How different is JMAOJB from JTB?

Don't the (scriptural) inconsistencies prove my point?

Science, as some sci-fi novelists have theorized, is ultimately going to make religion true by ... creating (AGI) God. So this success science has made is going to have big payoffs for religion - the Vatican may already be covertly funding & rsearching AGI in one its secret labs hidden somewhere in the high alps. :lol:

Jokes aside, I'd say there is order, but it's local and temporary; chaos, on the other hand, is both global and permanent and increasing, exponentially. Stars, our only hope, burn for billions of years, but they die eventually.

What chance does Enformy have against Entropy - it's a losin' battle and therein lies the rub, eh mi amigo?

That said, your holism is all inclusive and the order of the light had its moment, its time in the sun; it is now the dark ages, the sun is setting - let's go to the beaches, let's drive out to the mountains. Beautiful sunset, oui mon ami?

Which is to say nonvegetarianism doesn't make sense and that given how scripture defines God, He is completely within his rights to eat us.

Despite no evidence people believe in god(s). Despite so much evidence scientists, not anyone else, doubt their very own painstakingly developed hypotheses/theories. Who's winning? :confused:

The OP says I know ...

I have a problem — PhilosophyRunner

How come, especially when he ends with ...

It seems to me that no one who has ever said "I know... ." has ever checked that their claim meets the criteria of JTB. If this is indeed the case, may JTB be useless? — PhilosophyRunner

?

:chin:

You have a point. Hence, thus, therefore, ergo, as you were, soldier!

:up:

:up:

:up:

Bartricks' noise is our signal, Don't you get it? :rofl:

Knowing good and evil is ignorance in duality. — TheMadMan

Interesting. Care to expand on that.

Of one kind. The trouble with dictionaries..... — Vera Mont

Great! Report what progress we've made.

I enjoy this stuff, yeah! However, there's always a however, eh?

Yeah, Well done! You made Bar tricks say something nice about you! — universeness

Bartricks says really interesting stuff. He cuts through the noise to get at the signal. I only hope there's a signal waiting out there for him. Good luck Bartricks.

Something like that ... yes.

As some other posters have already highlighted, progress is subjective and/or illusory (perhaps they both mean the same thing). Are we making any progress?

Well, as far as I can tell, so I was told, we're not fully self-aware[/i] (there's stuff going on in our brains, like for example when I'm writing this post, that we're unaware of; I think it's called the un/sub-conscious and didn't someone come up with a theory of the collective un/sub-conscious? Was it Carl Jung?)

To the question "when are you coming?" there are varied and intriguing answers, eh?

:up:

But the details, mon ami, go into the details. It's hard for me to make sense of someone who, on the one hand, claims probabilities in re aliens are nothing more than wild guesses, and on the other hand, also asserts relevant data could help and then doesn't show how his story all hangs together.

Let me give you a nice place to start:

$P(A) = \frac{A}{B}$. You already seem to know what A and B are. P(A) = probability aliens exist.

You seem to on the right track mon ami as far as me tiny cerebrum can tell, but there's more (I think).

Superb inferences mon ami!

Apologies you had to be contradictory.

"A reason" for what? I don't see a connection to what I wrote in reponse to the OP. — 180 Proof

Apologies, my bad. I seem to have barked up the wrong tree mon ami. Carry on.

:up:

Why would you be prejudiced against probability? Don't you wanna fix that or are you happy (with yourself)?

You never actually answered my question on what sort of data I should be collecting to estimate the probabilities in re aliens. You did say data will improve our guess, oui?

This preamble contradicts the title of your thread which otherwise doesn't make much sense to me. And the discussion so far doesn't help. Homo sapiens are a eusocial and metacognitive species, after all, so our moral concerns are adaptive and, to the extent we codify them into normative judgments and conduct, they are habits (i.e. virtues) developed by trial-and-error (i.e. praxis). Thus, morals are performative forms of understanding (re: empathy, eusociality, human health-fitness-ecology), not just abstract rules or emotive preferences. — 180 Proof

That is to say there's a reason. I like @TheMadMan's POV too. He seems to be saying that one must look Beyond Good and Evil (Freddy Nietzsche). That, of course, runs counter to what we've been making a big fuss about (God).

It seems, either there never was a God or one is being created.

Well, the two are logically connected mon ami (they're both possibility mathematized i.e. probability). Granted that casino games of chance are relatively easy to tackle for a mathematician, but probabilities about alien life and visits from our galactic neighbors are just more complex, not a case of comparing apples to oranges.

How do you explain the fact that someone who understands mathematical probability can win casino games? Is that baloney? There's nothing wrong, prima facie, with the math.

Let Santa Claus speak for himself.

Santa, do you exist? — Agent Smith

You tell me Smith, do I exist? — Santa Claus

If I knew I wouldn't ask. — Agent Smith

Don't you like me Smith? — Santa Claus

If we had data we might be able to estimate probabilities rather than dressing up our speculations in mathematic — Cuthbert

:up:

So, I wanna know the probability that aliens exist. What kinda data should I be collecting?

P. S. Are you trying to insinuate that math is witchcraft? :grin: Astrologer = Astronomer = Mathematician (factoid).

Minimum disorder to maximum disorder. That's how I roll, amigo. — 180 Proof

Keep rolling, watch out for that cliff mon ami!

:lol:

I wasn't looking at the dilemma you posed from a human perspective but from the perspective of the AI (e.g. HAL 9000). — 180 Proof

:ok: HAL 9000 would've considered those options you mentioned?! :scream: I wonder what HAL 9000's assessment of humans would look like? Very reasonable or ok, could do better or batshit crazy?

:smile:

Maximum entropy (omega) is the terminus of all sequences. "Progress" is a parochial illusion like the apparent flatness of the Earth. — 180 Proof

The net entropy, you're right on the money, increases. Was there any order to begin with or was it always chaos and then more chaos? @Gnomon.

:joke:

I hear ya loud and clear sir. I didn't think of every possibility - that's what creative peeps do and I'm not. It seems it's not possible to answer this question without a deep understanding of biology, psychology, and humanity.

:ok: TheMadMan - you changed yer tune or was I not listening?

:up:

There's a point to @Lambert Strether's remark. If I place A, B, C in that particular sequence, one begins to see growth/advancement in the series so arranged i.e. one instinctively feels C > B > A. Zen Buddhism comes to mind - the apotheosis of mentation is moshin no shin (mindless mind) or in other words when consciousness peaks, it absconds or disappears.

:up:



What about the famous Drake Equation?

AI would choose the one they wish to suffer the most I imagine. A lone human is no longer ‘human’ they are just a defunct dead-end doomed to misery and suffering in pure solitude.

Who would likely suffer more I wonder. A man or a woman? If inflicting suffering was the purpose of the AI. — I like sushi

Very antinatalist and antitranshumanist in tone. The idea is to protect humanity. I wonder if AI would go Ultron on us.

Noooo! :sweat: — 180 Proof

Thank god! :sweat:

Nice short short story. I just wanna make sense of nonvegetarianism, that's all. There are certain ideas at play that seem imply that God can eat us. @TheMadMan claims that the difference between God and us humans is not the same as that between us and animals. Do you agree?

That's interesting. It just is. There's no reason why it just is, it just is. I could say the same thing you know. How would you respond?