Well, we do not know what happened. However, I would say that someone who has begun to feel that they are going to end up in hell (I personally do not believe in an eternal hell) is unlikely to live a fulfilling life for years. Despondency, grief, and guilt gradually take over all aspects of one's being and there isn't much one can do. But by going back to the source of the problem, I believe that Mahatma Gandhi gave the man not only the chance to make the right choice, but to also give two individuals the opportunity of love that had all but evaporated in most people's lives. As I told you earlier, the future of a Muslim orphan in 1947 India was perhaps bleaker than the future of any other person. Diseases, no parents, and communal hatred increasing everywhere. From what I have read and been told about that period by some of the older people here, reaching New Delhi was a tall order for most. New York would have been almost unimaginable. And if the man had chosen to end his life due to the unbearable weight he felt, what remained of his family and relatives would have probably been condemned to death as well because of the misery they would have felt from losing two people close to their hearts as well as a pillar of strength in a deeply patriarchal society (with extremely limited economic opportunities).

New York would have been almost unimaginable. — Existential Hope

Yeah - it would be magical enough for an American movie. 1947 was quite the year. Two ex-colonies getting partitioned into perpetual war, the princess royal of England getting married, the century's best vintage year in France, the birth of Smarties and myself. Anything could happen!

Anything could happen! — Vera Mont

Sadly, in India, this meant that anything that was terrible could happen. What became two in 1947 was, before the 1940s and even after the elections in the 30s, thought to be one by the majority. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in the beginning of 1948 was another humungous blow. Brothers became enemies and war broke out over Kashmir. We were fortunate that we had an able leadership back then (led by Pandit Nehru) that was able to eventually defeat the communal forces and bring nation on the path of development.

Edit: Usually, the positives we saw in that period were linked with the Mahatma in one way or another:

https://www.deccanherald.com/india/gandhi-the-one-man-army-behind-the-great-calcutta-miracle-2646644

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: ) — 180 Proof

:lol: Fair enough mate! We have nowhere to take this. You think I am not making much sense and I think the same regarding your position on this topic/area. Hopefully some of our other, future exchanges, will demonstrate more of the common cause and common ground we have occupied, in many of our past exchanges. :rofl: I even recall one TPF member warning another to 'look out for me,' as I was one of your sidekicks (a paraphrase, on my part). :scream: :flower:

What does 'moral' mean in this context? — Vera Mont

A code of ethical behaviour of course, do you think an advanced artificial intelligence such as @180 Proof's presentation of an ineffable future ASI (at least from the reference frame of us poor wee bioform incapables) would face the issue of morality? If it's solution is to act like a god of theism or to ignore or not care about most existents in the Universe, then in the opinion of this wee incapable bioform, such an ASI would be inferior and doomed to extinction as it would have developed poor precedence on which to base its future goals, and purpose.

By what standards? — Vera Mont

Human standards.

For what reason? — Vera Mont

My contention that enlightenment/adding more and more extent to your personal knowledge, produces a moral code that is more and more compelled to nurture all existents in the universe and defeat/contain/reverse that which threatens such. If that is not the outcome of enlightenment then what ever you did to try to enlighten yourself, failed badly, so you need to try again.

What would impel it? — Vera Mont

A need to establish good reasons for continuing to exist.

Not as it has applied to human agents through history. — Vera Mont

Which human agents? All humans agents?

Certainly not to human sentiments regarding insects. — Vera Mont

They why did/do humans ask questions and seek answers about insects, to the extent that they created Entomology? Why do we not choose to just ignore such low bio forms in the same way @180 Proof suggests an ASI would be justified in ignoring the low human bioforms?( that just happen to be responsible for its existence).

Why would it apply to a non-human? — Vera Mont

Don't forget, in the case of a future ASI, that non-human's existence would be a product of AGI, which is 100%, a product produced by us. Do you not think such an advanced ASI would have to appreciate that, if it is so intelligent? If humans create gods, do you not think those gods would owe us at least our continued existence and they would be seriously flawed if they chose to ignore as @180 Proof, suggests C would be justified in ignoring A?

Thank you very much for responding to my call. Your insights are, as I expected, far better than any I could have offered @Vera Mont, on the possible reasons behind Gandhi's particular advice towards this desperate man during such awful events.
I wish there was a Gandhi today, in power, on both sides of the Russian/Ukraine and Israeli/Palestinian conflicts. Many innocent lives would be saved I think. India certainly is in desperate need of such people today, as Gandhi and Nehru. I hope their modern equivalents are around somewhere and they keep coming forward to try to help.

Thank you. :pray:

I, too, hope that we will see such people again. However, until we do, it is imperative that each person puts in their best effort. The house is built by discrete bricks.

The house is built by discrete bricks. — Existential Hope

I just thought of myself as a total 'brick' for a moment there, and I though how some on TPF would want to change one letter of that term. :rofl: :lol: Sorry, just laughing at my own attempts at self-deprecation. I think it's healthy now and again to appreciate how others may see us.

A code of ethical behaviour of course, do you think an advanced artificial intelligence such as 180 Proof's presentation of an ineffable future ASI (at least from the reference frame of us poor wee bioform incapables) would face the issue of morality? — universeness

No. I think our notion of morality would be irrelevant to it.

then in the opinion of this wee incapable bioform, such an ASI would be inferior and doomed to extinction as it would have developed poor precedence on which to base its future goals, and purpose. — universeness

... which would also be irrelevant to it.

A need to establish good reasons for continuing to exist — universeness

H. sapiens - and not all members of this species - are the only creatures I know of that can't see existence as sufficient and need to give themselves excuses to keep living. I see no reason for this psychological anomaly to infect an artificial intelligence.

Do you not think such an advanced ASI would have to appreciate that, if it is so intelligent? — universeness

The way you appreciate dinosaurs?

on the possible reasons behind Gandhi's particular advice towards this desperate man during such awful events. — universeness

I got the rationale, several times over, thank you both. I have read one or two inside accounts of that period. Neither changes my initial gut reaction to hearing that line, decades after the events had taken place.
Isn't it nice to have more proof of how far we've come since the stone age? No humans would slaughter one another's children over land, water and religion anymore, right?

No. I think our notion of morality would be alien and irrelevant to it. — Vera Mont

which would also be irrelevant to it. — Vera Mont

I am sure a Borg drone would agree with you, if any existed, do you think Borg drone, is a good prophecy for the future of humans?

I see no reason for this psychological anomaly to infect an artificial intelligence. — Vera Mont

Do you consider that a good or bad decision for a future ASI to make, or do you think like an imagineered Borg drone, that such psychological anomalies, as humanitarian-based secular morality, is irrelevant?

The way you appreciate dinosaurs? — Vera Mont

I have given no indications regarding my 'appreciation' towards individual dinos or species of them. I opined on their achievements not on whether or not I 'appreciate' them or the fact they existed. I do appreciate their existence, as they exemplified that the conditions on Earth allowed for life to evolve, long before humans ever existed, no gods required. I don't think there were any dino gods. Don't know for sure of course.

No humans would slaughter one another's children over land, water and religion anymore, right? — Vera Mont

I have no recollection of posting such a suggestion!
I hope that such is an absolute fact about humans at some point in the future, however.
I also think our future will realise a global population of humans, none of whom, or a tiny minority of whom, perceive themselves as 'religious,' in any way, shape, or form.

I am sure a Borg drone would agree with you, if any existed, do you think Borg drone, is a good prophecy for the future of humans? — universeness

What has that to do with the question at hand? Alien life-forms, whether biological, artificial or some combination, do not require my approval and do not operate according to my preference.

Do you consider that a good or bad decision for a future ASI to make, or do you think like an imagineered Borg drone, that such thoughts are irrelevant? — universeness

I'm not in a position to make those decisions.

I do appreciate their existence, as they exemplified that the conditions on Earth allowed for life to evolve, long before humans ever existed. — universeness

So, there's your answer. The future life-forms will be aware that we once existed, contributed to their evolution, ceased to make progress and went extinct.

I hope that such is an absolute fact about humans at some point in the future, however. — universeness

I know you do.

What has that to do with the question at hand? Alien life-forms, whether biological, artificial or some combination, do not require my approval and do not operate according to my preference. — Vera Mont

It has to do with the human ability to create goals, intent, purpose, rules of behavior, legislation etc, etc.
We will be the creators of AGI. There are many many experts in that field, working very hard, to create an AGI that 'learns' what humans are discovering/identifying/exemplifying as the most desirable aspects of the notion of human morality. This is a major part of the project. The Asimov laws are only a very basic example. So the battle between installing human morality within automated/autonomous intelligent systems is no half-hearted attempt to achieve that goal. If we are successful and can defeat all attempts to create immoral, uncaring 'borg drone' style AGI, and we are able to contain/destroy any immoral uncaring AGI that is produced by nefarious humans, then we will gain far far more benefits, working in symbiosis with AGI rather than trying to compete with it. If AGI ever creates ASI then it will do so in accordance with the human morality that hopefully by then, will be absolutely fundamental to its function and its goals and its purpose for existing.

So, there's your answer. The future life-forms will be aware that we once existed, made no progress and went extinct. — Vera Mont

So you predict a future based on lies?

Based on current indications. And progress. — Vera Mont

Absafragginlootly!
The vast majority of the human cities currently existing on this planet, were not bombed today!
The vast majority of humans currently alive today were not raped, shot or slaughtered today!
Most of the human nations/tribes of the world are not currently at war today!

There are many many experts in that field, working very hard, to create an AGI that 'learns' what humans are discovering/identifying/exemplifying as the most desirable aspects of the notion of human morality. — universeness

And just as many, if not more, teaching it how to invent more effective weapons. The programmers' idea of desirable isn't necessarily mine.
If, if andif.... Evolution has a way of blurring and eventually erasing the values of of long-past progenitors. That's something you're proud of when pointing out progress in human ideals and laws - that we have left behind, or at least will have left behind at some future time - the rules by which our ancestors lived. But refuse to see that it could apply equally to a machine intelligence. If it's given human values now, there is no reason to expect it to consider far primitive species any more significant than we currently do.

So you predict a future based on lies? — universeness

I don't think those are lies from your POV: it's what you told me regarding dinosaurs.

The vast majority of the human cities currently existing on this planet, were not bombed today! — universeness

Oh, goodie! Only 110 armed conflicts. Come to think of it, even fewer cities were bombed - or attacked by any means - on this day in 3023 BCE. Progress?

Why do we not choose to just ignore such low bio forms in the same way 180 Proof suggests an ASI would be justified in ignoring the low human bioforms? — universeness

Well, for starters, "low human bioforms" are more like fossils to "ASI" than insects are to h. sapiens. We "do not choose to ignore such low bioforns" because we are also "such low bioforms" which are fundamentally inseparable from the biosphere shared by all "such low bioforms" and, therefore, in the interest of survival (& development), we do not "choose to ignore" (i.e. ignorance of) them.

"ASI", on the other hand, will have near-instantaneous access to the total database of the terrestrial biosphere, including humans & insects (& our entomologies), as a complete fossil record of all extinct and relatively-soon-to-be-extinct "bioforms" on Earth. There's no issue of "choosing to ignore" or being "justified to ignore" already exhaustively studied fossils (like us), universeness.

From the perspective of "low human bioforms", we may feel as ignored by "AGI" as we feel ignored by distant stars but, like those distant stars (and Epicurus' gods, circa 4th c. BCE), we "low human bioforms" will always have been long dead, even extinct remnants, from the perspective of "ASI" (à la simulations run / explored by the Monolith).

I don't think those are lies from your POV: it's what you told me regarding dinosaurs. — Vera Mont

That's because 'no significant achievements' is true for dinos but not for humans.

Oh, goodie! Only 110 armed conflicts. Come to think of it, even fewer cities were bombed - or attacked by any means - on this day in 3023 BCE. Progress? — Vera Mont

Well, a more accurate comparison might be that in 3023 BCE, there was probably far more slaughter between human groups than there is today. The military hardware involved was worse in those days, imo, as it meant a lot more of the slaughter was up close and personal.

Your ASI, as you describe it, seems every bit as bad as the gods of theism.
I think us low bioforms are already far more moral and useful in the universe than the ASI you have imagineered, could ever be.

That's because 'no significant achievements' is true for dinos but not for humans. — universeness

From your perspective, not the perspective of ASI.

Well, a more accurate comparison might be that in 3023 BCE, there was probably far more slaughter between human groups than there is today. — universeness

No wars recorded for that year, according to wiki. Probably more slaughter? Undocumented for then, pretty ugly for now.

I think us low bioforms are already far more moral and useful in the universe than the ASI you have imagineered, could ever be. — universeness

Useful to whom or what? A micro-organism can be regarded as potentially beneficial or pathogenic and will be treated accordingly.
You just can't peer over that anthropobsessive barrier, can you?

My notion of "ASI" is neither providential nor petty-punitive like "the god of theism" so your comparison doesn't make sense. Apparently, it's just unimaginable to you that humanity might not be the summit or goal of the universe (which indicates your own religious idealism (i.e. theism), mate). We are the caterpillar whose significance is to begin (maybe even "merge with") a chrysalis that will develop until it transforms and releases its butterfly. I happen to find post-human fables more believable and uplifting than super-human (or supernatural) fantasies.

You just can't peer over that anthropobsessive barrier, can you? — Vera Mont

There is no such barrier apart from the one you have imagineered.

I happen to find post-human fables more believable and uplifting than super-human (or supernatural) fantasies. — 180 Proof

There is always, hopefully, enough room to accept the personal taste of others.

Even though this thread's been tossed into The Lounge, I prefer compelling arguments to "personal tastes".

So do I friend, whenever I come across one.

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. — Athena

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: — Athena

Thanks very much for your thoughtful replies! :smile:
(Your two quotes were from different posts, but they seem to be related).

Stories… our stories…
Yes, I think we as humans cannot help having stories, hearing stories, remembering stories, disagreeing with some stories etc.
Not just our shared cultural bedtime stories, or fables, or movies, but a particular person’s mind making some sense of our world by combining perceptions, ideas, facts, urges, matter, energy, and so on into a narrative.
(I’m referring to reasonably intelligent, ethical, mature, cultured adults. I’ve met one or two lol.)

This can be done successfully, I believe, though any person is capable of making mistakes (and learning from them hopefully).

Facts are facts, and facts should certainly be recognized for optimal existence.

But how to process this stream of data?
In the experience of being a human, with perceptions, sensations, ideas, and feelings swirling around our minds, and activity churning nonstop around us, using internal stories makes the world clearer to us.

Of course, it’s best that one recognizes the ever-changing nature of these personal stories.
And acknowledge that like clothing or food, what suits us may not work for someone else.
Imposing our stories on others (as opposed to sharing them) is not surprisingly problematic.

As an example, if a person chooses to perhaps weave into their stories zombies, unicorns, Batman, gnomes, angels, demons, ET aliens, UFOs, multi-dimensions, talking animals or ancestor spirits… and can live a stable existence, who’s to say otherwise?
Sometimes, it can be quite a competitive sport to poo-poo the ‘personal mythology’ of others, and gain an edge.

But is claiming to be completely 100% story-free itself a story we can tell ourselves?
Is it helpful or not?
Helpfulness and usefulness and balance are the critical aspects, when thinking about our stories and how to integrate them into our lives.

Is this continuous story creation an advanced creative power we have?

Or is it simply a heuristic technique shortcut to quickly size up our current life to be analyzed in depth later?

Yes! :smile:

My grandmother was a reflection of the good values she learned. Today we are living in complete social chaos and absolutely no social agrrements. We have been going through social breakdown or what some may call creative destruction at least since 1958 when the National Defense Education Act radically changed the purpose of education. Thanks to forums with international participants I am aware of this change spreading around the world in the form of bureaucratic technology and economic shifts. I could get extremely political about this, but I want to highlight something you said about our nature.

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. — universeness

For sure the fact that we have survived without claws and fangs proves that we evolved to help each other stay alive. We share much in common with other social animals. Genghis Khan had no problem with killing people until a Chinese man who came from an agricultural society taught Khan to harvest the towns and cities, instead of destroying them. Khan and the Mongols did not come from an agricultural society but a society dependent on hunt in an environment that led them to believe they lived despite the sky god who was far more likely to kill people than to help them survive. So by the Mongol story of life, it was people in the cities who were evil, as the cities led some having great wealth and left many extremely poor. Khan told his people to never settle and become like the city people. Lying and stealing were punishable by death because among the Mongols there was no need to lie and steal because everyone's needs were met. If a stranger knocked on your door without question he was given food and shelter because not doing so could lead to the person's death and someday you might be the one needing food and shelter.

There are so many delightful things to talk about. What is our nature and how does the environment affect our nature and the stories we tell and live by?

People's stories are very important to their notions of truth that give them shared values and learned ways of behavior. The Great Religions gave people stories that led to civilizations, and education for good moral judgment and citizenship is the secular way of making a civilization work.

This is a little off topic but are you aware of Allen Turing being the father of AI?

This can be done successfully, I believe, though any person is capable of making mistakes (and learning from them hopefully). — 0 thru 9

I want to jump all over your comment. I have done at least one terrible thing that I regret, and I know I had no reason for thinking what I did was wrong until I got new information years later. Makes me really hurt for the industries that are forced to pay millions of dollars for their mistakes made when no one was aware of the damage that was being done. My point is, we just are not born knowing it all and there is no reason to believe a person who does a wrong automatically is aware of doing anything wrong. We can not miraculously know our wrongs without the information for making that judgment. And even then knowing a wrong is not equal to how to do things better.

I beg everyone, let us be gentle with each other because it is hard to be human. We really need to understand that and to talk about our values and education. What does education have to do with a moral society?

Facts are facts, and facts should certainly be recognized for optimal existence. — 0 thru 9

I love this statement too! :heart: Have you spent time with a severely retarded person who is amazing at seeing life as it is and making good choices? You and I have heads full of stories and most of the time our heads automatically give us feedback based on our stories, not so much the facts at the moment. For example, I attempted to leave a gated nursing home with my friend and as soon as I saw the locking mechanism, I knew we had to go back inside to get the code (my technological story of how things work). My friend stuck his hand through the gate and opened it from the outside. He was a great help to me when my life was turned upside down and my middle-class mentality was not enough to keep
things going. He came with very different stories and better coping skills than I had at the time in my life.

I often do my best to empty my head and experience life as people did in northern Europe a few thousand years back. :cry: I can't do it. I can not, not know what I know, and sometimes, what I think I know is the worst barrier to learning and experiencing reality as it is, instead of what I think it is.

In the experience of being a human, with perceptions, sensations, ideas, and feelings swirling around our minds, and activity churning nonstop around us, using internal stories makes the world clearer to us. — 0 thru 9

:sad: I am afraid that is not so for the reason I explained. Using internal stories may seem to make the world clearer but OMG when the story is a lie it can make life very, very bad. Wars are fought over who has the right story. My Christian friends are so annoying and so completely unaware of the lies they live with. Many of them are around 90 years old and I am not telling them what I think of their lies because facing death without the comforting stories of a God and immortality can be unpleasant. Praying for God to resolve a problem instead of taking the necessary action, really annoys me!

As an example, if a person chooses to perhaps weave into their stories zombies, unicorns, Batman, gnomes, angels, demons, ET aliens, UFOs, multi-dimensions, talking animals or ancestor spirits… and can live a stable existence, who’s to say otherwise? — 0 thru 9

Now universness's argument for AI has a truth to support his argument. That is a lot of creative thinking you listed and not something I think we should accept as truth. By the time a student leaves high school, s/he should have a good understanding of what is fact and what is fiction and how we determine which is which. But now I have to argue what is wrong with AI running the show. I do not think we want a math machine to set human policy nor is it a good thing that our governing bureaucracy has unrestricted authority. HIPAA is a real nightmare that AI could not make any better or worse.

But is claiming to be completely 100% story-free itself a story we can tell ourselves?
Is it helpful or not? — 0 thru 9

It is not possible for us to be 100% story-free. Aristotle "An unexamined life is not worth living." Who are you and how do you know you are you? Does everyone see you the same as you see yourself? What made you as you are? Where do you belong in life? Who is to blame for what is happening in Israel? I assume everyone has a story for judging the warring that is occurring. Not that I want to get into the politics of that, but being aware of different stories is helpful, and knowing we are talking about stories and not just facts, is helpful.

Is this continuous story creation an advanced creative power we have? — 0 thru 9

Wow is that an exciting question when mixed with universeness's understanding of AI. AI can create music but can it stop a war? Or would AI even attempt to create music without a human programming it to do so? With AI I think we are going through a major consciousness change and it could be fun to come back in 200 years to see how humans doing things in the future. What stories will they tell that explain their nations? Our young today do not have a lot of interest in dead men and what used to be.:lol: They can't even think about what happened a few years ago has to do with what is happening today. They know themselves and their lives but not much more.

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? — 180 Proof

We have been going through social breakdown or what some may call creative destruction at least since 1958 when the National Defense Education Act radically changed the purpose of education. — Athena

My question above still stands, Athena, to which I add: so what was the pre-"1958" "purpose of education" vis-à-vis state-sanctioned racial terrorism / legal segregation, systemic discrimination against women & gays, widespread unfair & unsafe labor practices, endemic populist antisemitism, wholesale environmental degregation by agriculture & heavy industry, and ongoing land (and mineral rights) theft from and 'public erasure' of Indigenous Americans ... at least since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1788?

I do not remember the ramifications of "the social breakdown" after "1958" being any more structurally exploitative and systemically discriminatory than it was before "1958" ... but in fact (gradually) quite a bit less so. Help me / us to understand, Athena, exactly how things have fallen off the proverbial cliff since "1958" as compared to the preceeding "good old days" (& centuries ...) Thanks.

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? — Vera Mont

↪Vera Mont
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 perspectis 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. — Existential Hope

My head is like a tornado and I am trying to find the order in all those thoughts while it is still stuck on the concept of our stories verses facts and universeness's AI.

I can see in universesness's mention of insects a disregard for life and it comes with a story of one man killing another because these men have stories that make them enemies. The concept of democracy is directly tied to reasoning, liberty and justice. At this moment, I can see a reverence for life missing when we believe we are enemies and can kill another as we might crush a bug. How is that justified? What is the reasoning?

Okay please list 10 characteristics of democracy and perhaps say something about how they relate to our ideas of right and wrong.

Unfortunately, I have to run. If I don't get back to you soon, remind me, because I really want to speak of that past and how it related to change. I think we should be speaking of democracy rather than racism or discrimination. I am late.:rage:

Once you have (or someone else has) explicitly addressed the questions I've raised to you, ma'am, then I'll gladly discuss "democracy" (what that has to do with a fundamentallly undemocratic, 'constitutional republic' like the US is lost on me) and its "characteristics". :up:

"I have found that life persists in the midst of destruction and, therefore, there must be a higher law than that of destruction. Only under that law would a well-ordered society be intelligible and life worth living. And if that is the law of life, we have to work it out in daily life. Wherever there are jars, wherever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love. In this crude manner, I have worked it out in my life. That does not mean that all my difficulties are solved. Only, I have found that this law of love has answered as the law of destruction has never done."

—Mahatma Gandhi, YI, 1-10-1931, p.286