Just en passant, the body cannot process feelings (emotions). It can only feel their effects and suffer its consequences. The mind is the "place" where feelings are created --i.e they come from-- and processed.

(I just fell on that because you were referred to in a message I received from universeness.) — Alkis Piskas

The light of the light bulb is the result of electricity. Without electricity, there would be no light. Without the light bulb, there would be no light. There must be a body to have both emotional and physical feelings.

A future ASI maybe as comparable with the intellect of Anne Sullivan as you or I are comparable with the intellect of a chimpanzee. — universeness

Of what use will ASI be? It has nothing that will ever qualify it for good human judgment. No human experience and no feelings. To have feelings, there must be a body that can feel. Chimpanzees would not exist if they did not care for each other. They are social animals and regulated by hormones that give the body feelings that determine behaviors. Social animals can teach us more about being humans, than ASI will ever know. ASI can have information but without experience, information is not knowledge.

You are attempting to compare human intellect with current AI. Current AI is advancing in functionality and capability. Systems like chatGPT are very advanced compared to an early system such as ELIZA.
ELIZA was considered a significant advance on historical AI.
How close are we to creating AGI? — universeness

I thinks humans maybe the only animal that treats a fantasy as a reality.

AGI would have a learning capacity, which would grow much faster than the human ability to become enlightened. — universeness

Not without a body that can feel and is aware of pain and and love and death.

Again I don't understand your line of questioning here. — universeness

I ask question so people think about the answers. The Greeks asked about the impossible and dared to answer the questions. How does this make Anne Sullivan different from a future ASI that can teach humans sign language?

I don't understand why you would ask such a question? — universeness

To establish what makes human thinking different from AI.

How does this make Anne Sullivan different from a future ASI that can teach humans sign language? T — universeness

Anne Sullivan was motivated to learn and teach for human reasons. AI does not have that motivation. There is no caring or feeling for AI. AI can destroy thousands of lives because it has no emotions that would stop it from doing what is programmed to do. It also would not create something new and needed to resolve a human problem for the same no motive reason. Your computer will not wake up one morning and attempt to teach you valuable lessons. It does not care about you or any human. It has no human experience or feelings for determining what is just and what is humane.

In fact, a future ASI could probably develop a much better sign system, that could communicate with Helen, compared to finger spelling. — universeness

I think that is an unrealistic expectation of what AI can do and my reasoning for thinking that is given above. Now if you said AI could be used to develop a better communication system, I would agree that might be possible. A motivated human could create something better with AI, but it is the human, not AI, that directs the fulfillment of a need because it is the feeling human who cares and is motivated.

Again, I find your line of questioning bizarre, here Athena. — universeness

When we begin arguing we close our minds and block out the opposing reasoning that threatens our sanity by putting our reasoning in doubt. Ego starts screaming, I have to be right so the other person has to be wrong or is crazy to disagree with what I know is right. Or we can ask, what is your reasoning considering the possibility that the other knows something we do not.

Can you help the blind without becoming blind yourself Athena? — universeness

What would motivate anyone to help the blind? How is it possible to know how to help a blind person?

Hellen Keller could not see or hear, and a woman who could see and hear, taught her language and made it possible for her to have the language necessary for thinking and communicating with others.
Her parents did not do this. Why didn't her parents teach her? What made the woman who did teach Hellen Keller language different from her parents? The answer will define what makes a human different from AI and from there we can have an interesting discussion.

Do you think people should go back you using the abacus to gain a better understanding of the usefulness of a calculator? Or perhaps use of a horse for a year would make you appreciate your car or local bus service more. Starvation, would make ANYONE appreciate food production more, but I don't think 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' is the only way or even a useful way, to educate people. — universeness

I think you have knowing facts confused with knowledge. A prisoner I corresponded with captured the difference between knowing facts and knowledge. "You may think shit taste bad, but until you eat it, you do not know how bad."

Experience is essential to knowledge. You may think all your ideas are right, but until you experience them, you can not be sure of that. Reading history is a big help and the history of Germany is very important to understanding what is wrong[ with depending on government for too much.
Our liberty is dear. Our rights come with responsibility, not authority over us taking care of us a parent cares for a child.

Learn to grow your own food and rely on yourself before you conclude the solution to human problems is a strong bureaucracy over us. Also if you knew as much history as you know science fiction, that would give you a more realistic perspective.

quote="universeness;783492"]No government or bureaucracy is omnipotent. ALL GOVERNANCE MUST BE of, for and by the people, or else such authority MUST be replaced. That is the system of governance, we must continue to fight for, FOREVER!!! Even when we achieve it, we must forever fight to maintain it.[/quote]

Here is a fiction that might increase your understanding of the danger of believing good intentions can give us the kind of utopia you keep talking about.



Also learning what happened when Hitler took over could increase your awareness of what can go very wrong. The worst thing that can happen is a bureaucracy knowing more about us and our business than our families and the US governments privacy rights act did just that. It blocks family from knowing about each other and opened the door for government to know everything. Government policy also prevents people engaging normally with each other if they employed but the government. I am to visit with people but we can not give each other anything, even if the item will be thrown out. I am take them shopping but I can not do the shopping for them even they are sick. I am talking about a program that did not have these controls in the beginning but gradually became more and more controlling. We did not always have to show our ID and decisions made since 9/11 are not the liberty we defended in two world wars but try to stop things from going in this direction. We adopted German models of bureaucracy and education and we are manifested what we defended our democracy against. We used to laugh at the communist who couldn't get anything done because of government control and red tape. Now our systems are breaking down because of government control and red tape.

Athena BUT, I go to Steven Pinker again, 'we can make things better, because we have demonstrated in the past that we already have.' You help people whenever you can, despite any 'shortfalls,' you are experiencing yourself, so, QED. — universeness

Under what conditions is this true? I grew up in L.A. California and took people being killed for granted, like people in Oregon take rain for granted. I thought it is was very important to be tough. My idea of what it means to be tough changed with old age. :lol: The point is, we are reactionary, and how we feel, think, and behave depends on our environment and circumstance. We can be as angles or completely numb to the suffering of others.

Personally, I think a very evil mind set has emerged and I have deep concerns about our growing dependency on bureaucratic control of our lives. I have concerns about people putting their faith in technology and ignoring our humanness. Given the news today, I see the rise of Nazi Germany coming out of leaving moral training to the church instead of understanding education for good moral judgment is essential to democracy and so is self reliance essential to our liberty.

I hate the modern selling phrase, "get what you deserve", as though mother nature and/or God will take care of us as long as we please the god or our choice. Today, that God, being the government and bureaucracy and thinking rational is all important, failing to appreciate emotional reality and how destructive dependency on authority above us, can be.

Starvation is common today, never mind in history. How does that change the fact that there is enough food, currently existent on the planet to feed everyone currently existing on the planet? — universeness

I do not believe that is enough food to feed everyone, nor is it practical to send produce to poor nations that can not pay for the labor and transportation cost to feed huge populations in poor countries the variety of foods necessary for good health. I wish everyone experienced at least two years of having to live on the food they produce themselves before entering a discussion about feeding the world. The experience would give them a necessary perspective. Tell me, what are the circumstances essential to feeding a family of 7? If we were in the pioneer days and the families diet depended on hurting and gardening what are the challenges and how are they met.

I think your opinions are based on facts, but not knowledge and enough facts for good judgment. Even those in important places may lack the necessary knowledge because their focus is too narrow. If you notice, they are saying we could feed more people by farming where cattle are being raised. Not all ground is good for farming. It can be hard to get enough protein without meat and dairy products.

Modern farming practices that made it possible to feed most the world, come with social, environmental and economic cost. What do people eat when the locus come in and destroy the crops, or weather prevents people from having a good crop? What farming practices improved the yield and gave those who farm an excess that they could sell? And what did improved farming methods have to do with freeing human labor for industry? How has trade changed our potential to have more food? How about what discovering spices, tomatoes and potatoes did to our ability to have plenty of food? How about what discovering how to prevent bacteria did to our food supply? You live in a world that is totally changed and it has not been that long since people everywhere died because of a poor diet. Today the problem is changed, they gtet enough calories but eat the wrong foods and people are destroying their lives and their children's lives with harmful foods.

There is a huge, huge difference between the over abundance and serious health problems today and starvation in the past. You can imagine feeding the world because you have a full belly and didn't put much effort to getting that food. If you lived in a village where every winter neighbors starved to death, and you feared not having enough to eat, you would not be thinking of feeding the world. History gives us perspective and that perspective is necessary for good judgment.

There as always been enough food to feed everyone on the planet, every day. It's the distribution system that's flawed. — universeness

That is not at all what we learn from history. Starvation was common and it brought civilizations down.

Globally, it has been estimated that 26,082 tonnes of food, goes to waste every single day. — universeness

This would not be so without modern farming practices and that is not sustainable and goes with poluting rivers and the ocean. Not all countries can meet their population's needs because they do not have enough agricultural land and water everywhere is becoming a serious problem.

I think eliminating dairy and meat from our diets would increase malnutrition. I think the United Nations' statement is distorted by its mission. Getting enough protein in our diets can be a problem. Researchers are trying to increase the protein in rice however we should know rice is a significantly large methane gas problem and scientists are working on this problem as well. Soy is a good source of protein and problems too.

Like many other intensive farms, soy farms not only harm the environment but also have numerous social impacts, especially on rural communities. While soybean production can boost economic growth, it can also increase income inequality and affect human health via water pollution and occupational hazards.Jan 25, 2022

Soy Farms: Is Soy Farming Bad for the Environment? | FFAC — FFAC

About that economic and social problem, many farmers in India have killed themselves when they lost their plots to the intensive farmers. We can see in the US how corporate farmers have taken out small farmers. We can see the income disparity and the Native American fight for their environment with big corporations that threaten their land and water. We are not respecting limits and that is not a good thing but a path to destruction.

How does 'our abundance' balance with 'hard to feed the world?' — universeness

Overpopulation. We have created enough abundance to imagine feeding the whole world and we have ignored limits. The terrible reality is the more we feed people the more they reproduce, making the problems worse. We absolutely must recognize limits and adjust to living within those limits.

Sounds to me, like the solution IS ideas like the Venus project, which have never been enacted. — universeness

The Venus Project is only one idea. We have planned communities all over the US and some are doing very well. The Japanese have also created planned communities making protecting the children a top priority. The Chinese are working on a building that is like an entire city. People can spend their lives in that building and never have to have to leave as their homes, jobs, and stores are all in the building. China has a 50-lane highway. In the US we are accustomed to fewer people and more space. We need to understand what we are dealing with before we assume the only problem with the Venus Project is we have not followed through on the plans and I do not think we would like the control that comes with the Venus Project.

Now Buckminster Fuller had some wonderful ideas. You might google him and expand your knowledge of what people are working on so you can share that knowledge. If we want to change the world, we have to plant seeds (thoughts) and hope others will pick them up and work on them. Just saying things are terrible and talking as though humans are basically awful creatures will not bring about the good.

Which 'laws of nature' are you referring to that we should fear violating? — universeness

How about the law of survival of the fittest? We can bring out the best in each other or the worst. I think if it were possible to meet all of a person's needs without requiring something of that person, we would get the worst. Nature has its way of killing off the weak. :lol: That is wide open for attack and I hope it is attacked because it may be worth thinking about.

Money is a human invented means of exchange, which has proven to be, and has even been labelled as, 'the root of all evil.' — universeness

Really? That is a false cliche. Around the world, people are living in abject poverty and ignorance and when humans live that far down the ladder of human achievements life is harsh and cruel. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and natural disasters are teaching us just how hard it is to feed the world and we do care. We care very much. In our abundance we imagine things like the Venus Project, but exactly what has the Venus Project contributed to the world?

2. A new layered authority system which is democratically elected but has a political structure at the top and layered structures of elected citizen representative stakeholders, alongside, to moderate and scrutinise governmental policy. No second 'house of aristocrats, or plutocrats or house of political party representatives — universeness

I think replacing the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model and having education for democracy would get us closer to a more equitable social/economic order.

If full information is unavailable, no matter what time you have at your disposal, then I will seek to have a predominance of supporting evidence, before I take action. We do not want to repeat any historical errors, especially those made by theists. — universeness

Always full information is not available. We have increased our knowledge and our technology for dealing with information but we should never believe we know all there is to know. The universe is too complex for us to believe we know everything about anything. There is a saying, when we think we know God, we know not God and any knowledge is like that. Those who believe they can know the absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous. It is like refusing to believe it is bacteria and viruses that make us ill because we can not see them and the Bible says if we have a problem it begins with our heart and it mentions demons. It took the medical profession over a hundred years from when someone with a microscope saw the bacteria and viruses the acceptance of sanitation being essential to preventing infections. The change happened when those in the medical profession thought, what if that is so? First, only a few experimented with sanitation and finally, there was enough evidence for the truth to be universally accepted. It is by knowing we do not know that makes it possible for us to know.

I will check it out. Thank you.

It's the structure that makes us cattle. But it's a double-bind, as the structure creates the goods and services you so love (like electricity, plastics, medicine, various materials, mining, food production, electronics, furniture, fixtures, goods of all varieties, heating, buildings, infrastructure, transportation, roads, ANYTHING). So unless you forgo that, back to the cattle pens we go as we monger minutia in the cattle feed. — schopenhauer1

Your comment sent me looking for more information and I am thrilled with this site https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.12.59/

The author of the review of the book Susan A. Curry, quotes Pierre Bourdieu’ “‘a system of internalized schemes that have the capacity to generate all thoughts, perceptions, and actions characteristic of a culture’”

Back in the day, the technological advancements you mention did not exist and to my surprise, the ownership of cattle and a sacred economy went together, and their internalized schemes came out of herding cattle, not living as we live today. I am thrilled by how this information can increase our awareness of our own internalized and economy.

How might things be different if we had a sacred economy? Do we have any examples of a sacred economy today? How about the Mormons maintaining a supply of food, or futher back, Puritan business and fincial practices? What is lurking our subconscious as we speak of the reality we experience today?

Ancient Greeks had a sacred economy based on the gods and herding cattle even after they became city dwellers and raised cattle on communal land, making the cattle commonwealth, not just an individual's wealth. Oh, oh the Jews dealt with this transition from herding to being settled and having private property.

Yipes I got a little off topic so I will tie back into the topic. What is in our subconscious that gives form to our speculations? What happens to our liberty when we are trapped by our desires?

Well, yes. What's the point of being a powerful authority if you can't decide what is true? "We'll decide what the Truth is, thank you, and perhaps we will provide you with an abbreviated, sanitized version at some point in the future, depending on our estimate of what you need to know. People don't like being burdened with disturbing information. In any case, don't call us, we'll call you." — BC

:lol: Yes I remember something about Athenians believing their heroes are chosen by the gods, and not all of the chosen have the arete to live up to the calling but remain as the herd dependent on the Shepard. A concern about democracy is the masses being as cattle because they avoid thinking as you say but can be easily lead in the wrong direction. Interestingly, although Greek philosophers discussed education they did not take the education of children seriously.

'Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. — Wayfarer

Wow, I really enjoyed that and bookmarked it so I can return to it. I have a lot of thinking to do with that information. Thank you.

Isn't this kind of thinking essentially postulating a golden era when people were closer to truth? Do you think this is an accurate assessment? — Tom Storm

When were people closer to truth? What truth?

What if our culture blinds us to truth because our culture does do not give us the perspective we need to know truth and the authorities are the only legitimate truth sayers?

Oh darn, I was hoping for a different discussion. But I suspect it is unrealistic to hope for the discussion I want.

The basic means of survival must become free, as a human right, from cradle to grave, alongside free high quality medical care, and free, efficient police, military and political protection with all necessary, very robust, checks and balances in place, which are made as reliable as is possible. — universeness

Nature provides oxygen, water, and some food but it takes human effort to get that water and food. Just meeting all of the people's needs violates the law of nature and when we violate the laws of nature we get bad results. I do not think that is a good thing.

Second, where is the money to come from for all the free things? And should everyone get the same amount of free things?

What do you mean by robust checks and balances?

The utter rejection of all posits that the supernatural exists, until there is irrefutable evidence, that it does. — universeness

I must argue the universe is not supernatural and that being sure of ourselves when we do not have all the information is foolish. I repeat, wisdom starts with "I do not know". An open mind and ability to speculate is very important to progress. We do not want to repeat the mistake of the Church, do we?
We have made so many mistakes. Because in our ignorance we held false beliefs. For example, native Americans were concerned about protecting nature and thought of the whole earth as a living organism
Not until we did severe damage to the earth did we realize they were right. People are still denying their behavior is damaging the earth while they pray to God to be a good father who takes good care of them. I am not one of those people, but seeing the earth and perhaps the universe as a living organism we do not fully understand is important to me. What I do not know is important and I am slamming the door shut knowing of my ignorance.

Deism does not have an intervening God. That is why it is separate from Protestants and Catholics.

To be fair, in many places, no education is taking place. But fair enough- in upper-middle class areas, this may be true enough about emphasis on tech over liberal education. As far as bombs and such, you can replace that with any X products. You make boring things, you perhaps make boring people. — schopenhauer1

I think I do not know enough of your thought to understand it.
Why is anything made?

There are two ways to have social control, culture or authority over the people. The US stopped transmitting its culture when it began educating for a technological society with unknown values. Now we are scrabbling to have social order with authority over the people.

When the bottom line is the dollar, and ethics go out the window, what happens to how we feel about ourselves and others?

Can alienated people in an alienating culture overcome their alienation? I don't know if they can or not. — BC

If they do not they will manifest Armageddon. "The term Armageddon has often been used by Protestant fundamentalists to refer to an impending cataclysmic struggle between the forces of good and evil." Robert E. Lerner.

Germany was the Holy Roman Empire and also our world war enemy. It was not lack of Christianity that caused evil to erupt, but that horror was possibly the result of Germany's model of education for technology and Christianity. That same education the US has had since the 1958 National Defense Education Act created another nation that believes God favors them and wills them to go to war in places like Iraq where the US waged war against evil. Bringing us to a new reality of having more national enemies than ever before. This really matters when the world starts dividing and those who hate us start uniting forces. Perhaps replacing our liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purposes has a downside. Kind of like Athens becoming a military power and the nation to take out.

The US is not the united nation it once was but it has been uniting nations against the US and a man who made us feel good about putting the US first became our president and thugs fought to keep him in power and 6 year old takes a gun to school and intentionally shots his teacher. Something has gone very wrong.

I am very hesitant to go over my rant about replacing liberal education with education for technology but I think many of our problems are directly related to the change in education. Binary human thinking is no better than AI binary thinking. Young men who learn how to use weapons and how to make bombs, but do not learn how to have a pleasant life, are more than a workplace problem.

but Gnomon stops short of claiming it is God.
— Agent Smith

Not any more, he types that he is a deist:
If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism
— Gnomon — universeness

Wisdom starts with "I do not know." Deism could be right. There may be a universal god. The religious problem is not the notion of a universal god, but the divisive God of Abraham and the ridiculous Bible stories religious people interpret literally instead of abstractly. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same beginning and prophets, and with Christianity and Islam comes increased superstition. According to the God of Abraham religions there is a God and angels and a Satan and demons. And paradoxically religion is supposed to oppose superstition.

How about this- we do not have all the facts so can we separate the notion of God from the Bible stories? The Bible stories suck, but that does not prove there is no universal god. The best we can do is be okay with not being too sure of ourselves.

But don't underplay the significance of that event. That is approximately when the universe was called the universe. What's in a name? HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. The universe then became 'knowable,' and that is very very significant imo. Especially when you understand that there is no god required. — universeness

That is a big responsibility. How might we act on it and manifest a desirable reality?

If you are simply suggesting that humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, then I fully agree with you. — universeness

There is nothing simple about that. Many ancients thought we were created to help our planet. The Sumerian creation story is specific that we are here to help the river stay in its banks so it does not flood and eat the goddess's plants. But plenty of people around the world made the connection between human activity and their environments and food supply. I am really excited by @Gnoman's idea of blending the past with the present. I think we are in the Resurrection, with geologists and anthropologists, and historians resurrecting our past, so our species has more complete information for making better decisions.

Again I broadly agree, apart from your suggestion that the human experience cannot be massively enhanced by AI. — universeness

Oh, my love, you do know how to move a conversation forward. This is so important to the human miracle of intelligence. I believe computers are essential tools and the internet is essential to the New Age. However, we must keep our focus on the importance of humans, and this forum along with Gnoman's replacement of religion may be a part of the New Age. A time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny.

Yes, things are happening that look bad, but that may be the dark before the dawn. What is essential is how do we react to the bad things that are happening. It is when things become intolerable that we are motivated to create change. I am talking about something AI can not do. Only humans can imagine a better reality and act to manifest it.

We must not depend too much on AI nor depend too much on government. We must build civic associations and voluntarily manifest the New Age. Instead of passively sliding into Armageddon.

And when it comes to AI spell check reminds me constantly of why I do not believe we should rely on AI.
:grimace: Spell check obviously does not know the meaning of what I am saying and it really frightens me that humans will become overly dependent on this technology as we have become overly dependent on government, and people may give up their own power of thinking and acting.

Part of the problem is the technological change to bureaucracy, which is now so impersonal it crushes individual liberty and power. This is the despot of which Tocqueville warned us.

the broadly applicable Enformationism worldview could be converted into a religion — Gnomon

I am very interested in what you have said. Obviously, reality is more than matter. It might be hormones and brain cells that manifest my feelings, but my feelings are not matter. An idea is not mattered yet an idea can change the world. For years I have had a very difficult time with Western materialism.

I think the possible replacement for religion of which you speak, could benefit from Eastern and Mayan concepts of energy forces. Have you read Jose Arguelles by "The Mayan Factor"? I have tried to read it many times but get so turned off by the far-fetched things the author speaks of, that I put the book down and do not return to it until something in a forum reminds me of the book. Do you know of the Psycho Solar pulsation Matrix?

The end of the book explains a Harmonic Convergence, that depends upon self-empowered individuals creating rituals, celebrations, and joyful events expressing their feelings of peace and harmony with the Earth and with each other. Then there is the Jewish Qabalah and the explanation of the importance of rituals.

So what if we took you seriously and formed a civic association to manifest a new belief?

Fair enough, but is this not an argument from ignorance? I — universeness

Absolutely! There is no way I know enough to not be ignorant. I think Socrates' sentiment about ignorance is quite wise.

Its like "I don't know the answers, so, it just is what it is and that's all that it is!' I don't understand why you say 'its mechanical,' and suggest that mechanical is not connected to 'intellectual?' — universeness

I am so glad you got what I meant to say. Physics and intelligence are separate things. Glue is going to stick, drop something off the roof and it will fall down, salted water is less likely to freeze than unsalted water. That just is the way things are and no intelligence is required. If oxygen could not bond with hydrogen, we would not have water. What is is because it can be and what is not is not because of what can not be. Only later when humans come on the stage is there any thinking about all this. Unless of course there are creatures like ourselves on other planets. I think the whole universe is one big experiment, not something planned. I mean for goodness' sake if we were planned our backs would be a whole lot stronger. We could be made to be monogamous as some birds are. We are not designed well for our reality.

Chardin (never heard of him/her/gender variant) sounds like a panpsychist. — universeness

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French: [pjɛʁ tɛjaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃] ( listen (help·info)); 1 May 1881 – 10 April 1955) was a French Jesuit priest, scientist, paleontologist, theologian, philosopher and teacher. He was Darwinian in outlook and the author of several influential theological and philosophical books. — Wikipedia

What do you mean? Animals are conscious, yes? Or are you going down the solipsistic path? — universeness

May be I could have worded myself differently but of what are animals conscious and might there be an important difference when we come to human consciousness? I don't think there are any other animals that could contribute enlightening thoughts to the forum.

Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc? — universeness

I don't think so and I don't AI can give us a better reality either. What makes humans awesome is not the few geniuses but what our ability to communicate has done to our reality. If apes could communicate as we do, then possibly they would be just as awesome. However, if we find isolated primitive people, they are nothing like modern-day humans. I think our communication abilities are what makes us awesome. Some industries are learning this, such as those that promised to go green. They had no clue how they were going improve their operations to meet the goals they promised they would meet. Instead of knowing how to achieve their goals, they announced they were interested in knowing what others thought would be helpful. It was the thoughts of many people that lead to improvements. Apes aren't up to that, despite the movie Planet of the Apes.

So, don't worry about any 'science' you don't know or understand. I think we should celebrate the fact that as Newton famously said: — universeness

Now that idea is totally backward! We are naturally curious and that, along with our capacity for communication, has led to our awesome progress. Horses run, fish swim, and humans think. It is for us to explore all sciences and learn all we can about the universe. Especially at this time in our lives, it is our duty to learn all we can from geologists and anthropologists and related sciences and HISTORY so that we can make better decisions than we have ever made. If we don't we could become extinct and if we are the only creature that gives the universe consciousness, that would be a tragedy.

I enjoy the debate and I am grateful for those who take the time to contribute. I learn from all of you in many different ways. I improve my knowledge of where the stumbling blocks are, where the complexities lie. How to probe the robustness of an argument. I also improve 'details' and tighten up shortfalls in my approach to debate with others. It's all very useful stuff. I have exchanged with some TPF members in the past that I would consider an actual enemy of everything that I value but not on this thread ..... so far. — universeness

We have total agreement on that! I love what happens when we engage with each other. The philosophy forum has the best-thinking people don't you think? The political forums and be an extreme failure to be rational. Politics is another game. It is supposed to be less emotional and more rational but unfortunately, the political forums are not and neither is the news media focused on being rational as it once was when Walter Cronkite was reporting the news.

Perhaps Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING. — universeness

I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being. I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. How do I say? A triangle is not a triangle unless it is a triangle. Helium goes up because it is lighter than air. H20 is water, not ciritic acid. This is mechanical than intellectual.

Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man. What if there is no consciousness without human consciousness? We can discover the reasons and we can be inventive with the reasoning. How can we be less? We are pretty awesome! Or perhaps I should say potentially we are awesome. I do not think all humans are awesome but rank along with the other primates because they do not use their full human potential.

It seems much more valuable to me to see your wondement and your awe, as a fantastic emergence, that belongs to YOU, not gods or platonic notions of external perfect forms.
I think I assign more value to you Athena, and Gnomon and every human on this planet than any god posit ever has or ever will. — universeness

We agree. I suppose because I use the reason to define logos, you and everyone else, jump to the conclusion that I am talking about something that can be all-knowing. That is not what my intended meaning. The reason it is cold today is the artic wind is moving down and across our region. That does not require a god. It is the reason it is cold. The reason the arctic wind has come is the movement of low and high pressure. I don't think there is anything else that can be aware of the reason except humans. :chin: AI might organize the data better than we can, but that is not equal to our consciousness.

I remain interested in those like yourself (please correct me if I am wrong here), who are interested in building bridges between science and religion. I would say Athena also thinks it's important to find ways to do that. I would be interested in her opinion of your 'enformationism.' — universeness

You tapped on my passion. I love the Greek understanding of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and all the religions that were founded on math. :love: I am not a mathematician. Far from it, but oh my goodness, what the Egyptians and Mayans accomplished is totally awesome and I wish I could find better books on those worldviews. It was the job of great leaders to keep us in harmony with the universe. If we seek to know the self-organizing forces of the universe, as some read the bible and seek the word of God, we ourselves might come to greater harmony with that universe. If we saw the universe as greater than ourselves, might we have some humility and peace? Rather than rule the universe we might seek our place in it.

True. But you've scooted from "Christianity makes people passive" to "it's a two edged sword."

What is happening in the world today that can give the young a sense of purpose? I feel like we are free falling into chaos and desperately need to restore order and social purpose.
— Athena

Climate change should do it. — frank

Oh yes, religions can bring out the best or the worst in people. Actually, I think the God of Abraham religions are worse when it comes to being divisive and wars. The basic mythology of a God having favorites is just wrong. And we can't get much more paradoxical that a superstitious religion that opposes superstition. :lol:

It could be a truly wonderful thing if climate change brought the world together and we used our intelligence for creating paradise. As I see that, it would be much more organic than high-tech. If we loved our planet as much as we love our technology, I think that would be a good thing. Imagine creating the most beautiful habitats instead of the most deadly weapons and fearing our own mistakes more than the will of a God or other humans. Our reality just does not make sense for intelligent beings. Blowing up millions of dollars and having nothing but destruction to show for all that money, instead of creating paradise. That is really dumb!

Christianity is a platform for a multitude of outlooks. One of my favorites is the kind that Abraham Lincoln grew up with. It dictated that every person is born for some reason. It's up to the individual to discern what that purpose is by listening for the voice of God in the events that unfold around one. Lincoln was apparently sustained by this belief, I'd say in a way an atheist couldn't be. — frank

The idea that we are born for a reason can echo back to Aristotle. Birds fly, horses run, man reasons. But what you said is also true about having a great benefit if one believes Jesus answers our prayers and takes care of us, unless we anger Him and then He punishes us. Both sides of the Civil War in the US believed God was on their side. The bible can be used to justify slavery or argue against it, and when people believe they are doing the will of God and God is on their side, the commitment to the colony, the war, the move west, will be intense.

What is happening in the world today that can give the young a sense of purpose? I feel like we are free falling into chaos and desperately need to restore order and social purpose.

I do wonder about this sometimes. I have been struck by the number of Christians on this board who have expressed similar sentiments, and it was foreign to me as a non-Christian to hear. That is, the virtue of humility rooted in the idea of being born into failure and requiring self-abandoment to a savior to pull you from damnation I would think could engender a feeling a meekness and helplessness.

Counter this with a view of being born into perfection and holiness with a charge to seek justice and I think you end up with a very different psychology.

My background is the latter, and the things people say in the religion threads regarding religious fear and whatever else isn't something I was used to hearing. — Hanover

Wow, that first paragraph was strong and well stated. Our democracy comes for Athens and the notion that we can be noble, and should strive for arete (excellence). It is not compatible with the Christian understanding of being born in sin and needing to be saved.

But Christianity is not the same for everyone. Starting with Calvinism, is the notion that God has a chosen few who will entered the after life and nothing they do will change that, nor will a the masses have a shot at the after life. Everything being God's decision, not our human effort, but not knowing who is a chosen person and who is not, everyone competed to appear as a chosen person, and this branch of Christianity befitted our economic growth. However, in the colonies they lived in tightly controlled small communities and I don't think a young person would have dared to be slovenly or rebellious. Some of the beliefs are very paradoxical. :roll:

I grew up with the Christian teachings and began pulling away when I was 8 and a Sunday School teacher could not give me a good explanation of why Christians and Catholics are divided. I made a complete and total break from Christianity when fear of being possessed by Satan tormented me. I had to chose either I was going to be superstitious or I was not. I strongly believe it was the Greek gods and philosophy that saved me. They taught how to be my own hero.

Yet, that's the main problem of my generation. Most of them do not seem to be motivated in learning something and they waste a lot of valuable time in wacky acts. The line of understanding what is worthy or not has become more and more blur. Paradoxically, our generation which has more opportunities for learning than the previous, are at the same time the most vague or ignorant. — javi2541997

I am not sure about your generation being so different from mine even though I argue a lot about how the 1958 National Defense Education Act ruined education. Maybe you would like to know, before the Act we educated for good moral judgment and good citizenship. That education had its faults, but I think the complete change following the Act was a big mistake and set everyone up for being dependent on the "experts" and obeying rather than being one's own authority and leading. We have experienced a cultural change, but youth are youth, the same as they have been since a Sumerian father lamented on how he gave his son everything and instead of his son building on the benefits his father gave, he was irresponsible and wasted his time. Athenians thought it was pointless trying to teach the young how to think because they would not be capable of understanding until they were 30 years of age.

To "win" is to cultivate virtue and self-mastery, though one doesn't triumph over anybody else except perhaps one's lesser self, thus this type of winning does not imply the existence of a loser.

Anyone can do this, and one may very well argue that virtue and self-mastery are cultivated more frequently by those who have less than those who have more. — Tzeentch

I think you may be right about adversity being a good motivator. I am concerned that Christianity has hindered us in the need to learn of virtues and intentionally act on them until doing so becomes a habit, because Christianity is about being saved by the Savior, instead of being saved by our will to develop virtual habits.

Your English is very good. At least I don't think I could have done better and English is my native language.

I desperately wish I knew how to awaken children to their own talents and interest and help them find a path to their self actualization. But in my old age I regret the young do not want to know what I think and they are making very bad decisions, such as smoking pot and refusing to go to school. As they know very little of life, they are sure they know all they really need to know. I think everyone creates their own drama about what life is and who they are and from there they are busy proving themselves right.

Well, they certainly figure into bad decision-making. On the whole, I think we make better decisions with reason than with emotion. — Vera Mont

Can test that? Seeing someone is in trouble, you do what and why?

The way generals do when planning a campaign? — Vera Mont

What motivates a general when planning a campaign?

I didn't. The capitalists, prelates, generals and heads of state did. — Vera Mont

You do realize we would not have this progress without capitalism right? Can you imagine how things would be it we went back to the barter system? There would be no funding for all the research that has brought us to a point of a very high living standard and believing we can end starvation around the world.
No way would this be so without capitalism.

None of the measures I suggested would prevent educating for democracy, or teaching people to think better than they're currently doing. What they would assure is each individual's access to the necessities of life, safety and education. Is that really so terrible? — Vera Mont

I am not sure. I know a computer would not care and would not imagine a better life. I am glad you are supportive of democracy and education. When trying to understand the good life I turn to family values and Aristotle's ethics. While I believe the good life rests on family values, many do not. Up until this point I thought you were putting your faith in technology instead of humans. We have argued because we both care. I think we share more agreements than we disagree.

Would you like to do a thread about the right and wrong of capitalism? Trust is vital to capitalism and our trust has gone to hell? That could be a delicious topic.

So, what's the difference between having non-empathic men in charge of the arsenals of the world, and having an unemotional (unvengeful, unhating, unenvious, unjealous, unlustful, incapable of cruelty) computer in charge? — Vera Mont

The political organization is different. Turning decision-making over to AI is like sending our best technologically advanced equipment to be produced overseas and losing the ability to produce it ourselves. We don't want to lose the ability to govern ourselves. And we should not have stopped education for democracy, because the most important decisions are how we prepare the young for the future. We prepared our young to obey, not to think for themselves. The US replaced its education with the German model and is now what it defended its democracy against. We can do better with better education.

The decision to kill hundreds of people can be simply a mathematical equation, without any of the negative emotions you mentioned. Our emotions are necessary for good decision-making.

Predicting the outcomes of different proposed courses of action is what chess is about. So, why should predicting the outcomes of proposed real-world decisions be any different? You can inject emotionalism, but that's never had the best outcomes so far, as it tends to end in bloodshed.[/quote

Not all decisions are mathematical decisions. What is good and justice is not mathematical decisions and creating can involve math but it is about more than math. It is also being passionate about resolving problems such as disease, and safety issues, and how to create a reality that is not dependent on fossil fuels. The human mind can do things computers can not do. — Vera Mont

And that is why we now have the greatest disparity in standard of living that we have ever had and the greatest number of humans suffering pain, disease, privation and fear - because humans make decisions based on their own feeeelings, instead of reason. — Vera Mont

No, we have that disparity because we have been amazingly successful. Back in the day, everyone had outhouses because no one had indoor plumbing, and no one had electricity or cars, or airplanes. The life expectancy was 45, until modern medicine almost doubled that. Today it is common for people to live into their nineties while in the past there was a time when children were not named until they passed 3 years of age because the likelihood of them dying was very high. How can you take our great success and turn it into something so awful? If the world was as bad as you see it, humans would not have survived. We have done far more good than bad.

Are you kidding? What do you suppose the Pentagon uses to figure out the outcomes of various scenarios and decisions they're contemplating? Any hand-held computer can predict consequences better than most humans, because it's not hampered by wishful thinking, hubris, faith, false association or selection bias. The only factor that limits this capacity is the quantity and accuracy of the information it is given. — Vera Mont

How do you think that is different from a game of chess? What you call "hampered by wishful thinking" is also knowing the pain of losing loved ones, or knowing the good feeling of having a father who is a good coach and always encouraging, Life experiences come with feeling and those feelings are an important part of decision making for humans.

You made a great argument for the importance of emotions.

Has no values, has no values, has no values. Neither do Donald Trump, Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, yet they have been the most powerful men in the world, causing lots and lots of other people to suffer and die. Why are they preferable to the UN - with the aid of state-of-the-art computers? They haven't bled at all. — Vera Mont

Those men and AI lack empathy. Empathy is essential to the survival of primates and humans. We had education for empathy and in 1958 replaced that education with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose and we have become what we defended our democracy against. The popularity of Trump proves that. This is not just about being prepared for technology but also being prepared for competition and making winning the priority. It has been totally amoral since 1958. I think we finally had enough pain to start swinging back to preparing our young to be more empathetic and inclusive. We can fault our past education for not being inclusive because the US was definitely not inclusive but otherwise it was education for good moral judgment. However, your arguments are based on empathy and wishful thinking.

AI is a tool and will most likely always be a tool as it will be able to provide the most optimal solution, but it won't be able to weigh the consequences of the actions that are to be carried out. Humans, additionally, will always question AI's decisions and selectively enact those which are deemed as the most beneficial to the world, while disregarding the solutions that cause suffering - namely AI's proposals that go against what humans believe is right. Humans might argue that AI cannot be programmed to have morals, and therefore it's solutions will never be right for people. — sugarr

I am not sure AI can not have morals because we used to read our children moral stories and to know the moral is as simple as as knowing this, causes that. For example, The Little Red Hen, and the The Little Engine That Could, and Fox and the Grapes are all moral stories. After reading the story to a child we would ask a question and the children would answer. The Little Red Hen didn't share her bread because no one helped her make it. The Little Engine that Could made it over the hill because he didn't give up. The Fox did not get the grapes because he gave up and made himself feel better by thinking they were probably sour anyway. Like chess, this moves require that move.

However, I don't think AI will not have a sense of meaning so what you said about its decision making is correct. If the decision is not equal to a chess game, AI will not have sufficient information to make a good decisions for humans. That vital part of a sense of meaning comes from experience and feelings. A child may feel the unfairness of doing all the work and others getting something for nothing, but AI will not.

"When human beings think clearly they think the same way machines think" - George Dyson (Darwin Among The Machines) — punos

That is so not true. Humans get emotional information computers can not get. When values are being weighted that is important.

Our bleeding would be of no instructive value to the computer. It has the information about hemorrhage, its various cause and effects, its risks and treatment, but it cannot directly intercede when made aware that someone is bleeding. People make people bleed - and sometimes stop bleeding. Computers don't. — Vera Mont

A computer understands living and dying as well as the 6-year-old child who took his mother's gun to school and intentionally shot the teacher. Now, how much power do we want AI to have and how do we maintain control of it?

Twitter pulled the plug on its bot when it started parroting sexist and racist posts. It was designed to learn and it did learn and it taught us something about how sexism and racism is spread. We have not worked out how to have freedom of speech and prevent social and economic problems that result from spoken words, and we are playing with AI. You don't see a potential problem?

I agree that your proposed system might increase efficiency and cooperation in addressing global issues such as poverty, climate change, and war. However I believe that a single government will eventually infringe upon individual rights and cultural diversity. It's omniscience, combined with the nature of the humans that run it, will eventually lead the system to instability. — sugarr

One of the biggest problems in the world today is our drive to reproduce and the poorest areas with the most children, believing the US wants to rule the world by eliminating them. Population control is vital to their children having better lives, but they do not believe that. Ignorance and fear are our worst enemies and what can we do about that? I don't think computers can resolve that problem and I fear if we give computers too much power, they might resolve problems arbitrarily without our permission.

But nature sort of does that too. Poverty and large populations are great for the spread of deadly diseases. Where people have exhausted the soil, there will be a decline in food and starvation. Where water is scarce a lack of water will lead to death as disease spreads and kidneys shut down. Where life is hard, people will turn on each other and governments kill their own people, or make war on their neighbors. Perhaps AI could not do more harm to humans than nature does. And if we don't see the need for balance as we double our life expectancy by keeping most children alive, we become part of the problem. And because AI has no values, it can only be a tool, not the cure.