XPost: comp.robotics.misc, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net   
      
   On 24 Feb 2005 07:13:34 -0800, "dave.harper"    
   in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:   
      
   >Lester Zick wrote:   
   >> On 23 Feb 2005 10:58:07 -0800, "dave.harper"    
   >> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:   
   >   
   >> >Well, I would venture that the Republicans, right now, are more   
   >opposed   
   >> >to giving science and technology the reins of power than Democrats   
   >are.   
   >> > Look at all the types of science that many people in the GOP are   
   >> >trying to limit...   
   >>   
   >> Mainly social sciences I expect and socially oriented sciences that   
   >> Republicans feel are more properly capitalized by the market.   
   >   
   >You mean any socially oriented science that didn't clash with the   
   >general religious beliefs of the GOP.   
      
   Certainly. Appeals to science are often justified in religious terms.   
   It doesn't mean the science is flawed.   
      
   >> And   
   >> what makes anyone think an ai artifact wouldn't be just as vulnerable   
   >> to corruption as people?   
   >   
   >It would be vulnerable.  The main advantage is that it could, if   
   >properly programed, go through a set of choices along with probable   
   >results alot faster than a current government could.   
      
   The hell you say! So now we're supposed to leave political decisions   
   to the tender mercies of ai theorists and computer programmers to   
   properly program issues even they admit they don't fully grasp just so   
   we can make decisions faster? I could make bad decisions even faster.   
      
   Regards - Lester   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)