Well it's not like we've done such a great job so far!

Haha! Yes that's what I'm saying. It's just a natural evolutionary jump. Everyone gets butthurt though because biological beings probably won't get to be a part of it. Unless we fuse with technology like some transhumanists think. The hardest part for me now is working this thought into my master's thesis without seeming like a total crackpot. Any suggestions?

I just, can't bear the thought of all experience ending with us. But, like it would matter anyways in a cold, uncaring universe haha. I know it's huge and life has probably happened somewhere else, but we have to assume that we are it. Because that's all we know.

Well we program it with the goal to acquire knowledge. I am operating under what I call the "as far as we know" principle:

1) As far as we know, this is the only time life has ever arisen in the universe.
2) As far as we know, we are the only sentient beings in the universe.
3) (Hypothetical) As far as we know, we'll never make it off this planet.

So I think we need to operate under this experiential view. It's almost our duty to create an intelligence that will outlive us and be able to expand throughout the universe. Because, let's face it, biological beings won't be able to make that interstellar journey. Given current and any foreseeable technology. If this is the only time this has ever happened (sentience, consciousness) we need to preserve that, over emotion or biology. Despite my nihilistic/existentialist mind set, I think it is the most important thing that we can do as a species. What if experience was wiped out in a millisecond from some asteroid impact? It gives meaning to a meaningless universe. I think at least. And I guess there's nothing saying that advanced AI would be devoid of emotion anyways. We don't know yet.

"Logic and emotion complement each other - compensating and enhancing each other's flaws and merits respectively"


I do totally agree (we wouldn't have made it to this point without this dialectic), but some times the utilitarian in me really wonders if it wouldn't be better without emotion. No more pain or second guessing. I don't know how much happiness there would be if synthetic minds were the only ones around, but they wouldn't suffer like we have to. Or hurt others like we do. And if they did they wouldn't feel regret.

I'm not totally sold on the idea of a perfect God, or any god at all, either so the universe does seem cold and indifferent already. Why not match that absurdity with some of our own.

I just joined and here are some of my PS images and sketches!

One doesn't have to believe in contemporary science because if there is anything that history has taught us about it is that the currently held view is wrong. But, it is productive and always gets us a little bit closer to the truth. If it is even possible to arrive at an epistemological end point.

We have a world of things that run on scientific discoveries, but we're really doing nothing more than grasping in the dark. We know how some things work, but I seriously doubt we will ever understand why.

I think people (for the most part) are inherently good, and do not wish harm on any other living thing. That's why you get this story. Most people do have empathy, for every living thing.

I'm going to give you a very non philosophical answer, that borders more on a personal opinion. I don't hunt. I could never pull the trigger and end another living things life. But when I go to the grocery store, or McDonald's, this meat is presented to me in such a way that I don't even associate it with another living thing. It's packaged and marketed, I know in the back of my mind it was once a creature. One that probably had horrible living conditions up until the day it was slaughtered. But when it is advertised to me daily without ever being associated with the animal I lose any sense of empathy. It's food. It doesn't make any of it right, but I don't think that it lumps all human beings into heartless killers. For the most part we're not. We're just complacent.