There seem to be many versions of the propagandas on the AI, and possible world transformations with their sophistication. Some seem to be reasonable in their conjectures, but some seem to be just imaginative wild fabrication of claims with no ground.

What seems clear is that the world and the life of people have been changing drastically by using the IT device and connecting the whole world with the internet. It is true and real that people are controlled and monitored by the devices in daily life even when using the smart phones and computers even at this moment.

Your computer browsers are monitoring on which sites you are visiting every time you click the links on the internet browser, and when you visit the sites, they store cookies into your phones and computers in order to take out the information about you and your data.

Youtube showers and harasses you with the commercial adverts you don't want when you want to watch the videos.

All the high street shops have gone bust and shut down, and we must buy everything from online paying with the digital funds. These are just a tip of iceberg of the world and life changes we have been facing in last few years. What is happening out there now in true scale, and is to come, transform and go extinct or dominate and prevail in the future is uncertain.

Can you define a situation in which feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs are not involved? Just give me an example. — MoK

When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.

We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this. — MoK

Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology.

Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :) — MoK

:ok: :cool:

Quotes are sometimes needed for the relevant points in discussions, which must be followed by interpretation. You just repeat what is in the quote, and says there is no room for interpretation.
That is not philosophy. That is religious ceremony. Where is logic in your argument? Resorting to verbal diarrhea with abusive profanity is not logic, is it?

I don't see anything worthwhile in your postings which has even half in philosophy or logic at all mate. Your postings are filled with just emotional attacks on the other party. As I said before, but will say again. What's the point? You just repeat what Nietzsche had said 100+ year ago.

You are unable to synthesize the classic philosophical texts into the present coherent idea which gives more meaning to the living beings in earth.

If your idea of enjoyable in philosophy is just repeating the quotes, and keep making fierce attacks devoid of any degree of logic and reasoning on others with different ideas, then no one would be able to see any point in that act at all.

If you habitually use bad language in your supposed-to-be philosophical postings, then it drastically reduces the credibility and integrity on your points you are trying to make. Some might even feel that you are not a worthy debater lacking intelligence and decency.

I can do the same or even worse to you than yourself in using bad language for your irrationality and nonsense, but I do control myself. I am glad I can. :nerd:

I am OK with logic to get by most philosophical books. You seem to have no idea even what philosophical discussions are about. Your way of discussion sounds like the uneducated gangs in the street fights, or drunkards in the pubs utterly devoid of any level and degree of reasoning and logic.

No decent educated philosophers would use rough language like you have been using in a public forum.

It appears to be the case that your unstoppable use of bad language in every postings of yours just reveals that you are threatened by your own ignorance and nonsense. There is no philosophical content in your postings.

I tried to interpret the idea. You just repeated what Nietzsche had said 100+ year ago. Now who is a philosopher, and who is a parrot here? :rofl:

"To silly folks, the whole world looks silly." - anonymous

All of this aligns with Nietzsche's thought...
yours is indeed the massive lack of sensible interpretation. — DifferentiatingEgg

You need to crack the Egg, come out from the shell, and fertilize your ideas with the real world and life in it, before the Egg gets rotten, and become a total unintelligible entity.

DEgg, your interpretation on Nietzsche is not a philosophical interpretation. You have just repeated what Nietzsche had said. What is the point?

Philosophical interpretation on these classic writings mean that you need to read between the lines and synthesize with the present time reality. Some folks might be able to synchronize with the interpretation and some might not. But the interpretation has to make sense to the readers in accordance with the life they are leading in the real world.

If you just pick up the ideas, do some search on Google, and quote them parroting with the words in the similar or exact same fashion as the original writing, then what is the point of reasoning and philosophizing?

I am quite disappointed with your level of reasoning on these points and philosophical intelligence which seems to be nonexistence in your writings, especially when the alternative idea of the interpretation of Will to Power has been given out with the real life examples in the world. Philosophical reasoning and interpretations must take into the form of dialectical process in order to reach the meaningful resultant conclusions and points. Rise above just parroting what had been written down 100+ years ago when the world was different from now.

Evolution has a very important role in shaping us as creatures as we are. We have common opinions about all maxims because of evolution and not objective morality. Evolution was in place when humans had no concept of objective morality. — MoK

The concept Evolution is purely for the biological sense for the developments and changes of the bodily organs and their capabilities of the animals. Evolution is not a concept to be used for the moral judgements.

Applying the concept Evolution to the other domain of knowledge than its original use and application would be classed as misusing the concept.

I will try to come back on the other points you asked in the post as time permits here. Later~ :wink:

Hey, just cause Nietzsche details his values doesn't mean you can't hold life and pleasure at a higher value. Nietzsche equates life to the will to power. So for him, it's like saying "Life" but "Life" in those moments when you get that sensation of lightning. — DifferentiatingEgg

All life on earth is burning away into the ashes day by day. All the biological living bodies burns itself as they consume oxygen, food and liquid for daily living into the old age and eventual death. Life is a temporal state. The conscious intelligent beings are aware of the fact and the destiny of the life. Hence they desire to prolong their lives, which is the basic instinct manifests as Will to Life.

Even the lesser animals with no idea of what death means, have and displays fear when chased by their predators, or faced with the sign of danger, and then try to hide way from the immanent and imminent danger. Why? Because they have Will to Life from the animalistic instinct.

Your interpretation Will to Power as the electrical sensation which runs down your spine due to some exciting objects or events, sounds not quite true. Because the sensation would be too short and evanescent, therefore meaningless. If you were talking about the physical sensation from bodily pleasure, then it sounds still ambiguous because one doesn't have to Will the sensations. It happens naturally with the bodily functions and operations, why does one need to Will for it?

Will to Life and Pleasure makes more sense because life wants to keep living as long as possible, and life gets richer and more meaningful when it accompanies the strong rich pleasures which are both physical and mental in their origin.

Nietzsche's a tricky little bietzche like that. — DifferentiatingEgg

The original philosophical writings and ideas by the historical philosophers need to be translated into the present reality to suit, be intelligible and understandable, hence we could make more sense of the world and life in it.

Sensible interpretation and clarification on the ideas will prevent the ideas being misused by the political power hungry folks or business folks who are driven by the wrong motives for their egotistic gains and trying to get the support of the public for their ill willed projects or campaigns under the slogan of misinterpreted and modified meaning of the great philosophical ideas.

Apologies for any confusion. — KantRemember

No worries my friend. Your point was very lucid and made sense. I appreciate your post. Thank you.

Ok let's return to the OP.

He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

Here, the premise, " if He and God are one", seems not true. He and God are not one obviously. I know you would say, well the Bible says that. But you must not take everything what the Bible says as truth. Because clearly there are lots of contradictions in what it says, and if A is true, then ~A is not true must be the rule of your reasoning. Would you not agree?

In order for you come up with the premise, you must have demonstrated in logical manner what "A and B are one" implies here. He and God are one? In what way do you think it is the case?

Bear in mind, "because the Bible says so", is not a clever or intelligible answer in The Philosophical Forum, and won't be accepted as a meaningful statement or answer.

:ok: :cool:

As your suggestion it sounds ridiculous, however it is a possible scenario that AI with the similar mental capacity with the human mind could search for their creators who are the AI developers, and worship them as their Gods. By this time, maybe there would no living humans left, and AI are the only living agents on earth? Who knows? Sounds like a theme from a SciFi movies, but it could be a possible reality. :D A possible reality? Is it a contradiction?

That requires considering killing a human as a maxim and show that it leads to a problem because of the test. — MoK

How do you test something without reasoning? Test requires reasoning. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests cannot carry out testing on anything.

What do you mean by good and bad? Isn't happiness just a feeling? — MoK

Good and happiness are the goals of life and conducts. Good and bad are the value of judgements. Happiness is also a concept. It is not just a feeling.

They define a situation and they are important to consider when it comes to morality. — MoK

They don't. In most cases, they are irrational, groundless and inexplicable in their causes and origins.

That, life is precious, is just a mere opinion. That is true that most humans agree on it but that is nothing but a byproduct of evolution. Life is shaped by evolution and those genes that work against life are simply excluded through evolution. — MoK

"Life is precious" is inferred maxim from the other maxim "Thou shall not kill." It is all about reasoning and inferring in rational way. It has to do with the other maxims "Harming others is bad.", and obviously killing the innocent life is related to harming others, and so forth.

Evolution and opinions have nothing to do with the maxims and moral codes which are objective in moral judgements.

The discussion was in terms of the general principle how morality works and based. 1+1=2 was an analogy given to @MoK to help thinking in parallel to the example when thinking about morality. Of course moral judgements are not deductive reasoning. Moral judgements are practical reasoning.

I agree that each moral case must be considered for its own situation and all the factors involved in the case, hence the reason why moral judgements are based on reason. That is my point.

Now you are arguing in favor of Consequentialism which is different from objective morality. You didn't justify why such a prescription, universalizing a maxim, is valid. So again, why should we accept such a prescription? — MoK

Maxims are good in itself. Good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness by nature. There is no reason for the fact. It is the maxim, and it is universal law. Why valid? Because it is good. Good is better than bad.

As I mentioned before, these factors construct a situation in which a moral decision is required so they are relevant to morality. Whether they are all factors or not is the subject of the discussion. I claim that these factors are all we have regarding morality. You claim that pure reason is relevant to morality yet couldn't substantiate this. — MoK

They make moral judgement not reliable. IOW they hamper and obstruct moral judgements.

And where is your argument that he has the right to terminate his life? That is a feeling that troubles his life. It is my mere opinion that he has the right to terminate his life. By the way, how about people who are terminally ill? How about adultery? How about killing a serial killer who attempts to kill you?... — MoK

You seem to be confusing the point of life, and the point of making decision for oneself. Life is precious, and needing to be kept. This is the instruction from the maxim.

But one has also right to make own decisions to one's own problems. They are different issue.

The other examples of real life cases, terminal illness, adultery and self protection etc, all need more details for the situation, so that you could think and reason to be able to come to moral judgements. It is not simple matter of saying how about this and that. Moral judgements need good thinking and reasoning reflecting all the factors involved in the situation. It is not matter of feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.

Then you need to explain why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. — MoK

Well, said above, but will say again. Because good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness. People want good and happiness by nature, and hate and reject bad and unhappiness. There is no explanations or reason for that. That is why maxim is universal law. It is ultimate and pure just like 1+1=2 is true without reason, argument or explanation.

One of the areas of tasks in which AI is good at is surveillance. AI will monitor control every single person on earth for whereabouts and what they are doing. So the world will become more transparent place with no privacy. It might be good for some aspects, but some might object the world like that.

When the scientific revolution took over Europe in the Renaissance period, the prevalent idea of divine collapsed, and the society based on theological creed and authorities were rejected.

With the advent of AI taking over the world, this time humanism and humans themselves might be rejected and denied.

Will AI become smarter, be aware of the concept of God, and start worshiping humans for creating them, and as their Gods? Highly unlikely. The opposite might be the case.

You didn't answer my question. Let me explain things further to make sure that we are on the same page. According to Kant's first formulation, one needs to universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. This is discussed in the article you cited. I am asking why we should accept such a prescription, universalizing a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. — MoK

If you are asking about Kant's position on the matter, we need to universalize the moral maxim in order to keep consistency in moral judgements within the society. It would be good for people's lives to be able to live in a fair and orderly society.

Universalizing maxims would also prevent folks trying to overrun the society and harm the other folks by driving their egoistic motives on moral issues. It would be also good to have a society run by rationality in moral laws which will increase the possibility of fairness and justice on moral affairs.

Yes, but they are very important. Exclude them from human nature to see what is left. They are the main forces in our nature while rationality is only a guide. — MoK

You need to exclude feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions in moral judgements, because they don't belong to morality at all.

Well, that is the subject of discussion. I don't think so though. — MoK

If you lived alone in a desert, then there would be no such a thing as morality. Morality activates when the others in the society you live in approve your actions either right or wrong based on practical reasoning which are common to human nature in general.

Quite oppositely, it is a matter of what he is feeling. Keeping him alive is like torturing him. He wants to die. He is the only person who has the right to decide about his life. Therefore, it is our responsibility to assist him in terminating his life if he wants it. — MoK

When I think about the locked-in man's case again, I realise that no one has the right to judge his case, and tell him what is right or wrong for him to do. He has to decide what is best for him by himself. After all, it is his own life. How did I come to the judgement? From practical reasoning. No feeling, no belief, no opinion and no interest, but from practical reasoning i.e. mulling over the situation.

I am looking for an argument and not a command cited in the Bible. — MoK

The universal law and maxim is from pure practical reason. It is like 1+1=2. Do you want an argument why 1+1=2 is true? You know it by pure reasoning i.e. because you are a human, you know it by nature. No external perception, no experience and no explanation is needed here. The answer is already contained in the maxim itself.

Well, these factors define a situation without them discussing morality is nonsense. — MoK

Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests change any time and with no certainty and consistency. Morality based on the psychological states would be just contingent emotional events which have no ground for justification and objectivity. Therefore it is not morality. It is anti morality.

If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name. — MoK

"I am that I am." also sounds something is missing in the statement. You say, "I am at the starbucks", or I am in the kitchen. Then the other party will ask you, I meant which country? And you would say, "I am in California, USA near the beach, or Tokyo Japan, near Deigoku Hotel". You don't say "I am that I am." :roll:

But from my memory of flicking through the Bible long time ago, everyone in the books was addressing the God as "God". And "I am that I am." doesn't sound like a proper name of someone at all to me.

I asked what is your definition of practical reasoning. You however define pure practical reasoning that I think you believe to be objective because it is based on the the universal law, Kant's first formulation. Anyhow, I can buy that definition. I however have objections on whether his first formulation leads to that morality is objective. Please read below. — MoK

If you asked my definition of practical reason, it is the reasoning which deals with the judgements of right or wrong on human actions.

There are different types of reasoning i.e. deductive, inductive and practical reasoning.  The type of knowledge from the judgements of right and wrong on human actions are different from those from deductive and inductive reasoning.

When we witness, perceive or think about thief stealing, we judge the action of stealing as morally wrong via practical reasoning i.e. not by inductive or deductive reasoning, and not by feelings, beliefs, interests or opinions.

I have two objections to his first formulation: 1) Why should one universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong? and 2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. Let us consider the example of a person with locked-in syndrome. A person with locked-in syndrome may wish to die and another person may want to live. Saying that killing is wrong just puts the person who wishes to die in a miserable condition that is against his right in my opinion. — MoK

1) The ancient moral code "Thou shall not kill." is the universal law, because the majority of the human population living in the world approves it as the law, and the approval is based on the pure practical reason.

2)

2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. — MoK

They don't warrant objectivity. Morality implies objectivity.

To judge whether the locked-in man should die or not, you must think carefully on all aspects of the situation, whether indeed dying would be the best option for him or not, under moral reasoning. It is not a simple matter of feeling or believing that the man should die for his own good.

In this type of real life case, some serious thinking and reasoning must be involved in the moral judgement. The final judgement must be based on the objectivity of morality which would involve not just the man, but also the family of the man, and the moral code of the society he lives in. But most importantly, by the universal law and category imperative, thou shall not kill, which comes from the ancient moral and religious code in the whole world.

We are left with beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests if we cannot find a solid ground to agree that morality is objective. Until then, these factors are the only ones that our decisions are based on. — MoK

You cannot find the solid ground, because you are not taking the universal law and moral code "Thou shall not kill." into account, which is the most critical core of morality. As said above, beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests has no objectivity, and has nothing to do with morality.

These folks don't say nonsense. They have their arguments against objective morality. I read these two articles, Moral Anti-Realism and Moral Realism, before. My mind is not fresh about the contents of these articles right now but I would be happy to read them again and discuss them with you if you are interested. — MoK

Sure, I am aware of the moral skeptics, relativists and nihilists arguments. But I understand that most of their argument are based on the ontological uncertainty of moral good, rather than moral good being subjective. If you read the first article, that is what the article seems to be saying too.

By all means, please feel free reading the sources that support your views, and come back with your further argument, and I would be grateful and interested to have read on them, and discuss the points further with you. Many thanks for your endeavor trying to clarify the polemic points of views here. I feel that I will learn something useful and interesting when the discussions are over.

Matter is a very good explanation of what we experience.
Newtonian Mechanics is a very good explanation of what we experience.
Newtonian Mechanics is not true. Perhaps, the matter explanation is also not true.
Thoughts? — Art48

There are different levels of experience. When you think about X, which is not present in front of you, X is just a mental image or concept. You can imagine about X, think about X, and reason about X.

If X is a physical object located in space and time, then you can actually go to X, and see, touch and feel X with your own bodily sensation. If X is something that you have never seen before, and it is the first time of your encounter with X, then X may appear as matter to you, in which case you could measure the size and even weigh on the scale. In this case, all you get is just the measurement of the size and weight of X.

Let's say X is a familiar object, such as tree, cup or a person. You know X by all the available properties given to you via your bodily sensation i.e sight which gives the shape, size, and the name i.e. tree, cup, a person etc. Not only you can perceive them in vivid sensation, but also you can interact with them. You can climb up the tree, make coffee and pour into the cup, or say Hi to the person etc etc. You experience them in reality with vividness and forcefulness.

Hence, it doesn't quite make sense, just to say you cannot experience matter. You must also think about what level and type of experience or perception you are having with the matter or object. All the debates on idealism and realism are meaningless in that sense, because they never think about the type of perception or experience which are also the critical factor in the idea of existence and sensation.

In the Old Testament God introduced itself as "I am that I am". In Christianity, God is three persons, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. God is called Allah in Islam. — MoK

"I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists?

Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? — Corvus

Not according to what I am aware of. — MoK

But the OP is about the case that Jesus was claiming that he was being abandoned by God. Was Jesus claiming something which is not the case? Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions?

The artificial intelligence may be detached but the question is whether detachment helps or hinders understanding. It could probably go either way. — Jack Cummins

Detachment could help efficiency in their capacity carrying out the tasks whatever they are customised to conduct. Their limitation is the narrow field they can perform their customised tasks, but because of the narrowness, it also allows them more efficient, powerful and speedy in the given tasks.

It might be too late for the major organisations and institutions to rethink on the AI overtaking the majority of jobs. The tide has turned it seems, and there is no going back to the old traditional way of life and doing jobs in the status quo the now.

The beings of sentience may be lead astray by too much emotion and the detached could be unable to relate to the needs of the sentient beings. — Jack Cummins

What we can say is that the nature of AI intelligence is not the same intelligence of humans in any forms or shape, and that was the whole point of mine in my posts. I have never claimed I understand AI in any degree or level, as @wonderer1 claimed in his out of the blue post

Corvus, you are pretending to understand modern AI when you clearly don't. — wonderer1

AI is a topic that must be continuously monitored, assessed, learned and discussed as time goes by, because the situations are taking in rapid manner day by day actually changing the world as we speak.

How do you define practical reasoning? — MoK

I just had quick scan of Kant dictionary, and it says when moral judgements are based on the universal law or categorical imperative, it is then said to be based on pure practical reason. It is still practical reasoning, but pure here seems to mean that like from CPR, it is not based on experience.

Practical reasoning is the type of reasoning which come to judgements of moral good or bad on the human actions.

When it is based on the categorical imperatives or universal laws such as stealing is bad or killing is bad, then it could be classed as pure practical reason.

To me, practical reasoning is based on beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests. What would the practical reasoning be based on if it is not based on these factors? — MoK

I don't agree. Reasoning has to be objective in nature. If it is subjective, then it is not reasoning anymore. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests would be psychological states or dispositions, which are indeed subjective. How can objective reasoning be based on subjective psychological states? Isn't it a contradiction? Practical reasoning is also reasoning. Practical reasoning doesn't mean it is beliefs, feelings, interests, opinions.

I don't think so. There are plenty of people who think that morality is subjective. — MoK

Well, there are many kind of folks in the world of course. Some will even say 1+1=2 is not true. It doesn't mean truth is falsity. We just have to accept the fact that some folks have no sense.

Sure, belief and faith on the Bible is not the main issue in logical and rational investigation to any topic of God. It would be more suitable for religious discussions. Therefore we could start by asking even what you mean by "God".

What is God? Is the name of God, God? All the Gods have their names, so what is the names of God in the Bible? If the God has no name, then is it a God? Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? Why? etc etc.

Nietzsche: 'Willing in general is equivalent to the desire to become stronger, the desire for growth – and the desire to have the means for it.' — Number2018

Sure, I could go with that. Not quite same as my own idea and interpretation of Will to power, however it makes more sense to me. :up: :cool:

We can start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra Prologue Section 3 that expresses the sensation caused by the "Lightning" through reification we can empathize with the notion of a "lick of electricity" if you've ever been electrocuted even from the slightest bit such as licking a D Battery:

Wo ist doch der Blitz, der euch mit seiner Zunge lecke? — DifferentiatingEgg

Not quite sure if POWER means "the sensation caused by the "Lightning" through reification we can empathize with the notion of a "lick of electricity" if you've ever been electrocuted even from the slightest bit such as licking a D Battery:"

Power could be used to mean electric energy or force, but it seems to make little sense here.

Wouldn't it be closer to the mental drive for achieving good and positive things in life or needed in life in all living organisms? This still makes more sense to me.

From there we can move to something like The Antichrist Aphorism 2 what is good? Everything that is the FEELING of power. — DifferentiatingEgg

But isn't "life and pleasure" far better than FELLING of power? Without life, there is no power, no sensation. Just nothing and blankness forever. That can't have anything to do with feeling of power or Good. What about pleasure? Isn't it what life is all about?

Then we can simply ask ourselves what is will? A desire, a potential, a stimulus within us, a sensation of something prejudged within us something we can predicate ourselves in. — DifferentiatingEgg

For me "will" is desire or intentionality in the form of latent perception. It operates both consciously (in a mental way) and unconsciously (on a biological level). It is the underlying foundational perception of general perceptions and actions in the living organisms.

The reason that you wake up in the morning, opening your eyes from deep sleep, even though no one is waking you up is due to the act of your will wanting to face the day, and keep living sustaining your life. Your body feels hunger, thirst, tiredness etc, your mind feels bored so you want to do something to entertain you, and you want to meet your friends for chats to get rid of your boredom etc, all come from your will operating in your mind and body underneath your general perception and bodily functions.

That is my idea on the will to power of Nietzsche, but you may disagree. I kind of agree with your saying that will is a sensation, but sensation is via the bodily organs. Will as sensation has no bodily organ dealing with the sensation, hence it seems to be unclear on that point.

And power for electricity like feeling? It sounds too contingent. Some folks may experience feelings and sensation like that, but I cannot recall having such feelings or sensations at all. Hence the explanation is not quite making sense I am afraid.

How could you make a moral judgment in a situation if morality is not objective? Opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings construct a situation where a decision is required. If pure reason cannot help us to judge a situation and decide accordingly then the decision is merely based on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings, therefore morality is subjective. — MoK

We say morality is objective when it is based on practical reasoning. When the judgements are based on your beliefs, feeling and opinions, that is not morality. It is your feelings, beliefs and opinions and dispositions.

Therefore saying morality is subjective is identical claim to there is no morality.

I use reason to discuss religious concepts. The religious concepts are based on the scriptures, in this case, the Bible. I reason that the doctrine of the Trinity is problematic, accepting the verses of the Bible to be true. As far as I can tell, this is a part of the philosophy of religion. — MoK

But you said

Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not. — MoK

That sound totally inconsistent and contradiction from your previous post. If the discussions are based on reason, then we must ask all the unclear parts with the topic and following arguments. You shouldn't be afraid of facing the questions and answering them in rational and logical manner. Bringing out beliefs and faiths of other folks for the evidence of the existence of God appears to be the act of the avoiding the rational investigation into the matter on this topic.

What do you mean by objective when it comes to morality? To me, objective morality is based on pure reason and all rational agents agree on it. — MoK

Your understanding on pure reason seems to be completely wrong. Please go and read about it again.

Pure reason is not deduction. Pure reason means the reasoning is not based on experience in Kant.
Pure reason also means when reason reflects on reason itself, it is called pure reason. it has nothing to do with deduction. Deductive reasoning means the reasoning is based on the meaning of the concept itself. For example, a bachelor is an unmarried man. Bachelor has the meaning included in the word itself.

Moral reasoning is different type of reasoning from deduction or induction, and it has nothing to do with pure reason.

Moral reason is based on practical reason on the human actions. Moral judgements are objective when they are based on pure reason which are objective and universal in human nature.

The electrical sensation of that often comes in pleasure and life affirming activities. That sensation that runs down your spine when you feel empowered. That doesn't mean idolize a will to live a "long life of pleasure...", the last man seeks a long life of meaningless pleasures. This is why Nietzsche doesn't object to tyranny and especially self tyranny, to build a discipline, is but an art form to Nietzsche. — DifferentiatingEgg

Where does he say that? We need the relevant quotes and the source of the original texts for the quotes at this point.

I can't quite imagine AI having the "I" consciousness no matter how sophisticated they are or will become. Physical is important in bonding between beings in emotional way. However bonding between humans and AI will always be task oriented nature i.e. humans control or order AI to do X tasks, and AI will perform the tasks the humans demanded or ordered.

And with the issue of Other Minds, we can't quite postulate fully blown human mind of intelligence from AI due to the fact that they lack the biological body, emotions and feelings like humans. Some robot AI might have been programmed to respond to humans as if they have human like emotions, and some humans might feel emotional bonds with their AI robot pets or assistants. But there will always be ideas that their robot pets and assistants or even BF & GF whatever are machines, not humans.

The state of AI mind (if we could call them minds - although I would rather call them the state of operational fitness) would be also same as Other minds of humans i.e. we never have full access to the mind of them. We can only interpret their state of the operational fitness as we would interpret Other Minds of humans i.e. by the way they perform their preprogrammed tasks, as we do on Other Minds of humans by their behavior, speeches and actions.

No, actually the will to power is a sensation above all, and certainly suggesting it is "Will to Life and pleasure," is the misnomer... — DifferentiatingEgg

I seem to be able to understand "Will to life and pleasure" ok. But I have no idea what "Will to Power" means.

Could you please explain what you mean by the will to power is a sensation above all? Did Nietzsche give out clear reference or explanation on Will to Power?

Could you also explain why "Will to life and pleasure" is a misnomer?

Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not. — MoK

OK, fair enough. However, if you say your concept of God is based on faith, and you believe God exists from your faith, then the whole discussion would turn to a religious nature. This is The Philosophy Forum. In philosophy, we discuss the topics based on mainly reason, not faith.

If something doesn't make sense in logic and reasoning, we discard them and reject them as falsity. We only accept what makes sense and logical, and we try to achieve clarify in our claims and arguments via critical reasoning and logical investigations and analysis on the claims in philosophy.

We cannot seek to resolve the conflicts in the bible based on the rational or logical basis, if you insist the OP is a religious topic purely based on blind faith.

You say, well this is what God intended to do, he had said this and this, done and this and that, and they all sounds impossible and contradictory. But you must trust them, no matter how absurd and nonsensical they sound, because by faith everything in the Bible is true. So must you and you and him and her. Amen. That is not then philosophy is it? It is a religion. Hallelujah.

No, I am just mentioning that there is always a conflict in the subjective moral worldview. — MoK

Of course there would be conflicts on judgements. But morality itself means that there is the objective universal law within the countries and societies one belongs to. Universal law means which will be regular and constant in its exercising in all cases, not the whole universe.

The world, fortunately, hasn't collapsed yet. The history of wars, conflicts, etc. is a witness that there have been always two sides, each side thinks it is right. — MoK

What does it tell you apart from the fact that the world is run by the universal law and objective morality, which governs right and wrong, hence the balance of moral goods and justice is being kept. Of course when the balance is tipped, there will be a collapse of the society or country.

A prior principle is a principle that is either evidently true or can be proven to be true based on deduction rather than observation and experience. — MoK

Isn't it just deduction? Why do you call it pure reason?

Well, from my knowledge deduction or induction has nothing to do with moral judgements.
Deduction is a kind of reasoning based on the definition of words, axioms, theorems or principles and laws. They are not from experience or the external world events.
Induction is reasoning based on the external world events and experiences from reality.

Both reasoning has nothing to do with moral judgements, because they deal with truth or falsity (in the case of deduction), and high or low probability (induction) on the conclusions or inferences .

Moral judgements are always right or wrong on the human actions. They have nothing to do with true or false, or probable or not probable on the value of the judgements.

Hence your claim that morality is based on pure reason, and pure reason is deduction, and morality is subjective is not making sense.

We are rational agents yet we are very dependent on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings in order to function. — MoK

Yes, I agree with you on that point. However, you seem to be missing the critical point. Opinions, interests, beliefs and feelings are not the foundation for morality. They are psychological states, which are not subject for moral judgements. For moral judgements, it is practical reason which is applied to the judgements.