes, I wouldn't worry so much about losing these brilliant
>ones.   But look at the numbers, read the reports: almost no americans are
>entering the hard sciences.  Almost no one is there to replace the old ones.
>I don't even care anymore if the bright ones are American, they just need to
>be there, and be teaching all of us.  Where are they?
>
>One of you two touched on something that has been worrying me: remember the
>stories of how the church controlled the biblical stories before people could
>read?  How the churchmen did the 'interpretation' for the laymen?  It's very
>much like that with science now.  We all have to trust others to understand
>and interpret scientific data and meaning for us.  This is frustrating.  The
>alternatives seem to be that either the public become very educated in science
>and methods of evaluating data, or that scientists take on the extra burden of
>teaching us all exactly what they are doing and how they are arriving at their
>conclusions.  I think the latter is a more likely evolution of the situation.
>
>there are a lot of 'black boxes' in astronomy data reduction, that lead to
>these great 'revelations' of the meaning of data.  I got my degree in
>Astronomy, so I tend to trust it and those in it.  But these days I too want
>more proof, and more explanations...because science is not supposed to be a
>religion, that is above questioning.  That is it's beauty.
>
>So Brenda and Christian, how would you pick the candidate for the first
>artificial body, and why?
>
>Tamara
>
>