It's the first one I've had here and as a veteran of philosophy forums it seems to me almost miraculously thoughtful and sensible, I'm excited to be talking to such interesting people. — FrancisRay

Second that!

But I am very far from dismissing your worries — Srap Tasmaner

Understood, no problem. But if you'll review my post again you might see it's actually not about you.

I don't happen to know what the debates look like around gene editing and the like, but I've been around long enough to know that the whole field has been steeped in ethical debate from the beginning, — Srap Tasmaner

I hear you, true enough. But genetic engineering is still racing ahead at full speed, isn't it? Or am I missing some restrictions which have been agreed upon?

I'm still really glad you brought this up and it's a good reminder that we should all learn a lot more about what's going on. — Srap Tasmaner

Thank you, and thanks for your patience when I type too quickly. I'm probably engaging in too many places right now. I don't even know why I type about this actually, as I suspect the bus is just going to have to run off the road before we're willing to take it seriously. Human beings learn by pain.

If it is not a secret I'd be interested to know where your woodland retreat is. — FrancisRay

Here ya go: San Felasco State Park

Briefly, what I've learned there. Twenty years ago I sold a business and was flush with cash. My idea was to fulfill the classic Hippy dream of going out West, Oregon and such. My wife wasn't up for such a big change. So I made do with what was available locally, and this park is just four miles up the road.

What I learned there is that it's not the place, it's the relationship with the place that matters. In other words, it's all in my head. Now I'm too old and lazy to get much farther than the county line, so it's good I learned that. :-)

Also, if you're in a hurry and need to move things along, I find that being an insufferable zit can speed the process up. :-)

If anyone's seen the new Netflix show about the Chicago 7 - which is pretty entertaining — StreetlightX

Yes, watching it now, agreed. Particularly of interest to we geezer hippies.

It's easy to delete your discussion. Just start filling it full of crap. The mods will handle the rest. :-)

Black Elk of the Dakotas tells us that when the white man arrived in their lands what amazed the tribes most was that they got their religion out of a book and argued about it like lawyers. This was incomprehensible to them. — FrancisRay

Ha, ha! Good one. :-)

People worried about the AI alignment problem have been ringing exactly this alarm bell for a while — Srap Tasmaner

What both of us said is true. You're right, the alarm bell has been rung. I'm right, it makes no difference, the relentless march for more knowledge continues.

What could be interesting is a scientist who argues the relentless march be paused. I'm guessing such a person would find their career soon at an end, but I could be wrong of course.

I'm supportive of science. The problem is that the biggest threat to science is science.

I agree the whole issue of religious authority is vexed, that it is often abused, and that appeals to faith often underwrite ludicrous behaviours and ideologies. But I still don't think that amounts to a reason to reject the whole idea. — Wayfarer

My post above counter argues that some people should reject the entire business. If it's not working, and shows no promise of ever working, let it go, put it down, walk away. Try something else.

Open mindedness is good, but there comes a point when the most rational act might be to make a decision and act on it. Shit or get off the pot.

Regarding religious authority, which is of course a huge obstacle to very many people.

One approach is to spend a lifetime trying to find the good authorities while weeding out the bad ones. Ok, to each their own, but this may be a highly inefficient use of time.

Another more efficient approach could be to discard all philosophies, dogmas, doctrines, assertions, ideologies, understandings, insights etc in a single move. If we're not chasing such things, we don't require authorities.

Authorities and philosophies etc are based on the assumption that the problem we're trying to address arises from the content of thought. Thus, the authorities suggest various ways that content should be edited.

If it is instead true that the problem of human suffering arises from the medium of thought itself, then we're looking at a mechanical issue which can be addressed by simple mechanical means. Don't really need experts and authorities for this. And no one need believe me about this either. They can conduct their own experiments and come to their own conclusions. No faith needed. No authorities needed.

If you were practical you’d keep your silly fantasies about fellow posters to yourself and stick to the topics. — praxis

If we define practical as keeping you as a member of this thread who is engaged by the other members, certain issues need to be addressed. That said, you're headed in the right direction so just keep going and then my silly fantasies will not be necessary.

However, this access is uncommon and therefore the common folk necessary need to take whatever the Buddha claims about the nature of reality on faith — praxis

No one need take on faith a core principle of Christianity, the experience of love. Try it, if you like it, do more of it. No one need to take on faith the value of meditation. Try it, if you like it, do more of it. Fully empirical. No authority involved.

Faith is obviously not going to be a useful methodology for you, as is true of many people, myself included. This is way beyond totally clear and so the matter should be considered settled and set aside.

My argument with your perspective would not be that you are a heretic to Christianity, Buddhism or religion in general, as I have no complaint with that at all. My argument would be that you are a heretic to your own chosen methodology, reason.

It's simply not rational to spend years fighting a holy war against faith when you can simply toss faith in the dumpster and walk away. That done, your time and intelligence can then be redirected at those methods which you do find useful. That would be rational.

Whether there is anything at all within the field of religion that you would find useful is unknown to me. If you can find nothing useful in religion, I don't see that as an obstacle as many of the same benefits are available through reason alone. If it's true there is nothing anywhere in religion that you would find useful, then the rational act would be to walk away from religion threads and invest your time elsewhere.

Do you base that on personal experience? — Sir2u

Oh yes, indeed. Some of my best threads here been sent to hell. Others just to purgatory. Most are left to their own fate.

Thank you for a post with some meat. Refreshing.

I'm not debating your ideas here, just suggesting another way in which we might proceed.

Be practical.

There is a great deal of psychological suffering in the world, it's pretty much universal to one degree or another. Anything that relieves such suffering in a non-destructive manner, even if just temporarily, is good. To me, it's not that rational for us to endlessly nitpick anything which is working for someone, assuming no harm is being done to others.

Perhaps I'm too practical, but my question is, does it work? Whether it is a philosophy, or a religion, or a can of beans is of less interest here. But obviously, this is not a rule anyone has to follow, just stating my own perspective.

The fact that you call Hippyhead a nutcase is a reflection on you and has nothing to with him I find he speaks nothing but good sense — FrancisRay

A nutcase who sometimes speaks good sense. :-) Remember folks, it's typically the ill who show up at the hospital.

But a philosophical understanding requires getting ones hands grubby and dealing with the intellectual details. — FrancisRay

Without arguing, or suggesting what approach anyone else should pursue, we might keep in mind that I'm referencing different source material most of time. I'm getting my hands grubby with actual grubs, you know, in the dirt. :-) The philosophy is still interesting though, and this is of course a philosophy forum.

Thus Western thinkers find metaphysical questions both undecidable and intractable, while 'mystical' philosophers find them undecidable and easily answerable. They are answered by denying their extreme answers and endorsing a third alternative. — FrancisRay

Ok, I get this, and have been taking that approach in the God debate, without knowing what to call it.

So Wordsworth's 'spirit that rolls through all things', which no doubt you sense as you walk through the woods, leads us beyond dialectical logic to Unity and to the idea that reality is 'advaita' or 'not-two'.. This is called 'non-dualism' because it takes us beyond the dualism that renders metaphysical questions intractable — FrancisRay

This all makes sense, and represents my view too. I think we're just working on a translation from Buddhist language to armadillo worship language. :-)

To believe that we would as a species willingly follow a path to Mutually Assuered Destruction would be to accept we are doomed by an inherent madness — Chris1952Engineer

Whether we are doomed is unknown, but we are certainly mad. It's not just that we have nuclear weapons, we are bored by them. What can that be called other than madness? And it's not just those stupid people over there, it's almost the entire culture.

Why are scientists responsible for someone else's relationship with knowledge? — Mayor of Simpleton

How about responsible for their own relationship?

For genetic engineering: like, everyone, it's been part of the discussion all along. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, everyone will claim they already know it, they're already doing it, no need for feedback from the public, yada, yada and more yada, but...

The march for more and more and more knowledge (and thus power) continues full speed ahead.

You're confusing the acquisition of knowledge, and our relationship with knowledge.

Scientists are experts on the acquisition. Not the relationship. They suffer from a built-in bias against examining that relationship too closely, for understandable reasons.

Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both. — FrancisRay

I'm still interested in learning more about this, should anyone wish to chew on it. Underlying state common to life and death? Hmmm...

If anything the acquisition of more knowledge via scientific methods is itself the prevention of a bias. — Mayor of Simpleton

The acquisition of knowledge is indeed driven by an escape from bias, to the degree that's humanly possible.

I'm referring our RELATIONSHIP with that knowledge, and the power that flows from it.

Imagine that we were somehow to prove beyond doubt that science is a death trap. What happens to the scientist then? They may lose their job, their salary, their elevated position in society, their ability to send their kids to college etc. All such factors are a very strong form of bias which work against a scientist agreeing that more and more knowledge delivered at an ever faster pace could be lethal to modern civilization.

My experience in such conversations with scientists has been that first they will try to argue for the status quo. When they realize that's going to be more difficult than they first imagined, they often try to bulldoze over inconvenient arguments from a position of authority. If that doesn't work then they may retreat in to the "above it all" defense, claiming they are too important to waste their time on such nonsense. And if none of that works, you get banned from the site hosting the conversation. I've been banned quite a number of times. It's not a theory.

All that said, scientists are not evil. They are human beings doing the job we hired them to do, and they very reasonably prioritize their kids college education over the fate of civilization etc, which as parents is also their valid job.

It's not really an elitist stand point, but one that simply acknowledges that some folks who have indeed studied the fields of science will have notions and opinions that out weigh the notions and opinions of those without such acquired knowledge. — Mayor of Simpleton

We might keep in mind that scientists have a built in bias towards the acquisition of ever more knowledge, because that is their ability, and the source of the rewards they receive from society etc.

I used to try to discuss this with scientists, but I came to realize that doing so is much like going on a Catholic forum and claiming Jesus was just a nice guy. It generates far more heat than light.

Sure, but what says "we are made of thought" and why is suffering limited to that? — TLCD1996

I do. :-) My argument is that suffering is made of thought, so to the degree one is not thinking, one doesn't suffer. One is not happy either, as happiness is also made of thought. Not sure how to translate this in to Buddhism language, or if that would be appropriate.

Except for the last, it is possible for one to grow intoxicated with each one and thus "pass over the heartwood" (or miss the point) of practice. In this sense, one must not rest content merely with comfortable or pleasant living, a virtuous or "good" life, the peace of meditation, or even insight itself. — TLCD1996

This is because if one sees things as they are, one "sees all things as worthy of non-attachment", Thus, one lets go. — TLCD1996

Ok. Why are all things worth of non-attachment, in theory at least? Not arguing, just trying to get a better understanding, to the degree it is possible to explain in logic and words etc.

One gets a taste of release each time one gets into a state of meditation — TLCD1996

Off topic perhaps, but I've long wondered what relationship this might have with the advice of Jesus to "die and be reborn". Don't know what he meant, but sounds similar?

The thing is, you need to pay attention and understand it to make it go deeper, otherwise it comes and goes like any other form of happiness and you have little understanding of how it can be used or cultivated; — TLCD1996

Ok, that makes sense. I experience peace in the woods, and then start chasing that, and when I don't get it I'm frustrated, annoyed, suffering etc. So long as I don't understand what's happening I'm stuck on the treadmill of chasing. Like that, more or less?

Yes; I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but am not totally certain. Are you saying that thinking itself is the cause of suffering — TLCD1996

Yes, this. Don't mean all thinking is bad, but rather that psychological suffering arises from the properties of the medium (thought) which both thinker and his thoughts are made of. Our genius also arises from those properties.

GENIUS: Thought divides the single unified reality in to conceptual parts, allowing us to rearrange the conceptual parts in our minds to create new visions of reality, that is, to be creative.

SUFFERING: Thought creates a human experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very small, and "everything else" being very big. This perspective gives rise to fear, which in turn is the source of most human problems.

Both the genius and the suffering arise from the nature of thought itself, from how it operates through a process of conceptual division.

or that the problems that philosophy tries to solve are totally imagined? — TLCD1996

No, not this. Problems are real.

I believe these tools will give a voice for the "Silent Majority" and thereby: — Chris1952Engineer

Yes, I readily acknowledge that the knowledge explosion comes with many benefits, including those that you've listed in your post. The problem, as I see it, is the scale of the destructive powers being generated by the knowledge explosion, nuclear weapons being the easiest example. Genetic engineering and AI etc may pose similar existential risks, though that is far harder to calculate.

To stick with the easy example, the scale of nuclear weapons means that it only takes one bad day to crash the entire system. Put another way, the knowledge explosion steadily shrinks the room for error.

In the past the powers available to us were limited so when we screwed up we could then clean up, learn from the mistake, and try again. Powers the scale of nuclear weapons may erase that option.

This accounts for the quantitative aspects of knowledge, but not the qualitative aspects - the relational structure of knowledge. — Possibility

What's the relational structure of knowledge?

It's no secret that our proficiency in logic, individual and collective, exceeds our combined wisdom and thus the state of the world - on the event horizon of global catastrophe. — TheMadFool

Yes, that's all it is. The gap between power and wisdom is widening at an ever accelerating rate. Power races ahead while wisdom inches along at best.

A key problem that is until we hit the chaos wall the knowledge explosion delivers a wonderful array of amazing goodies.

If the outcome is 'chaos' (assuming we don't have chaos prior to the 'addition of chaos') why blame the car? — Mayor of Simpleton

I'm not blaming science, which does an excellent job of performing the service we ask it to perform. I'm blaming our relationship with science, or rather knowledge. We're like the driver in the car who wants to go faster, faster, faster, but is too dumb to realize that sooner or later he's going to lose control of the car and crash.

Why do we not give driver's licenses to 10 year olds? We are the 10 year olds. Not evil, not really stupid exactly. Just not ready for ever more power delivered at an ever faster rate.

I would further explain, but it's clear that all you're ever going to do is blast out these lazy little gotchas. Figure it out or don't.

Therefor you need to have a dialogue and agreements on it at an international level. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, and to do that we need publics which are educated enough to understand and accept the necessary compromises. And so here we find ourselves, back in this thread. :-)

I just read your conditions with the intent to comply but — and I guess it shouldn’t have come as a surprise — they’re unmeetable — praxis

If you find you can not write a thread which doesn't reference other people's ideas, write a thread about that.

Sure some may have it wrong, but most are probably well aware of the dangers... and take a pragmatic attitude on it — ChatteringMonkey

If we are well aware of the dangers, why do we continue down the same path as fast as we possibly can? What is pragmatic about largely ignoring thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats? Seems like the definition of insanity to me.

It's not one or even a group of scientists driving this process. It's countries locked in geopolitical struggles and companies in market struggles with eachother who pump huge amounts of money in these things... the rest follows. This is beyond anyone's control and probably inevitable... if it happens — ChatteringMonkey

I hear you. Not arguing with that, except the "if it happens" part. Doing anything about this may very well be impossible, agreed. But we are great philosophers :-), so we're supposed to try.

If I had to bet money on this right now I would lay my bet on the notion that we are trying to build a
highly globalized technological civilization for the first time, and getting such huge things right on the first try is typically unlikely. If one takes a long enough view, everything may work out in the end.

The idea that mysticism is 'illogical' or logically unclear is a misunderstanding. It's answer for 'this or that' metaphysical questions is the same in every case. It is to reject both for a middle way. — FrancisRay

I can get this. The vast majority of reality is space, and it would seem to inhabit a middle way between existence and non-existence. If true, then the vast majority of the God debate (all sides of it) is built upon a foundation of sand. If that is true, it might teach us much about our relationship with authority.

The origin of "problems", the Buddha said, is just our ignorance. Meaning, we don't pay attention to the processes of our life, especially the process of suffering. — TLCD1996

This could be a key point of divergence between Buddhism and whatever we want to call my perspective. As I may have said too many times, I see the origin of human suffering as the nature of that which we are made of psychologically, thought. The evidence for this is that psychological suffering is universal in all times and places, and thus must arise from something we all have in common. That can't be anything within culture, as there is huge diversity among cultures.

That said, should this be true, then ignorance of it would be a source of suffering.

So while getting beyond "yes-no" thinking is arguably quite important (especially since it helps us attend to nuance and avoid getting trapped in our own ideas), it is not the essence, which is dispassion and release. — TLCD1996

Could you perhaps expand on dispassion and release? If this is a bottom line, I'm interested in bottom lines.

Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought? — Hippyhead

I'm still unclear as to what you mean. — TLCD1996

Are you referring to my quote just above?

A 'positive' theory states that Reality is 'this' as opposed to 'that',It is the idea that one or more of the categories of thought are fundamental. For instance, we might conjecture that Reality is Mind as opposed to Matter or vice versa — FrancisRay

Ok, got that part.

These questions are undecidable in dialectical logic because both their available answers are logically indefensible — FrancisRay

Confused by this. Remember, no philosophy education here.

What creates this problem is not the failure of these theories but the assumption that no other kind of theory is possible. This assumption is popular because the only other kind of theory is the one endorsed by the mystics. — FrancisRay

Ok, academics are trapped in a box, and unwilling to consider alternate theories from outside the box, such as those offered by mystics.

The solution is obvious. It is to assume all positive theories are false and this is why they are absurd. Then we are forced to adopt the neutral metaphysical theory endorsed by Nagarjuna, who is famous for explaining the philosophical foundation of Buddhism. When we assume a neutral theory is true we immediately dispose of all undecidable metaphysical problems. The solution is instant and comprehensive. — FrancisRay

Not obvious to we armadillo worshippers sadly. :-) The neutral metaphysical theory? Are you happy you signed up to teach a kindergarten class? :-)

A useful problem to study is the 'Something-Nothing' problem. Which came first? This is an undecidable question and the source of endless angst in philosophy. Mysticism says the answer is neither, and if we see how this is possible then we have understood the problem and solved it. — FrancisRay

I get that typical Western thought seeks simplistic dualistic answers such as the classic "exists or not" paradigm of the God debate. I've argued against such dualism extensively all over the form, using space as the example of a phenomena which transcends "exists or not". So I'm surely receptive to what you're saying. It's possible that all that's needed here is more translation from your style of language to mine. Also possible I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg, so keep going if you wish.

So, the first proposition for a solution for metaphysics would be 'All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible'. — FrancisRay

So far, I would say I get this to a limited degree, maybe. Enough to be interested, not enough to be done.