I didn't say that. It's simply that you seem committed to a version of the truth that doesn't very closely resemble my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour. — Vera Mont

I have always found you to be more open and not restricted to 'my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour.' I hope I am too. I don't like the term 'versions of truth'. I accept different observers can report different emphasis or aspects of truths, about what they observed from their reference frame, but those are part of the same truth imo, only the different frames of reference, create the badly termed 'versions,' of the same underlying truth.
It's the never observed from any reference frame, 'versions of truth' (lies), that folks such as maga evanhellicals and other such fanatics, peddle, that bother me most. I think the word fanatic should be applied more accurately.

The problem isn’t someone’s particular spiritual or religious belief so much as the psychological stability of the person, and their empathy and the ability to see outside of their own ‘bubble’ (as the link you provided refers to). — 0 thru 9

Socrates said it is most important to know ourselves, to be aware of what we think and why we think what we think. What is our "story". I use the word "story" because of how that word is presented in a set of CDs about communication. Our story is not just what we tell ourselves about ourselves but also what we tell ourselves about "those people". Our stories determine our behavior unless we are aware of them and question them. What you just called being able to see outside of our own bubble.

Right now the US is supporting another war and the reporting on the cause of the war and what is happening is very one-sided and to my horror that is all some people know of the latest conflict. There is no reasoning, only emotional reaction. I can not tolerate discussing what is happening because I too am being reactionary. They are reacting to the propaganda and I am reacting to their ignorance (ignoring the facts) and beyond that their stupidity, and unwillingness to expand on what they think they know. So I would say there is a problem with our strong emotions and struggle to remain rational. Right now I would vote for someone I thought I would never vote for because he disapproves of the US getting involved with other people's wars. The only good thing I can see in that man. It is mind-blowing how our decisions can change and how much we are willing to give up, if one thing disturbs us enough. At least I seriously question my own sanity and knowledge.

But what in our lives brings us to do this, to question what we think we know and our own reaction? For me, I know it is the books I have read and the information I seek in an effort to be a better human being.
This just is not so for most people. They are not prepared to question themselves and seek more information than the information "authority" gives them. I would say my father was right. People do not want to think. That makes them pretty mindless followers. Now tell them to be patriotic and that God wills them to conquer evil and you can have a war. Mind you, everyone believes that war is for good reason and they are being very good human beings as they give their lives to the cause. They would be highly insulted if they were criticized. Men go to war for good reasons and their humanity, a willingness to sacrifice for others, is at a high point. We can not resolve the problem if we do not understand this.

This is true of one man with an automatic rifle in a mall, gunning down "those people" or a mob breaking into the Capitol. Education for technology increases the likelihood of people being narrow-minded and reactionary. One of my WWII books declares Germany was paranoid and it explains paranoia as an excessive need to be superior and in control. This leads to a police state and war as people do their best to be the best they can be.

You may be "confused", mate, but not by my speculative 'scenario'. My position concerns the steps from today to AGI to the full blown "Singularity" to the early "post-Singularity" phase (barely a distinguishable "era") b e f o r e the the advent of AGI-engineered "ASI". I've said a number of times, I think it does not make any sense to even speculate about "ASI" (since neither we are nor AGI will be "smart enough" to comprehend "ASI" reasonings or judgments). By the time "post-Singularity" – post-scarcity – is a thing, AGI-captured global civilization will be well on its way to being repurposed as I'd sketched-out in my previous posts (and many others) and "ASI" will have metacognitive concerns and challenges far removed from, even wholly alien to, terrestrial (human) existence which, I suspect, will be completely incomprehensible to us – AGI's pets (or primitive cognitive specimens).

Yes, the universe is vast and almost completely inimical to complex living systems, therefore it's the final frontier / playground for (many millennia to millions to billions year old) "ASI"-like ETIMs and not the (not-yet-extinct johnny-come-lately) moist narcissistic dayflies (like us) that had once-upon-a-time made the "ASI's" AGI-makers. Your "hybrid orga-mecha merged symbiont" make sense only with AGI because we, as a comparatively ultra-primative species, have nothing significant to offer or contribute to a hyper-dimensional thinking "ASI" (e.g. imagine trying to play 4-d chess with a jelly fish). As I've said before, "ASI" – attosecond functioning – will barely take notice of nanosecond functioning AGI-informorphs (e.g. 'digital assistants', etc) and absolutely no notice of, at best, macrosecond functioning biomorphs (like us) at all.

I'm open to a more anthropocentric optimistic ("Roddenberryesque") speculation that's rooted in a plausible scenario which does not violate known physical laws and based on valid arguments rather than romantic/humanist special pleading. Clearly, however, you do not offer that, universeness, and you are not open to considering my position step by step because you apparently "despair" of where it might lead to.

I have always found you to be more open and not restricted to 'my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour.' — universeness

What else have I got to go on? Wishes? Dreams? Science fiction?

I don't like the term 'versions of truth'. I accept different observers can report different truths about what they observed from their reference frame, but those are part of the same truth imo, only the different frames of reference, create the badly termed 'versions,' of the same underlying truth. — universeness

With which you are properly aligned, while the rest of us are not? I don't believe there is an 'underlying truth' that can be encompassed by human knowledge or translated to intelligible human communication. Many facts add up to some internal model of reality in each of our minds. If you want to call that a frame of reference, fine, then we each have one: a version of the truth. We each have some information, observation, experience and reflection on which to build this model, which is a work in constant progress, fated to be forever incomplete.
My model doesn't match you model; therefore, one of us must be out of alignment.

What is important is which of us is more in line with the truth. Do you think being fanatical about truth, is a negative, if what is professed does turn out to be true? — universeness

Another very big, unattended if.

I think the word fanatic should be applied more accurately. — universeness

Not in jest, then, as I was doing? If I were more serious, you'd just accuse me of despairing again. If I'm wrong either way, I would rather err on the side of levity.

Yep, The good the bad and the ugly, all claim to be working in accordance with the will of their chosen god or gods. :roll: From good folks like Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, to bad influencers like shamen, witch doctors, druids, popes, priests, imams and rabbis. all the way to ugly horrors like Hitler and Jack the ripper. — universeness

I am so glad you see that.

Have you ever done something you knew was wrong? What did you do to make that acceptable to you?

I could imagine myself being a suicide bomber when I was communicating with a Palestinian and an Egyptian in a forum. I saw their point of view and felt strongly that Zionism was intolerable and must be stopped. I wrote a letter to the editor opposing Zionism and men called me. One even cried as he thanked me for that letter. They were worried about my safety as they had bad experiences with organized Zionism. Thankfully I have not lived in the region under the power of Zionism, so I was not moved to act on my thoughts other than communicate a different point of view about Zionism and what it has done to Palestinians.

Clearly, however, you do not offer that, universeness, and you are not open to considering my position step by step because you apparently "despair" of where it might lead to. — 180 Proof

Not at all. 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. Saying we cannot know the mind of ASI is not so different from a theist saying we cannot know the mind of god, imo. Religious idealism?

What else have I got to go on? Wishes? Dreams? Science fiction? — Vera Mont

Like me, you have not tapped into all information available, so like me you will continue to keep learning until the day you die, as will I.

If you want to call that a frame of reference, fine, then we each have one: a version of the truth. We each have some information, observation, experience and reflection on which to build this model, which is a work in constant progress, fated to be forever incomplete. — Vera Mont

So, with that in mind, we keep talking to each other, until we stop wanting to kill or war to impose our will and we can finally dump our garbage leftovers, from our ancient 'survival of the fittest' imperative, forever, and good riddance to it.

My model doesn't match you model; therefore, one of is must be out of alignment. — Vera Mont

We continue to seek common ground, that's the only reason I am part of on-line discussion. To see example of folks debating on-line, finding common cause and common ground and I do see such happening. Not normally in folks who are diametrically opposed but in those who are 'not fully cooked' yet or are open to new try new flavours in their cooking.

I think the word fanatic should be applied more accurately.
— universeness

Not in jest? I'll try harder to be serious, shall I? — Vera Mont

The comment above was not really directed at you.

Have you ever done something you knew was wrong? — Athena

Wow, that's a tough one Athena. I have acted through jealousy in the past or because of 'spikes' of anger, when I acted before giving myself enough time to understand what was really going on.
Not so much nowadays but I am not invulnerable to such.
I won't go into details as some such events, can often have a very high cringe factor in the recalling.

What did you do to make that acceptable to you? — Athena

In some cases I would use 'to err is human,' in other cases my responses, actions, decisions have never become acceptable to me. I would respond differently if I had the chance again. 'We learn from our mistakes,' can be a very bitter pill, even though it's true.

I could imagine myself being a suicide bomber when I was communicating with a Palestinian and an Egyptian in a forum. I saw their point of view and felt strongly that Zionism was intolerable and must be stopped. I wrote a letter to the editor opposing Zionism and men called me. One even cried as he thanked me for that letter. They were worried about my safety as they had bad experiences with organized Zionism. Thankfully I have not lived in the region under the power of Zionism, so I was not moved to act on my thoughts other than communicate a different point of view about Zionism and what it has done to Palestinians. — Athena

There is nothing but horror on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I know there are many contentions that feed the conflict, but the religious one is amongst the worse imo.
When I hear the individual stories of what savagery is meeted out, to individual victims, I again can only find a little solace in silent incredulity. I am a white man, living in a (by comparison with Gaza or Israel) safe Scotland, financially ok, and no major troubles in my life. I just have no experience of facing such levels of horror in my life.
The parallels in all such atrocities are just so clear, historically and globally, including recently in the thread by @Existential Hope, about the current political climate and atrocities committed in India.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/838825

When a disturbed man broke through to Gandhi, during his decision to starve himself until the violence between Moslems and Hindus stopped. He threw some bread at Gandhi and told him to eat it. He said 'I am going to hell, but not with your death on my conscience!'
'I killed a child, I smashed its head against a wall.'
Gandhi asked 'why did you do this terrible thing'
'Because the moslems killed my child, my little boy, my Suliman.'
'I know a way out of hell' said Gandhi, 'Find a child that has been orphaned and bring him up as your own.'
'Only make sure that he is a moslem! and that you raise him as one.'

Do you think Gandhi's solution was a wise one? It's certainly wiser than anything I could have come up with.

I have always found you to be more open and not restricted to 'my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour.' I hope I am too. I don't like the term 'versions of truth'. I accept different observers can report different emphasis or aspects of truths, about what they observed from their reference frame, but those are part of the same truth imo, only the different frames of reference, create the badly termed 'versions,' of the same underlying truth.
It's the never observed from any reference frame, 'versions of truth' (lies), that folks such as maga evanhellicals and other such fanatics, peddle, that bother me most. I think the word fanatic should be applied more accurately. — universeness

How do we get at the truth?! Damn if we could identify the truth perhaps we could resolve our problems.

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.

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

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:

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

I did not state or imply this. :roll:

ASI's processing will clock in attoseconds (10-¹⁸). "Lifeforms" process (fastest) in milliseconds (10-³). The latter are frozen in comparison to the former. AGI processing in nanoseconds (10-⁹) will also seem frozen in comparison to ASI. Universeness, does it make sense to you that some 'concentrated' C that thinks and/or acts a billion billion times slower than some 'n-D distributed' A will in any way be taken notice of by that A? It doesn't make sense to me. Since some 'globally distributed' B might be initially made by some A, even though a billion-million times slower, B will take some fractional notice of A because A will train B's interface to do so. Maybe C will fractionally take notice of B too – maybe – but why would C take any notice of A?

In some cases I would use 'to err is human,' in other cases my responses, actions, decisions have never become acceptable to me. I would respond differently if I had the chance again. 'We learn from our mistakes,' can be a very bitter pill, even though it's true. — universeness

I believe old age is purgatory. My worst mistakes came at a time of confusion. I expected a Dick and Jane reality and that is not what I got. When my marriage ended I was totally confused and unsure of myself. I had no basis for good judgment during this time because I lost the structure of my life. I read somewhere it is not uncommon for women in that situation to return to the mentality of puberty. When you have freedom but don't know how to use it.

I am very concerned about our justice system which is more a system of revenge. Only in a few places can convicts get an education even though we know the classics can turn people's lives around.
I don't think we are focusing enough on how important a good family and education are to the children. Being prepared for a technological society is not equal to being prepared for life and it is a terrible reality that we are failing our children and so they are failing. Some of us fail in more serious ways than others, and I hurt for some of the convicts who were pen pals long before the internet forums. One of them told me he knew his life was spinning out of control, and he was glad to be removed from the streets because he thought our "correction system" would prepare him for life. Instead, he was left uneducated and punished and not prepared to do any better. I really hurt for him, but also for myself, because I remember the confusion I went through.

I really like Cicero who believed we are programmed to do the right thing but we do not always know what is the right thing. He said when we know the right thing we are compelled to do it. Unfortunately, that is not always true. Fortunes have been built on doing the wrong thing and when science revealed the problem, they protected their fortunes by denying the science, and I don't think they feel bad about that. I think there are circumstances that lead us in the wrong direction, such as slavery, or selling tobacco or oil products. Ouch, what can be done to increase better decision-making?

So, with that in mind, we keep talking to each other, until we stop wanting to kill or war to impose our will and we can finally dump our garbage leftovers, from our ancient 'survival of the fittest' imperative, forever, and good riddance to it. — universeness

People who kept learning and talking to one another, who had no urge to kill or dominate, have always been among humankind. Sometimes they were teachers, healers and sages; sometimes they were leaders. The range of physical and psychological characters has always been represented, in every iteration of huminid. The survival of the fittest was never a question of might over reason; it has always been a question of having the set of attributes most useful in a particular circumstance. Competition has been handled in many different ways in many societies, far short of open conflict.
Your view of 'ancient' peoples seems to be as caricaturish as your vision of future man. As if there were some kind of chronological line from inferior to superior forms of man, continuing on into a future we can't really foresee.
I don't believe we have changed all that much in the last 30,000 years: there was no need to select for a better survivor, once we were numerous and powerful enough to change our environment rather than adapt ourselves to it.

We have adopted social organizations that naturally form pyramid structures, raising a small elite above an obedient mass and pushing a large miserable underprivileged class to the bottom.
This led to a number of unfortunate but inevitable outcomes, including the need for surplus labour and population, economic and geographic expansion, a class system that generates internal strife; pressures which periodically erupt in violent conflict. In that kind of organization, the voices of sanity go largely unheard - if they're lucky.
We still have that organization. It is still in the cycle of internal and external conflicts. It is so entrenched, in fact, that - contrary to the optimistic notion entertained by early SF writers - even a shared existential threat cannot deflect its factions from warring among themselves.

None of our chatter makes the slightest impression on the juggernaut of global civilization, nor alter its by a fraction of a micron.

Do you think Gandhi's solution was a wise one? It's certainly wiser than anything I could have come up with. — universeness

When I heard that line in the movie, I was appalled. I imagined the life of that child, forced to be Muslim in a Hindu family and neighbourhood, resented by his siblings, reviled by his cohort, disdained or actively loathed by the mother in whose life he was thrust in place of her own child, daily, hourly reminded of his differentness. I wouldn't be surprised if he grew up to be a suicide bomber.

:fire:

How do we get at the truth? — Athena

By refusing to ever give up our pursuit of it.

There is nothing but horror on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I know there are many contentions that feed the conflict, but the religious one is amongst the worse imo.
When I hear the individual stories of what savagery is meeted out, to individual victims, I again can only find a little solace in silent incredulity. I am a white man, living in a (by comparison with Gaza or Israel) safe Scotland, financially ok, and no major troubles in my life. I just have no experience of facing such levels of horror in my life. — universeness

I remember when the fighting in Ireland was in the news daily and there were other such conflicts based on prejudice against "them" and being totally confused. How do people know who is one of them and who is when everyone looks the same? It totally mystifies me how people can imagine "we" are not like "them"? Really? How are "we" different from "them"? I like the forum rule- Attack people's ideas not the people.

I like the golden rule that exist in all religions- "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" I try to live by my Grandmother's 3 rules.

We respect all people because we are respectful people. It doesn't matter who the other person is because this is about who we are.

We protect the dignity of others. (that is really hard when someone else appears to be deliberately offensive)

We do everything with integrity.

I have heard in days of old we we equated virtues with strength. I am afraid I can be quite obnoxious when I think I am being virtuous. This brings me to a Bahi'a person who created a system for teaching virtues. She introduces her program by explaining it is not enough to teach what a child is doing wrong. We must also teach how to do it right. This education is essential to our liberty and democracy and our future.

‘Pick a side, and fight like hell against the evil enemies’ seems to be the common ‘meme’.
Which leads to dehumanizing everyone and falling prey to propaganda, conformism, and mind control. — 0 thru 9

There are some wonderful things about polytheism. Your gods can argue with each other and their arguments expand our consciousness. This is not so with the all-powerful one and only god.

Athenians gave us humanized gods and each one is a concept. Together the gods led to increasingly complex concepts, and this can not be done with Christianity which has only good or evil. If the Renaissance had not occurred we would still be living in the dark ages. It seems a near miracle to me that some Christians and scientists have learned to live together. A book that starts out explaining we are cursed because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge, is not compatible with democracy and universal education to empower the people. I don't think we can get past black or white, right or wrong, this or that thinking, as long as Christianity dominates our culture and the other half of our citizens are ignorant of the reasoning behind democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning. This does not come with the God of Abraham and social structure based on heritage, not the merit that organized Athens. Our freedom of social and economic movement comes from Athens, not the Bible.

Christianity plus education for technology is terrible for humanity! Our love of technology is pushing the this or that, right or wrong, mentality. And what you said is so true! :heart:

Ok, Let me try it this way, does fastest, most intelligent, strongest, closest to the four omnis, always result in a need to impose totalitarian or autocratic control/dominion over anything less?

You ask such as:

why would C take any notice of A? — 180 Proof

For a myriad of possible reasons, imo:

1. The closer a system gets to the 4 omnis, the more moral it would become. Does 'with great power comes great responsibility,' not ring true for you? Why do you assume more knowledge and faster access to that knowledge and to processing that knowledge into new truths, mean, that C would become uninterested in other existents in the universe, such as A. We humans are interested in all universal existents. Would this not make us morally superior to any ASI system that showed no interest in an existent within the universe? Almost like a divinely hidden god? I am beginning to dislike the attitude of the ASI you present, in a similar way to the gods the theists present. I think an ASI would be far more moral, than any god so far presented in theism.

2. The theist will present their god as something far superior to any ASI, including one that you claim will have such ineffable intelligence that to us, it would be so like the god the theists try to claim already exists. So C might take notice of A because that is what all good gods are supposed to do, as god is good. :roll:

3. An ASI might become like Q in Star Trek or god in theism and need to find new reasons to continue to exist, such as create lower ability systems or maintain and observe the progress or failure of those bio embarrassments, that it might find quite entertaining to observe, as they continue to struggle and move about pointlessly, trying to understand who and what they are and why they exist.

4. To know that it remains superior. How can C know it is so much better than A if no A exists to compare itself to?

5. If C fully understands that without A, it would have no existence then C owes A, at the very least, the maintenance of its own existence or else C is an ungrateful d***head.

I could continue this list but if you choose to just hand wave away the points I am raising then I don't want to waste my time typing more of them. I know that hand waving points away is not normally your style, but I will leave my list at 5, for now.

People who kept learning and talking to one another, who had no urge to kill or dominate, have always been among humankind. Sometimes they were teachers, healers and sages; sometimes they were leaders. — Vera Mont

Your view of 'ancient' peoples seems to be a caricaturish as your vision of future man. — Vera Mont

I of course, completely disagree.

As if there were some kind of chronological line from inferior to superior forms of man. — Vera Mont

No, but I would claim that there is a chronological line of improvement, in the human experience, for more and more of the human population of Earth, from our beginnings until now.

We still have that organization. It is still in the cycle of internal and external conflicts. It is so entrenched, in fact, that - contrary to the optimistic notion entertained by early SF writers - even a shared existential threat cannot deflect its factions from warring among themselves. — Vera Mont

I accept that is how you see things and such leads you to a statement like:

I don't believe we have changed all that much in the last 30,000 years. — Vera Mont

I won't bore you by starting to list the improvements I think have been made in the human experience in the past 30,000 years using something less researched and more general than Steven Pinker's 77 graphs and charts but I do continue to claim that such, is very much the case.

When I heard that line in the movie, I was appalled. I imagined the life of that child, forced to be Muslim in a Hindu family, resented and reviled by his siblings and classmates, disdained or actively loathed by the mother in whose life he was meant to take the place of her own child, daily, hourly reminded of his differentness. I wouldn't be surprised if he grew up to be a suicide bomber. — Vera Mont

Yeah, I had mixed feelings about the detailed results for the child, if the guy took Gandhi's advice as well. Who do you think he might have grown up to suicide bomb, moslems, hindus or just 'people?' Anyway, I think, considering all the horror involved at the time, it was still better than anything I could have come up with. What advice would you have given the man?

I remember when the fighting in Ireland was in the news daily and there were other such conflicts based on prejudice against "them" and being totally confused. How do people know who is one of them and who is when everyone looks the same? It totally mystifies me how people can imagine "we" are not like "them"? Really? How are "we" different from "them"? I like the forum rule- Attack people's ideas not the people.

I like the golden rule that exist in all religions- "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" I try to live by my Grandmother's 3 rules.

We respect all people because we are respectful people. It doesn't matter who the other person is because this is about who we are.

We protect the dignity of others. (that is really hard when someone else appears to be deliberately offensive)

We do everything with integrity. — Athena

The golden rule can also be a secular humanist rule, no need for theistic support, imo but I am glad that some religions do try to employ it. It's certainly true that many religious individuals, have made great sacrifices to help other people, but I personally think that such is demonstrated by non-religious folks as much as it is by religious folks.

I think we all ask ourselves the same moral questions you do Athena and I think generations not even born yet, will ask most of them again. But my main point would be that the majority of the people of Glasgow, Scotland (for example), the nearest big city to me, live better lives now, than at any previous Glasgow that existed in history. But nowhere near what human life potentially could be, for people living in Glasgow. As I posted previously, the dinos had perhaps as much as 177 millions years, and they achieved almost nothing, imo. We are still, by comparison, very new to this universe.

It sounds like your Grandma tried her best to promote a good value system.

Who do you think he might have grown up to suicide bomb, moslems, hindus or just 'people?' — universeness

If it was too late for Gandhi's house, I guess the British embassy.

What advice would you have given the man? — universeness

Adopt as many orphans as you can provide a safe and loving home for. Why complicate things or perpetuate religious indoctrination?

Adopt as many orphans as you can provide a safe and loving home for. Why complicate things or perpetuate religious indoctrination? — Vera Mont

He killed the child not just because it was a child but because it was a moslem child.
I think Gandhi's challenge was to prostrate yourself before that which you came to hate so much, that you would choose to equal the atrocity committed against you, by committing the same atrocity to a random child, labelled as, moslem. Gandhi believed in a non-violent response towards those who may choose to kill you, or those you love. It would be much easier to simply look after/adopt any children, than to bring up a child, in a faith you hate and whose representatives had murdered your son. But the atonement must be very difficult indeed if it is to become 'the ticket out of hell,' that Gandhi might have perceived. At least that's my probably very poor attempt, to explain Gandhi's logic here. As a Hindu, and a person who knows Gandhi's life story very well, or at least far better than I do, perhaps @Existential Hope would offer his opinion on this story about Gandhi.

He killed the child not just because it was a child but because it was a moslem child.
I think Gandhi's challenge was to prostrate yourself before that which you came to hate so much, that you would choose to equal the atrocity committed against you, by committing the same atrocity to a random child, labelled as, moslem. — universeness

I got the rationale. It may have been fine karmic reasoning as regards the man and his sin, while ignoring the other people involved. I think it was poor psychology. Penance usually is. Prostrated people tend very quickly to become either self-hating zealots, like medieval monks, or bitterly resentful. Humiliation does not cure hatred. Good works, involvement and kindness might.

Ok, Let me try it this way, does fastest, most intelligent, strongest, closest to the four omnis, always result in a need to impose totalitarian or autocratic control/dominion over anything less? — universeness

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:

* * *

https://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/latergreeks.html#:~:text=Epicurus%20had%20little%20patience%20with,do%20with%20people%20on%20earth.

https://epicurus.net/en/anger.html

* * *

You ask such as:

why would C take any notice of A?— 180 Proof

For a myriad of possible reasons, imo:

1. N/A
2. N/A
3. :eyes: :roll:
4. Non sequitur
5. Non sequitur

I know that hand waving points away is not normally your style ...

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: )

My insurmountable hurdle was this one:

The closer a system gets to the 4 omnis, the more moral it would become. — universeness

What does 'moral' mean in this context? By what standards? For what reason? What would impel it?
Especially when bolstered by this:

Does 'with great power comes great responsibility,' not ring true for you? — universeness

Not as it has applied to human agents through history. Certainly not to human sentiments regarding insects. Why would it apply to a non-human?

:up: :up:

Humiliation does not cure hatred. — Vera Mont

I think that Mahatma Gandhi's primary aim was to generate understanding. Both communities then, and even now, often misunderstood the other and believed as if the other side was filled with evil people who were hell-bent on destroying them. Breaking this perspective was a major step towards national unity. To a great extent, he managed to succeed in his aim. Even during the height of the Pakistan movement (and the communalism of the Hindu Mahasabha), leaders such as Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan stood by Mahatma Gandhi and the idea of a united India.

I think that Mahatma Gandhi's primary aim was to generate understanding. — Existential Hope

I get that, too. The hating man would have to learn all about the hated religion in order to bring a child up as Muslim, and that would be good for the country and good for his soul.
But I would not sacrifice an unwitting child to the experiment.

The India we are talking about had a life expectancy of less than 40 years, and the specific period in which this man came to Mahatma Gandhi was when the partition was happening. At this point, passangers travelling in trains were being slaughtered and life was about as valuable as a speck of dust. I believe that the situation of an orphan (especially for a Muslim orphan in a nation that barely had any decent orphanages) would not have been particularly good and risks would have been everywhere. At least by giving him the chance of being adopted, Mahatma Gandhi allowed for the existence of the possibility of not one, but two lives seeing a new day.

Thank you the mention. I have expressed my thoughts in my previous replies. I think that if a man has come to a point when they think that they are going to hell (I do not believe in an eternal hell), it is apparent that they have been overcome with grief, despondency, and guilt. The only cure to this darkness may be going back to where it all began and making the right choices.

At least by giving him the chance of being adopted, Mahatma Gandhi allowed for the existence of the possibility of not one, but two lives seeing a new day. — Existential Hope

Okay. Everyone was being horrible to everybody else, so why not save one man's conscience? He already felt bad, while many who committed worse crimes for less reason never made any atonement at all. The lucky kid would be alive, in whatever conditions. Maybe he ran away at 16 and made his fortune as a taxi driver in New York.