That's not even wrong. It's plain nonsense. — Πετροκότσυφας

What makes you say that? Don't you use a telephone or smartphone nowadays? You posting this here instead of meeting at a public forum in person already proves my point more or less so.

So, we can agree that there's a dichotomy here between human kind or nature and technology that you are trying to outline here. One is stagnant or unchanging since a good while and the other is progressing at breathtaking speeds. So, where does your conception of changing human nature come into play as you've already mentioned? My opinion is that technology has already changed the human condition to a significant extent. I don't believe we are able to keep up with the pace of technological development anymore, and quite possibly we're going to have to converge with technology in some manner or form.

Some people think it will be a dystopian future; but, the dichotomy will eventually cease to exist if our desire to continue living keeps up.

Well, the proof is in the pudding if you will. We're still here even though we came pretty close to MAD. It's just that the rate of progress over the past 100 years in terms of efficiency gains and productivity have been mind boggling. I don't know how the future exactly looks like; but, in my view we have and will continue to make progress to the point where 'work' will be taken over by AI.

It's a rosy POV; but, I don't see exactly how you can deny it by any argument.

Is this a lame, polarizing caricature of the best and worst of humanity? Maybe, but that's what the human condition is; it's grand, beautiful, terrifying, horrible, disgusting, unspeakable. — Noble Dust

So, yet again I ask. What's the issue with technology and science here? They are merely tools that we either use positively or negatively to our benefit or destruction.

So, then Platonism is a absolute sense of idealism working on local and global state spaces? Just another way of stating the idealism of Platonism hereabouts.

EDIT: A while ago I had the question on mind, as to whether QM obeys causality. For that to be the case, then some absolutism in terms of 'hidden variables' or Platonism is required IMO.

Well, if we're talking about the behavior or things in state space, then everything is striving to the lowest quantum level, hence the most optimal state space available locally. I don't know how to explain relative state space due to not knowing how QM meshes with GR or SGR.

But, your point is correct, if things ALWAYS strive towards the lowest quantum state possible, and hence the most efficient route, then there seems to be a 'hidden variable' that is the idealism of Platonism at work, no?

So when Nature has a purpose - an intent to be expressed in an action - there is an optimisation where the shortest path is the one chosen.

This is actually a really mysterious fact - or at least it requires spooky nonlocality because it means that nature picks out the most effective path having considered absolutely every available possibility. — apokrisis

This isn't problematic if one assumes Platonism to be true, no?

I'm not quite sure. I feel as though, there's a dichotomy being drawn between 'rationality' and 'human nature' here. Seems fallacious to me, as if one can speak about 'rationality' while excluding 'human nature' from the discussion. It might be rational to some farmer growing stuff on a field that needs extra help from his children or some such matter. But, then what, how do you draw the line between what is rational and human nature?

The human condition... Hmm, go ahead and share your opinion about it if you want. I will assume a quietist attitude here and listen to what you have to say.

Maybe the shoddy wording was incoherent, but the idea is coherent in my mind. "The Good" (I don't really like that phrase) is incompatible with the human condition. So for the good to be attainable, the human condition would have to change. I don't know. It's a hard concept to express, either because it's very subtle, or because I'm crazy. — Noble Dust

Maybe we're all crazy? I think there's some utility in expressing 'the good'. We all seem to have our own conception of it. One of its forms is manifest in the golden rule and so on. To each his own?

Sad day.

So it's just Posty. OK. All is well. — Bitter Crank

It's just Posty? How dare you deny my inherent self-loathing nature manifest in imitating Schoppy1?

The human condition itself would have to change in a paradigmal way in order for the good to be attainable. — Noble Dust

Is it me or does that sound incoherent to you? How, why, and to what end?

I've always been a closet utilitarian. My conception of what is good, is that people suffer less and enjoy life more. Though, I understand the contention with technology being a means to 'enjoy life more'. We have a lot of spare time, due to the increase in output in terms of productivity of say growing food, agriculture, and other means of labor for a common unit of exchange. I don't think technology is bad or good, it's what we make it to be what matters.

When I said 'to each they're own' earlier in the thread, I meant it in the context of there arriving a day when people will be free to engage in any activity that they desire or think they would do best. Technology will eventually, in terms of having a benevolent AI in the not so distant future, provide for all our needs, and then well... noting much further than that. I guess people will be free from the need to engage in intensive labor. Then what?

Well, I think you have a point here. Personally, I don't believe in trickle down; but, productivity gains do exist through technology. I mean, it's hard to argue otherwise that life is more brutish than it was some hundred or two hundred years ago.

I have read that neurons are composed of microtubules which obey the principles of QM indeterminacy. Penrose comes to mind in regards to this and his conception of how the mind works according to QM.

Glad we got that settled. So, what are your thoughts furthermore about our future? Do, you think technology will save us or ultimately be a double edged sword? I would like to think that we could utilize technology to help save us from doom and gloom.

There's really nothing that I can say that would prove otherwise to what you're claiming. But I hope that the fact that I brought up the topic quells some of your concerns about my intention in making these posts about our future. Even if I decide not to have children I am still interested in people not excessively suffering over a preventable outcome. But then again who am I to make such grandiose claims about preventable outcomes?

I don't entirely see what we are arguing over. Please enlighten me.

I get very tired of these fake posturings where "the future of the race" is held up like a religious symbol. What content does that symbol have? In order for a future that doesn't include you to have content for you, it has to include you. It doesn't make sense. No one is fooled into thinking that (proverbial) you is so selfless that he only wants the best for the human race, regardless of whether you will actually participate in that future world yourself. That putting-off-of-fulfillment is analogous to a religious sacrifice. It is a literal religious sacrifice, but just not conscious. — Noble Dust

It's just a thought to contemplate, regardless of my level of selflessness or what have you not. I'm not Jesus; but, nor am I some sick and twisted person that sees the possible amount of suffering and death that we face as a race as something that gives me a kick or whatnot. I'm just interested in seeing the least amount of deaths and a reduction in aggregate suffering that people will go through due to inaction on climate change. Maybe this is my default depressive mindset just speaking; but, what can I do about such a predicament?

Morally, there isn't much that can be acted upon here. That was my intention in posting that quip. Millions if not a billion people will die from famine and loss of agriculture. The only good thing is that it's not an asteroid hurtling towards us or some such matter. So, there will be time to adapt if possible.

To each his own? IDK, these are hard questions that aren't being discussed even in academia (let alone in policymaking and places of government) nowadays, what else can be said?

One scenario that is likely to occur in my opinion is that we all just detach ourselves from this reality and engage in a virtual one, where our minds are uploaded into some mainframe or cloud computer sufficiently complex. I don't think it's a very edifying future; but, one where we can 'survive' nonetheless.

@Bitter Crank

I don't think climate change is all that bad. I speak dispassionately because that's the only stance one can assume in this scenario. But, it's a no-win situation. We seem able to adapt to various conditions and have in the past, and this time will be no different. Holland is already preparing for floating cities, and other nations are calculating the cumulative losses.

There was a time in the past when Africa was covered with lush forests, and that might become a reality once again if enough CO2 is released into the atmosphere. I've done some research (a little) and the countries that stands to benefit the most are Russia, Canada, and China from the new climate that awaits our grand grand children (won't have any BTW).

We will just have to adapt, and it's possible that billions of lives will be taken from the inaction, which is likely becoming a reality. It'll be one of those comic book deaths, where the superhero dies, and then returns in some sequel. Ho-hum, what else can be said about such a dark and daft situation without insulting anyone's sensibilities?

Sounds like utilitarianism to me. If you want to believe in beliefs that provide the most amount of utility to you, then good.

Heaven forbid the kids hear, wouldn't want them throwing F-bombs while they watch people impaled on the television. — AlmostOutlier

This is golden.

Welcome!

I would post this elsewhere where talk about physics is mentioned; but, other forums aren't as philosophical as this one or allow talk about philosophy.

The longer it takes, the better. A hard takeoff singularity is probably disastrous, as they're no way human society can adapt that quickly, and you end up with powerful technologies run amok. There's plenty of dystopian fiction exploring that sort of thing, and the friendly AI movement hopes the proper precautions are in place before we have general purpose AIs. — Marchesk

Yeah, I think you're right about a hard takeoff being too much for humans to adapt to at the get-go. However, the rise of AI cannot be in some sense slowed down. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing for us, as long as the alignment problem can be solved. I don't think the control problem can solved either. It will do as it wishes and if that includes a psychopathic 'desire' to eradicate us, then there's no hope.

I have my doubts. Mars is less hospital than the center of Antartica in the middle of the winter, and it's much farther away. That makes it very expensive and risky, and for what? To have a dozen or so humans call it home? They will be confined indoors on inside a suit at all times.

Exploring Mars with better robots and at some point human beings, sure. But living there? Maybe in the long, long run when we can terraform the planet. — Marchesk

Well, as long as people want to explore Mars, then you can't really deter them from that desire. People still desire to climb mount Everest, for whatever reason, so let it be?

People at the turn of 20th century were similarly optimistic, then we had two world wars, a nuclear arms race, and wide spread environmental concerns. We could still have WW3, and an environmental collapse is a definite possibility. — Marchesk

Well, to dumb it down (not that you need it be dumbed down, no insult implied) we have three events facing us as a species.

1. The rise of general artificial intelligence.
2. Ubiquitous energy for all, through fusion and renewable energy sources.
3. Becoming an interplanetary species.

1, Is the most problematic, in my opinion, since I agree with Musk and others that AI is a real concern for us as a species. I have some ideas as to how to mitigate this problem. Namely, I think that if the human brain can be simulated, and thus give rise to AI, then AI will have human emotions equipped in it to relate to us humans. In some sense it will have a soul or 'psyche' which can be related towards and reciprocate towards.

2 and 3, aren't inherently dangerous, so again the main concern is #1.

That being said, I'm more on the optimistic than pessimistic side about human civilization persisting and advancing, despite whatever difficulties the 21st century holds. But we really don't know whether civilization is inherently unstable and always leads to collapse, no matter the level of technology. It has so with all past human civilizations. We don't anything know about alien ones, if they're out there. But one possible resolution to the Fermi paradox is that civilizations don't last, or there's a great filter ahead for us. — Marchesk

I'm also optimistic. I think civilizations can persist if we can overcome some literally, MAD policies towards each other. It's like game theory in terms of the prisoner's dilemma, and the sooner we can have a remanence of civilization live off world, then MAD becomes useless.

Or maybe when we achieve a post-singularity world, they'll welcome us into the galactic club. However, imagine what a post-singularity world war would look like. Weaponized AI, gray goo, antimatter bombs, super virues, and I'm sure nukes can still have their place. — Marchesk

I have some science fiction ideas about humanity experiencing a revolution in our nature via AI. I don't think any civilization can survive with violent tendencies. If we can overcome that, then half of our troubles with our survival as a species, would look more fortunate.

It would literally be a techno-utopia. And, I would like that to be a reality. I think the government on Mars, if Elon Musk pulls it off, would be pretty close to said situation.

It was already a cease fire. That was the Korean Armistice Agreement. Yesterday's was a declaration to end the war. — Michael

Great, couldn't be happier to see peace instead of war for a change.

Call the game 'analysis', or 'theorising', or 'psychology'. It's a game people play of theorising the games people play, that involves the analysis of what is a person. It requires that we can distinguish a person from a player. Sometimes I play this game, and sometimes I play another game, and the sense of being a person is that the same something plays this game and that game.

I am seeking the person who is playing the game of seeking the person, by playing the game of seeking the person who is playing the game of seeking the person, by playing the game of ... — unenlightened

Yes, but the subjectivity of playing the game of what call you not, is removed from the analysis in game theory. The mounting ethos/sentiment of this thread, as unfortunate as this may sound, is that people are egotistical swines. Is that too much to handle?

I wouldn't recommend delving into the pessimism, nihilism, and absurdism that those philosophers tended to offer in their respective works. It typically tends to conform to the depressive mindset. But, I read my fair share of Schopenhauer while depressed, so I guess why not?

I loled a little, but yeah 'China'...

Common admit it, none of this wouldn't have been possible had China not been on board.

Since there's so much talk about games people play, how does game theory factor into this discussion if at all?

Yeah, right. Hah!

China is the unsung hero for this outcome.

So, just a recap. After all the saber rattling, we have an end to the Korean war.

What an outcome!

EDIT: Upon further reading it's a cease fire, not the end of the Korean war. Still, amazing outcome in my opinion.

Wonder what got you banned after posting this; but, yeah basically, the fact that they need not be killed in the process of their removal is appealing, along with the elegance of getting them trapped.

This is amazing.

You can try getting one of the CBT books about how to combat negative and cognitive distortions. One book that has helped me is David D. Burns, Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy.

Stoic philosophy is kinda a burden when dealing with depression, kinda of trying to run the 100 meter in one lunge, in my opinion.