As Epicurus teaches, the gods which are perfect and blissful beings are very far away from – indifferent to – 'imperfect beings' like us and even the cosmos itself. :fire:Ok, Let me try it this way, does fastest, most intelligent, strongest, closest to the four omnis, always result ina need to impose totalitarian or autocratic control/dominion over anything less? — universeness
You ask such as:
why would C take any notice of A?— 180 Proof
For a myriad of possible reasons, imo:
True, it's not my m.o., except when warranted by your silly "myriad of possible reasons" for why any attosecond (10-¹⁸ s) ASI would ever take any notice of any comparatively unthinking milli/deci-second (10-³/10-¹ s) lumpen biomass such as an individual (or swarming) specimen of the h. sapiens species. Just more special pleading "Roddenberryesque" anthropocentric utopianism on your part which, if I may say so, mate, is quite illogical! (\\//, :nerd: )I know that hand waving points away is not normally your style ...
When and where in the last half millenium did most, or many, human beings get such an education? And why did such an education fall out of favor with educated leaders (i.e. movers & shakers) so much so that, apparently, "we are not getting" it any longer? :chin:Seriously, I believe humans are capable of good reasoning based on truth, but I also think that requires an education that we are not getting. — Athena
I did not state or imply this. :roll:If you think that ASI is impossible for us to comprehend then how do you know it won't be completely benevolent towards all lifeforms. — universeness
:up:Of course I would say that the leadership of Hamas thinks far more like Bibi Netanyahu. That with talk you won't achieve peace. Appeasement is failure. Hence the stand of Hamas that Israel shouldn't exist. — ssu
Yes, I do; however, my guess is, if it ever happens, your "suggestion" will only apply to less than a few percent of the human population, mate (the other +97% being "surplus" and obstacles to AGI–>ASI's re-terraforming (re-wilding) this burning, toxic Earth).I thought you had assigned some significant credibility to my suggestion that in the future, humans will live their life span, as they do now (also enjoying any extra longevity science is able to offer, without too much invasive augmentation) ... — universeness
When post-Singularity "death" becomes optional, my guess is that "hybrid orga/mecha" symbiosis will also be optional (just as some version of 'complete transfer of an individual's CNS personality-functions from the baseline (macro) biological substrate to a (micro / nano) synthetic substrate' will also be optional). Again, only for the tiniest fraction (needed for h. sapiens genetic viability) of the extant human population. 'Uplifted' h. sapiens will also be specialized for long duration travel / permanently living in space – "replicants" won't be needed as disposable labor (slaves) in "the off-world colonies" because the "off-world" colonists themselves will actually be "replicants" (or maybe – more like – "synthetics" from the Alien movies).... and then if death is immanent they can choose to merge with AGI/ASI intelligence and become a hybrid org/mecha symbiont.
It seems that, from my reading of histories, at least 19 out of 20 humans have never been anything more than disposable labor in the ten-twenty millennia of (complex, urbanized) civilization – oligarchic dominance hierarchies – and that there aren't any grounds to believe 'the future' will be any less exclusionist with the advent of AGI-accelerated technosciences, especially as that +95% of human beings won't even be needed by then either (1) as exploitable labor or (2) to contribute to & maintain a viable gene pool. Policy-makers in 'the developed world' have been discussing implimenting UBS & global population controls (i.e. "thinning the herds") for a couple of decades now as automation and nonrenewable resources-depletion have accelerated. What I think is "unlikely", universeness, is a post-Singularity – post-scarcity! – future that will, at most, beneficially incorporate more than few million (baseline) human beings. My friend, I'm confident that none of the few will "walk away from Omelas" in solidarity with the masses of Malthusian, climate refugees left behind.Why do you think this is so unlikely?
:smirk:... true believer optimism ... Roddenberryesque utopia ... I say all this as someone who once said the things you [@universeness] say. I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism. — Jamal
:100: :fire:No serious critic of Israel is going to condone Hamas' targeting of civilians, but understand that the actions committed by Hamas - so often labeled as terrorist - have also been committed twentyfold by the Israeli government, which has indiscriminately killed Palestinian civilians, including children and the elderly, or knowingly murdered journalists and medics [with] impunity. According to UN's OCHA, from 2008-2023 (excluding the October 2023 Conflict) Palestinian causalities exceed Israeli by 21x, while Palestinian injuries exceed Israeli injuries by nearly 24x. It is equally unserious for discussion to exclude this essential context, in addition to the horrific apartheid conditions that Israeli has imposed including severe restriction on travel, an air, sea and land blockade, which placed restrictions on the goods and services that can enter including medical goods and services, food, water and energy. This is an undeniable form of quotidian violence. Furthermore, of the two million Palestinians approximately half are under 19 years old, with over half the entire population living under the poverty line - a direct result of Israel's blockade. What precisely is the onus of responsibility assumed by a territory comprised primarily of minors? — Maw
Whose "despair"? Those who are most frightened of "despair" cling to happy-ever-after daydreams in denial of ubiquitous evidence to the contrary (e.g. fossils, natural selection, entropy). 'Prepare (oneself) for the worst, strive for the best and roll with whatever comes' takes courage, mate (e.g. the courage to overcome – outgrow – self-flattering, faith-based anthropocentrisms whether religious or utopian).Come join we optimists, we miss you and Vera, we need you both with us!
The solar system will remain insignificant, if we optimists are too small in number and too low in volume to be heard above the din of despair. — universeness
Perhaps instead, as per Bourdieu, 'my habitus' (or Merleau-Ponty 'my flesh' ... Nietzsche 'my body').The limits of my language are the limits of my world because my 'belief' is the meaningstructure of the world, not something 'in' me. — plaque flag
How patently psychoceramic ... :sparkle:That you don't know what it means is your reality and not my reality! — Ali Hosein
This must be one of the most oxymoronic, incoherent, word combos in common (sophistical) usage. I've no idea what "your reality" – like that other bit of pop nonsense "your truth" – even means. Pure effin' p0m0 Dada. :zip:your reality — Ali Hosein
Apparently, you did not profit from our discussion on your old thread Spinoza's Philosophy, Ali ...Good luck. — Ali Hosein
Sorry, I don't see the connection. Spinoza is talking about reflective reasoning from (parallax-like) both the perspective of eternity and the perspective of time. Wittgenstein, on the other hand, is talking about the constitutive meta/cognitive constraints of logic-grammar. I suppose for both thinkers the "I" is impersonal (ergo universal? ontological?) ...Perhaps you can share any thought you might have on Spinoza's perspectivism, and connections to Wittgenstein's 'I am my world.' — plaque flag
So what does that have to do with your phraseI have used "beyond" here to mean beyond the limit of cognition and beyond our cognitive apparatus. — Ali Hosein
which I took issue with in my previous post? "Cognitive apparatus" and "reality" are completely different, unrelated, concepts.beyond reality — Ali Hosein
Well then, carefully re-read what Spinoza wrote (re: Ethics, I "Of God") because that is his point.About Spinoza, I am not sure that substance isthe same asreality ...
Don't confuse the nation-states with their populations as official Western media regurgitate ad nauseam. This persistent conflict is like an abandoned depot of boobytrapped, live munitions & WMDs left over from the US-Soviet Cold War. Besides, all the players are still incentivized as client-assets (or legacy operations) in one way or another by either side. The historical geopolitical context matters, sir; "peace" – wanting it or not – is only tactic.My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not. — tim wood
Unfortunately, the Israelis (i.e. post-'67 Zion-über-alles Likudniks) expect continued military & economic support and absolute security guarantees from the US because of Israel's active national policy to keep on "humiliating and beating" non-Jewish populations "to death over and over". Futile, murderous David seems now nothing but American hegemon-backed Goliath's highly profitable atrocity machine's raison d'etre (with civilian casualities on both sides considered acceptable, unavoidable, costs of doing business by "the planners" in Tel Aviv and Washington, DC). I wonder, however, have they planned for a wider war? No doubt Tehran & Moscow want one (though Beijing & Brussels certainly don't due to the coming price shocks in global oil markets and winter just a couple months away).You can't keep humiliating and beating people to death, over and over, and expect nothing. — Manuel
Okay, but why? :chin:Try to get through life as joyfully as possible while doing others and the planet as little harm as possible. — Vera Mont
What I wrote should suffice ...First of all, "flourishing" is too vague. What do you mean by it? — Jerry
Apparently you intend to quarrel with a strawman or English is not your first language as evidenced here:Human flourishing (i.e. optimization of common agency via reduction of individual harms). — 180 Proof
You ask what do I mean by "flourishing", then you claim I mean something I've neither stated nor implied. Please don't waste any more of your time or mine with tendentious twaddle like this, Jerry. Take issue with what I actually say or ignore it. :shade:... the flourishing you seem to be proposing, which is to make the human species as a whole "flourish", in terms of reducing harm and promoting good will towards others. — Jerry
:up: :up:One of the worst judgements of humankind is that humans are not objects, that they are something other than, something over and above the thing itself. I wager that no other idea has given a greater motive toward the destruction of these objects. — NOS4A2
And "the goal" of virtue ethics is flourishing (re last paragraph of my post ).I now prefer more virtue-based ethics than consequentialism ... — Jerry
I stated "the goal" is flourishing and that reason provides "grounding" of a "system" to facilitate flourishing. I said nothing about "survival", Jerry. As for why flourishing "ought" to "be the goal"? That's as silly as asking why health-fitness ought to be the goal of medicine or why sustainability ought to be the goal of social ecology.I'll just go ahead and ask, why ought this be the goal? You say the grounding for it is, from what I understand, supporting our own survival — Jerry
:fire:Against us, no other species has a chance. Against us, neither have we. — Vera Mont
Human flourishing (i.e. optimization of common agency via reduction of individual harms¹).What should be the goal of a moral system? — Jerry
Reason (i.e. performative self-consistency of reducing risks of dysfunctions¹ due to neglecting / exacerbating our species functional defects (i.e. natural vulnerabilities e.g. thirst-hunger, bereavement, insecurity, shame, mortality, confusion, etc))What is the grounding for the moral system, ...?
Habits cultivated – reinforced – through 'moral' conduct, judgments & relationships are either more adaptive (flourishing, virtuous) or more maladaptive (languishing, vicious). "Good deeds happen" because, as most socialized children learn by trial & error, they tend to work more often in social circumstances than "bad deeds".... and if we aren't obligated to do good deeds, why should good deeds happen?
They existed (flourished profusely) for "between 165 and 177 million years"! That's quite an achievement compared to h. sapiens (quasi-eusocial self-destructive mass-murderers) which have only existed for around 200 thousand years and already are knowingly on the brink of a number of self-inflicted extinctions. :mask:The dinos had between 165 and 177 million years of existence on the Earth. What did they achieve? — universeness
