I only said I was a theist. A thousand times — Hanover

For the MILLIONITH time! Stop exaggerating!

After he stopped laughing he said that all three are dimensions of God which provide us with different levels of spirituality. Jesus provides redemption and everlasting life and a model of sacrifice; the holy spirit allows us to relate to God's message and communicates it to us; and God is the ineffable creator from which all emanates - including intelligibility, the true, good and beautiful. — Tom Storm

Yeah, I already posted a similar style description from wiki on the shoutbox and some of my well practiced response, to such descriptions. Copied below for your convenience, if you have not already read it in the shoutbox:

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus 'threefold') is the central doctrine concerning the nature of God in most Christian churches, which defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons (hypostases) sharing one essence/substance/nature (homoousion) As the Fourth Lateran Council declared, it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds. In this context, one essence/nature defines what God is, while the three persons define who God is. This expresses at once their distinction and their indissoluble unity. Thus, the entire process of creation and grace is viewed as a single shared action of the three divine persons, in which each person manifests the attributes unique to them in the Trinity, thereby proving that everything comes "from the Father," "through the Son," and "in the Holy Spirit."

You can almost feel the typographical traditions and verbal descriptions of storytelling and fables, being handed down from ancient human generations to today's generation. Lies, lies, lies!

This is just a bad attempt to move from a polytheistic model to a monotheistic model. Yahweh(jehovah) was part of a pantheon of gods. But the polytheistic model had a triune existence. A heavenly/mount Olympus/Valhalla type existence, a supernatural/spiritual/polymorphic/shapeshifter existence and they could also appear or become mortals. This maps onto the catholic trinity, imo.
Father, son and ghost is polytheistic in concept, but the trinity tries to (very clumsily imo,) pass them off as being a monotheistic entity

There is also this logically fallacious diagram called the shield of the trinity:

It's about bringing heaven to earth. And I speak metaphorically, as I describe no physical, tangible heaven. If this sounds like I'm trying to change your mind, I'm not. I couldn't care any less about your soul. I'm just pointing out that your criticisms are simplistic and applicable only to those belief systems you think exist. — Hanover

So why not just be a secular humanist, who have a similar goal of creating a better existence for humans on Earth.
I tend to put the letters 'AS' in front of any reference to a human 'soul.' I know this makes the overall spelling of asshole, wrong but the textual phonetics sound correct to me when you say 'as' and 'soul' together as one, as does the anatomical and therefore scientific accuracy.
I am interested in people's actual belief systems, as they directly affect what they choose to act upon. I am interested, regardless of whether or not they comply with theism, manifest as organised religion or your less damaging, but equally submissive, theosophism.

Why did you think that? — Hanover

From an exchange we had months ago, when you declared yourself a theist.
I don't remember why I assumed you were a Christian.
Anyway, it was my mistake, and I appreciated the correction.

Copied from the shoutbox!

I have serious doubts that an actual Jesus existed, but, to the extent they both died similarly, they both died similarly.

Wow! But I thought you considered yourself a Christian? The clue is in the name!
I assume my assumption on this has been incorrect. So is your theism a personal belief in a god rather than a religious following?
Are you familiar with Joseph Atwill's 'Caesars Messiah' or James Valliant and Warren Fahey's 'Creating Christ?' — Hanover

Do YOU believe in the Catholic trinity?
If so, then you believe that god and Jesus Christ were the same entity.
I don't think the 3rd state of 'spirit,' matters much to my main question, unless a Catholic/theist/theologian/generalist thinker, has a counterpoint to suggest why it does.

Jesus/god is posited as an eternal, immortal, but, this immortal magicked itself into a mortal, and existed as a male human, for around 30+ Earth time years.
He got crucified/murdered/blood sacrificed, and experienced death as a human experiences death, well, not quite, as humans don't 'resurrect,' but let's say this immortal did die like a man dies.
So during the time after its death, and before it's resurrection, this immortal, cosplaying a human called Jesus, was dead, so, GOD WAS DEAD.
So during this time, do Catholics accept that the universe had no god? or do Catholics think that this immortal was only playing dead? And, if that's true then under what logic do they consider this fake death, a great sacrifice in favour of humans?

Fair enough Tom! I will copy my shoutbox question to this thread! Cheers.

We have to intellectually understand the benefits and reality of symbiosis before we can put that in our lives. — Athena

From all of the days of your life Athena, what events/realisations/empathy/anger/shame/joy do your remember most?
Do you perceive 'logos' as an ideal aspiration? Is logos what you want, in the way that Plato/Aristotle conceived it? Is YOUR logos/idealism/the goddess Athena who/what you personally want/aspire/need to be? or who/what you think others need to personally aspire/need to be?
Did you manifest YOUR own life or are you a total product/consequence of your culture/nurture/nature/environment/indoctrination/contextual fears/age?
What credence level do you assign to total determinism?

Except not jungle-dwelling human societies did live that way. What's recorded in history is conflict between civilizations, which all had a strongly united internal structure - though the co-operation was usually coerced to some extent by an elite. — Vera Mont

I refer you to a previous response to Athena:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/808871

What the hell have groupings of elephants, crows, dolphins or cheetahs got to do with that point?
— universeness

The FACT that humans didn't DISCOVER co-operation. And are not particularly good at it in large numbers. — Vera Mont

I think you would need to go back to the single celled organism, co-operating with various bacteria and creating a symbiosis which still exists today. Those cells exist in humans, so from that angle, cooperation plays a big role in why we exist at all. Where do you think co-operation began Vera? Do you have a particular species in mind since abiogenesis? You still haven't explained why, when it started, and who or what started it, matters, when it comes to humans needing to employ it a lot more, to create a better future for our species?

Human would be able create a better society is 99% of of us were not here. — Vera Mont

So out of a planet of 8 billion self-aware, sentient, conscious humans, you have concluded that the utter vastness of the universe with more planets, than there are grains of sand on Earth, can only handle 1% of that (around, 80 million, which is around the current pop of Germany).
Perhaps it's just the Earth you are restricting all our possible futures to, and that any extraterrestrial resources available, will permanently be inaccessible to us.
On a universal scale, humans may be the rarest lifeform, with the ability to affect it's environment and demonstrate reason and purpose in the ways we can, in the entire universe. We have not yet found any other equivalent, have we?

Would you consider the time implied in the sentence below, to be a time when all homo sapiens alive then, were having a far superior experience of life as a human, than the average human, living on planet Earth is experiencing today, purely because there were a lot fewer of us then?

For the time of speciation of Homo sapiens, some 200,000 years ago, an effective global population size of the order of 10,000 to 30,000 individuals has been estimated, with an actual "census population" of early Homo sapiens of roughly 100,000 to 300,000 individuals.

There are such wonders in just accepting things as they are and no one seems to even talk in those terms anywhere.

It is also risky to focus the mind's eye on some grand purpose or meaning beyond everything because it loses track of the ball. It makes people apathetic about caring about the things that are right in front of them. Like trying to solve the problems in this world that threaten this world and the well-being of its inhabitants. If people stopped dreaming about some grander purpose, we might just find that we have a purpose in caring for what we can care for, for the sake of us and the world we live in. — Christoffer

I am forever harping on about the need for each of us to OWN our OWN notions of awe and wonderment and stop crediting theistic or theosophist sources for GIFTING us such.

Many scientists, free thinkers, cooperative people who work with each other in benevolent common cause, now, and in the past have demonstrated, almost every day of their lives, care for life outside of their own life and care for the world we live in. But for me, I love the idea of a 'grand purpose,' but I view it as a 'totality' of all the 'purpose' that lifeforms such as humans generate.
WE create purpose and meaning and WE are OF the universe.

Carl Sagan said so many great quotes about the idea of human purpose and potential.

"I don't want to believe I want to know!"
"No such thing as a stupid question"
"We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere."
"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
"The brain is like a muscle. When it is in use we feel very good. Understanding is joyous."
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent."
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition."
"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena."
"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew with undiminished wonder: What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars"

What's wrong with suggesting that such 'encouragements,' from the legacy of folks like Carl are MY personal 'grand purpose?' It need not, mean that I am forever deserving of the 'you are a dreamer' and 'you need to take off your romantic goggles and see the REAL world, for the first time.'
Holding on to my notion of 'grand purpose' does not mean I don't constantly scream at how horrible life can be for soooooooo many. I can only try my best to be part of the solution!

Under jungle rules, young females are considered property and part of 'to the victor, the spoils, rule.'
— universeness

In what species? Not elephants, crows, dolphins or or cheetahs. The norm in many human situations today, of course - not so much spoils as commodities. — Vera Mont

We seem to be talking past each other Vera.
My main point is that under 'jungle rules,' that are recorded as in common practice amongst ancient homo sapiens, such as perpetually warring with every 'group' of humans your group comes across, obtaining as much resources as you can, regardless of how much you actually need or how badly your actions affect the well being of others, IS imo, a very bad way to behave, and it always has been.
Co-operating with each other in common cause is a BETTER way.
What the hell have groupings of elephants, crows, dolphins or cheetahs got to do with that point?
And, what the hell does it matter if ant's used co-operation before humans did?

I don't think our species is in competition, for the credit of which species discovered co-operation!
— universeness

Haven't you noticed the armed conflicts that took out a few million people? Or the ones that are currently taking out hundreds of thousands and might end the whole sheBANG if it gets out of hand? — Vera Mont

What are you typing about? What does that point have to do with my point that some human beings have to stop living their lives and affecting the lives of others so negatively, because, THEY choose to behave like we STILL, ALL, have to live under 'jungle rules.'
The only folks I see who HAVE TO convert to 'jungle rules,' to survive, are those who have nothing because they are under the control of a nefarious, rich, elite, who used 'jungle tactics' to gain their power, wealth and authority they have over the masses.
Many of those poor people who employ jungle tactics to survive often become the future nefarious rich. Any gangland culture, demonstrates that.

for the credit of which species discovered co-operation!
— universeness
You take credit for something ants perfected 150,000,000 million years ago, and we still haven't managed to get our heads around how it's supposed to work?
There have been more than 200 mass shootings across the US so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are injured or killed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
That's back on May 9, I don't know how many since. — Vera Mont

Are you suggesting that humans would be able to create a better society, if we lived like insect species such as ants? I value human co-operation over human war but I don't think we are going to create a better future for the human race by emulating ant society or any other insect or animal society I am familiar with.

What point have I made in this thread so far, that you think warrants adjustment, based on your comment to me about mass shootings in the USA???
It cannot be that you think I need a wake up call regarding a current lack of cooperation amongst humans, as that is already part of my own complaint regarding how we need to improve things! So I am fully aware of the current state of affairs, positives and negative. There IS a whole lot of cooperation going on!

Stop trashing 'jungle rules' - they worked for 300,000,000 years before we bulldozed the jungles. We didn't discover co-operation; social animals predate us by a wide margin — Vera Mont

Under jungle rules, young females are considered property and part of 'to the victor, the spoils, rule.'
Is that an example of one of the jungle rules you don't think I should trash?
I don't think our species is in competition, for the credit of which species discovered co-operation!
You normally offer better responses than that Vera!

It is not just about water but people's struggles for their lives and war! — Athena

This seems to be a very obvious truth but the truths that apply most widely are often the most obvious, even though they remain a 'struggle' for most humans alive today. Sure, it's not JUST about water, but its ALSO about water. The biggest truth about culturalism is that it does not affect your need for water, food, shelter, warmth, etc. All people from all cultures have identical basic needs.
In fact, those basics are needed by all fauna on the planet.
People mostly war over basic resources. But the nefarious want to be 'EXCESSIVELY RICH,' in resources. They don't want a little gold, they want to be surrounded by gold and be recognised as 'god like' and have every whim serviced and own an excessive glut of all resources and have every urge satisfied and be loved and feared by everyone, etc etc. It's either YOUR WAY or there will be HELL TO PAY!

Have you looked into distillation efforts around the world? — Athena

Somewhat, but what is more important, is the basic understanding that Planet Earth has plenty of water. The rest is just bad behaviour.

What we are doing in this world is so different from the possible reality some of us imagine. How do we deal with this? — Athena

Another obvious but absolutely great, vital question. MY HONEST answer is to do EXACTLY what we are doing now, 'keep fighting the good fight to make things better.'

You wrote of possible civilizations that did live in peace without war and that is only sane. War is complete insanity. — Athena

War is the survival of the fittest strategy that was an imperative under jungle rules, but we discovered that it's not the only way to survive. We discovered that co-operation and negotiation, CAN produce better results for all stakeholders. But the nefarious want INSTANT gratification and permanent recognition of their superiority under the traditional jungle rules. We continue to struggle against them and I think we have been gaining ground against them for the past 10,000 years.
The progress has been very slow and it will probably continue to be so, but imo, success is inevitable.

What are the fundamental beliefs that make our lives good? — Athena

What do we want that future race to know so they have the best chance of manifesting a good life for our planet? — Athena

We need a better belief system. Any idea of how to construct that? — Athena

I think these questions are for each of us to answer individually. I can give you the core of my answers.
Socialism and secular humanism and the details involved in them would make up the core of my answer to all 3 questions above. I have not came across any better labels for what I think would be a 'better way' for humans to live and treat each other.

What is a good bias? This question has not been answered in this thread so far and I don't think it ever will be. — Christoffer

This made me consider abiogenesis and natural selection from the notion of bias.
I don't think it's logical to assign bias of any kind to such processes, even through it seems personally intuitive to me, to assign a positive bias to both because I would not be here if such happenstance had not occurred. I asked chat GPT, "Is natural selection biased?"

Its answer:
Natural selection is not inherently biased. It is a fundamental mechanism of evolution that operates based on certain principles, including variation, heredity, and differential reproductive success. Natural selection does not have a deliberate or conscious bias; rather, it is an outcome of the interaction between organisms and their environment.

However, it is important to note that the outcomes of natural selection can be influenced by various factors, which may introduce biases. These factors include environmental conditions, selective pressures, and genetic variations within a population. Natural selection favors traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction in a given environment. If certain traits provide a reproductive advantage in a particular context, they are more likely to be passed on to future generations.

Biases can arise in natural selection when certain factors favor specific traits or individuals over others. These biases can be due to environmental changes, such as habitat fragmentation or human activities, which may alter the selective pressures acting on a population. Additionally, sexual selection, a form of natural selection driven by mate choice, can introduce biases in the evolution of certain physical or behavioral traits.

It is important to distinguish between the concept of natural selection, which is a scientific process, and the potential biases that can arise within specific evolutionary contexts. Natural selection itself is a neutral process, but the outcomes of natural selection can be influenced by various factors, including biases.

Whatever is left of the human race, after the collapse, will struggle on somehow - how depends partly on which of our glorious enterprises brings on the apocalypse. Probably keep killing one another over the dregs of civilization, until there are few enough that they have no choice but co-operate or die. Then they will make do with what's left, and survive - or not. — Vera Mont

Do you regularly have a beer or 20 with @180 Proof by any chance?
I will need to join you both at some point and cheer you both up! :lol:

We had a German Shepherd a long time ago, who had four pups. One of them died within the first day. We buried it, but she kept digging it up and bringing it to my mother, asking her to revive it. Saddest damn thing you ever saw! — Vera Mont

I wonder if that's what really happened between Jesus and his followers after he got killed? (if he ever existed.) Pity your mother did not have that 'power of god,' thing.
You jump to extreme's too fast Vera, you miss all the possibilities in-between the extreme states.
The human race is NOT DEAD YET!

Yeah, I already wrote that story. It's a story. — Vera Mont

Some stories are true! Especially ones we have yet to create!

The criticism I have to positivism is that philosophy needs a level of exploration to function well and the rigid stance in positivism makes it better suited to just be science instead. — Christoffer

I certainly don't care, if a person who chooses not to accept a theory, as absolute fact, until it has irrefutable empirical evidence to back it up, calls themselves a positivist/logical positivist/neopositivist philosopher or a scientist or both. I do find cumbersome language for the sake of more accuracy, does have a 'too far,' cut off point. I prefer 'tin of beans' to 'A metallic cylindrical receptacle, sealed at both ends, containing legume vegetation, suspended in a flavoured condiment.'

show that 'sapience sans sentience' is the (optimal) shape of things to come. — 180 Proof

Do you mean 'intelligence versus self-awareness?'
I just can't conceive of any value in an intelligent system that is not-self aware other that as a functional, very useful tool for an intelligence that IS self-aware. Like a computer is for a human today.
Perhaps I am missing your main point here due to my attempts to decipher/interpret the words/phrases, you choose to use.

The heating of oceans and drying up of lakes-reservoirs are strongly correlated. Not "pessimism", my friend, just facts. :mask: — 180 Proof

I don't refute the very valid concerns regarding climate change.
I do fully accept that the evidence is overwhelming, that we have damaged the Earth's ecosystem significantly, in a way that compromises our survival and the survival of the current flora and fauna on the Earth. I think the Earth itself, will easily survive the actions of humans.
I think WE WILL pay a price for abusing Earths resources for private gain, and to satisfy the lusts/greeds of individual/(groups of) nefarious humans, but it's not over until it's over.
The 'facts' you mention are not imo, immutable, yet.
We probably have passed the point of no return in some ways, but not with the results that you suggest, ie, population reduction to the levels of an 'endangered species' or actual extinction.

Nope. Physics, chemistry, geology, biology and meteorology already did that one, and did it admirably well. Farmers and scientists fucked it up, mostly in the service of financial interests. — Vera Mont

I strongly subscribe to, 'If at first you don't succeed, try try again.' I have no choice, as the alternative of 'just accept the status quo,' would mean that the antinatalists have a good point :vomit: :death:
I will NEVER accept that.
I think AI will help a lot in the future, as well as frighten us.
We should enhance this 'did it admirably well,' aspect of future attempts, and work very hard indeed, to remove any possibility of 'f***** it up, mostly in the service of financial interests.'

I have repeatedly heard distilling water is very expensive. — Athena

It costs a lot of money to build a plant; more to build the pipeline from the coast to the dry areas, plus operating and maintenance costs. — Vera Mont

Don't you think it's ridiculous that one human invention, money, is the reason why people don't get the water they need to survive? This is why you call money one of the worse human inventions ever Vera, yes?

Also it would overwhelming to depend on it for farming or keeping a forest alive. — Athena

Why?

Now if we focused on turning the whole planet into an Eden, we might create an amazing reality, but for some reason that just isn't what Christians attempt to do. Maybe they are afraid of offending God by taking over his work? — Athena

I already ignore the nonsense that IS christianity and all other religions and theosophism, we just need to get the majority of those in power to do the same, and build a global irrigation system, that fully benefits and assists the planets ecosystem and all flora and fauna on it (including humans).

as Athena pointed out, that's used just for humans: the wildlife and native vegetation will die. And that will cause more wildfires, which will destroy a lot of the farms you invested in. — Vera Mont

Do you think human scientists are able to design a 'not for profit,' global irrigation system that works and fully benefits and assists the planets ecosystem and all flora and fauna, that exists on and in the planet (including humans)?

How much do you know of other civilizations? — Athena

The sad thing is that history is written by authors who normally come from the conquering side.
The epicurean communities seemed a better way to live for all concerned, compared to the Athenian system or the vile spartan system. There were no slaves in epicurean communities and women were treated as equals.

I am sure there were many such attempts in the ancient world at creating a tribal community/civilisation, which was not based on a hierarchy of status, based on force, power, wealth etc.
Consider this possible example from New Scientist

On one thing nearly everyone agrees: no utopia has ever existed. Large human societies tend to be governed by coercion. The instinct for warfare has been a driving force in nearly every civilisation of the last five millennia, from ancient Mesopotamia to the British Empire.

Or has it? One mysterious, ancient society might give the lie to that. The civilisation of the Indus valley is the most enigmatic of the four great early civilisations. But while Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt and ancient China gloried in warfare, it seems absent from the Indus valley. Was this a real, functioning utopia? If so, how did it survive, and why did it eventually disappear?

The Indus civilisation flourished from about 2600 to 1900 BC. More than a thousand settlements have been found covering at least 800,000 square kilometres of what is now Pakistan, India and Afghanistan (see map), yet its remains were only discovered in the 1920s. It is now regarded as the beginning of Indian civilisation and possibly the origin of Hinduism.

I have read about some other attempts:

The Hopi Indians:
The primary meaning of the word "Hopi" is "behaving one, one who is mannered, civilized, peaceable, polite, who adheres to the Hopi Way." Some sources contrast this to other warring tribes that subsist on plunder

Tiwanaku
They had no army.
They lived in lands that are part of modern day Bolivia,
Tiwanaku cities were so grand that when the Incas discovered them, they believed they were made by gods.
Over 10,000 people lived in their capital city (also called Tiwanaku), which is believed to be one of the oldest cities in the world.
The civilisation was at the peak of its powers in the 8th century, but mysteriously ended in the 9th century. No one is quite sure why the Tiwanaku disappeared but is believed that they, as well as a similar culture known as the Wari, were victims of a dramatic shift in climate which devastated the crops and caused mass starvation. As they had no writing system and never engaged in war with Spanish conquistadors, the Tiwanaku are a true forgotten civilisation.

No doubt there are many other examples, we know nothing about, as they were 'conquered' and forgotten.

Why do you think. countries that need more water, don't build large desalination plants?
The Earth's surface is 71% Water.

What about Stargate Universe? Did you try that one, before it got cancelled.
i have all the B5 movies and 'Crusade' (Cancelled) and 'The lost tales'
I bought the remake of V and The spin off from the remake of BSG, called Caprica (both Cancelled).
I bought the remake of Westworld, which tried to be as soft porn as Game of thrones.
I have watched all of game of thrones twice and I still hate the ending.
I can't seem to get through Westworld, as each episode seems worse than the previous one.

I wish they would re-make B5 and do psycore and technomage spin offs.
There are around 15 B5 books, that tell a lot more of the story not told in the 5 series B5 arc.
I have bought and read them all. There are even scams involved in them. There are 3 psycore books and 3 technomage books for B5. You will get the first two books for pennies and then have to pay between £50-£100 to get the 3rd one in a series.

I don't recognise that one Athena? Any more memory of its storyline?

Rationalism and Positivism are two approaches in which positivism requires only that which can be observed and measured in such ways, which excludes things like theoretical physics. The problem with positivism is that science is just as much about precise prediction as it is about verifying through tests. Positivism is actually quite bad at science in that regard since almost all scientific methods rely on predictions that are later tested if possible. A positivist would have a hard time accepting Einstein's equations before anything was verified and they would likely oppose quantum mechanics, even when we have invented technology that relies on observations that haven't been verified as theories yet. — Christoffer

I have agreed with the vast majority of what you have typed on this thread, but I think you are harsh on 'positivism.' Without it, Einstein's theory of relativity would be declared fact. Big bang theory would be declared fact, and this would perhaps mean science would not continuously challenge and scrutinise both. No theory in science is ever declared fact, because of stances such as positivism.
You yourself keep suggesting that empirical testing/evidence, is the final arbiter.
To me that's what positivism asserts as well, it stands as a good, much needed guardian against accepting anything on faith alone. Sometimes there is little choice but to accept something on faith, but positivism dictates that you should remain reluctant to do so, and I think that's a wise stance to take.
Even the fundamentalist Arab muslims like the advice of"trust in god but tie up your camel"

Hadith on Reliance: Trust in Allah, but tie your camel
By Abu Amina Elias / November 17, 2012
Anas ibn Malik reported: A man said, “O Messenger of Allah, should I tie my camel and trust in Allah, or should I leave her untied and trust in Allah?” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Tie her and trust in Allah.”

An interesting article thanks! I wonder how long protections such as:

The researchers addressed questions about the potential misuse of the technology. Decoding worked only with cooperative participants who had participated willingly in training the decoder. If the decoder had not been trained, results were unintelligible, and if participants on whom the decoder had been trained later resisted or thought other thoughts, results were also unusable.

will last!

Most impressive! But let's not go all Star Wars again, or my next words HAVE to be

'but you are not a Jedi yet!' :zip:

.” That’s not to say that getting away from “mere words” — Jamal

An interesting development is the ability of AI to learn new languages, very quickly.

There is the example of AI, 'trained,' via all available fmri (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) scans done on human brains.
If an fmri scan is done on hungry humans, then the exact same bits of the brain 'light up' in every human to indicate that they are hungry.
Recent AI testing has been done, whereby, a human looks at say a photo of a giraffe and an fmri of their brain is taken. The fmri scan is then fed into the AI system, which then tries to reproduce the image, by analysing the fmri scan, based on it's stored knowledge base. The results have been quite spectacular.

So if such an AI system was fitted with a technology, that could scan all the brains in a room of humans, it could reproduce quite a lot of their thoughts.
In time, AI will be able to read your mind, is the projected capability. I just find it fascinating that fmri scans, could be turned into a new language.

If we have some future version of Elon Musk's neuralink type tech/physical input port, connected to our brains, could we store a future AI system on it that can scan other peoples minds, and tell us what they are thinking.
A possible future route to human telepathy? :gasp:
According to the Tristan Harris and Asa Raskin video I posted in one of my own recent threads, the ability of AI to reproduce a good representation of a photo, a human is looking at, via an fmri scan of their brain state at the time, is currently a viable system. The system can also produce a textual or even simulated verbal description of the photo the human is looking at, without the AI 'seeing' the photo directly.

So I'd say, that even from a purely scientific perspective, Spinoza's rationalist approach has more practical use and function than positivism. — Christoffer

Rationalism and positivism are both scientific tools, they are complimentary imo.
The fork and knife together are better for eating most meals, compared to using the fork alone or the knife alone. The main problems arise when folks insist that proposals arrived at via such as theology, metaphysics, personal intuition, or personal introspection, are fact or highly probable.
I think that is the basis of philosophical objections to religious claims, yes?

Yeah, Firefly was really good. Serenity was ok. Most of the human dilemma's covered in Firefly were also depicted in varied ways in B5, Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, BSG, V, etc. I enjoy the varied ways the writers depict common human dilemmas, in a futuristic framework.

I only ever watched a handful of B5 episodes back in the day, maybe 1-2 each season; all I remember is being bored by the characters, derivative space operatic metaplot and the cheezy CGI. From what I've read in recent yeara I don't feel I'd missed much. — 180 Proof

I have watched all 5 series at least 6 times. I will probably watch it again.
Many individual episodes deal with human dilemmas that are very relevant to cultural issues today.

I became a binge drinker and seemed to rely on smoking cigarettes to deal with stress.
But these things may have also been counterproductive. I can't judge to what extent but now I don't do either thing and am the least unhappy I have been as an adult. — Andrew4Handel

That's fantastic, well done!!!

I think you can be wrong that life is meaningless or hopeless and therapists should ideally be able to challenge one's thoughts gently. — Andrew4Handel

I agree.

But you can also be right that life is bleak and has intractable problems but we need to develop coping mechanisms and not punish ourselves I suppose. — Andrew4Handel

There is no question, that life can be damn bleak at times and utter despair seems all that is on offer. BUT even in my darkest moments I have experienced, if I just manage to wait a moment or so, 'something inside my head,' offers another 'moment,' a moment of 'less' despair, a flicker that perhaps I could survive. Over time and with a little encouragement, that becomes the reason I always have survived.
Also when later, I heard 'other peoples horror stories' and I read historical stories of what some folks went through and survived. Then I feel quite annoyed at myself but not too much.

Of course I want to.... But I don't have those binoculars that let me mistake wishes for horses. — Vera Mont

Just keep making the points you make and keep on truckin!
Guys and real stories like this, make me appreciate things more!
DAVE AND THE OCTOPUS


I enjoyed watching Dave and 'Eve was framed' last night in:

Anyway, I don't think of it as a contribution so much as an excuse to skive off work. — Vera Mont

I think exchanging your viewpoints on discussion forums such as TPF, means more to you than an excuse to skive off work. I think you still want to influence others, because that does still really matter.
That's why I post here anyway.

That is from Percile's funeral speech during Athens's war with Sparta. Lincoln repeated it during the civil war. But as many love to point out, Athens had slavery and immigrants did not have citizenship rights and women did not have political power, yet Athens was a democracy, as the US was a democracy when it had slavery and women could not vote. So there is an ideal and a less-than-perfect reality?
And we have a problem coming to an agreement on what that ideal is. — Athena

I agree that we have had much diluted versions of what might qualify for the governance label 'democracy' but none in history or now that satisfies the level of democracy we need, imo.

My information came from the book "Pericles Of Athens And The Birth Of Democracy" by Donald Kagan. — Athena

I don't refute your sources or what they say, I am just complaining, that what they called democratic, stretches the valid use of the label a little to far for me.

What do you think was the alternative to not defending Athens from the Persian invasions? It is not being a slave to defend against an invasion. The Athens that became the role model for democracy would not have existed if they had not successfully defended against the Persians. Unlike religion, a democracy is always evolving. This is a good thing and it can be a bad thing because change can result in problems. Change makes things unstable. Forgetting what culture has to do with democracy leaves our democracy undefended. — Athena

I think people will fight much harder when they believe in the cause they are fighting for and not because they have been bribed by money or promises that may or may not be honoured. Mercenaries were never liked by any side of a conflict. There IS often NO alternative to defending against an invader.
I disagree that if the Persians had conquered and subsumed Greece completely into their empire, that the world would be much different, than it is today. Democracy would have still risen to something similar to where it is today. Perhaps only some of the names and prominent stories would change.
Maybe the middle east would be more prominent today that the West but i don't think that would matter much.

If you are going to demand something, it should be education and preparing the young to be good citizens. Without that education, they will not be "democracy as governance of, for and by the people".
We should demand education for democracy and replace the autocratic model of Industry with the democratic model. — Athena

I broadly agree with the content of your quote immediately above. I would just not use the Greek civilisation, as any kind of important part of the curriculum of increased (free) education opportunities, you rightly suggest, are required to help build a better future for all.

At this time of life, that doesn't amount to much: feed stray cats, grow tomatoes, reduce my carbon footprint and write books.
And fcs, stop blowing on me! — Vera Mont

You forgot 'and I post on discussion forums.'

Sorry Vera. I did not intend to cause an uncomfortable gale around you. :joke:

changed some of my perspectives and gave me tools to fight. — Andrew4Handel

So total defeat is not ensured. A person CAN defend against 'existential depression,' and experience 'good moments?' Is it possible to increase the number of 'good moments?'

I suppose because I still have a tiny spark of optimism left: I still have some dim flicker of hope that if we acknowledge the truth of our times, we might still be avert the worst outcomes. It is, admittedly, a very, very small spark. — Vera Mont

I am vigorously blowing on them embers you still have Vera. I'm away to get some kindling to help.
You can help if you want! Our side NEEDS everyone we can get!!

Victories of the way of love and truth is what I questioned, and your response was a bunch of terribly destructive wars, in which neither love nor truth played any significant role. — Vera Mont

On the contrary, I think truth and love played thee most significant role, from the standpoint of the slaves in revolt. Love of freedom, love of justice. The truth (to them at the time) that death is better than slavery, or the truth that risking their own lives to fight against slavery was the right cause to choose.
The truth that if they did not fight, then they had no future and neither did their children.
The truth that fighting the bas***** felt better, than obeying them as masters. I could go on......

All wars are won and lost through anger, violence, hate and weapons. Whether they get bigger and smaller over time doesn't seem to affect the means employed in fighting them. — Vera Mont

I agree, but there comes a point when 'If they want WAR we will give them WAR!'
Like you, I sooooooooooo wish that war would NEVER EVER happen again, but the problem is that the nefarious will not give up their status, power, or privilege, by any other means than 'out of my cold dead hands.'

What difference does it how many slaves Rome had ? — Vera Mont

Level or impact of atrocity is sometimes a numbers game Vera, you know that.
15,000 children die every day for preventable reasons. If those 15,000 all happened in New York every day, then the global reaction would be a lot different, yes, so sometimes it's not even ONLY a numbers game, there are far worse reasons for the apathy of many people.
Taking the smallest estimate for the Roman Empire of 10% of their population in slavery. If that were true of the worlds population today, especially is the West, then we would still be in a global war, imo.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." — Vera Mont

Sure, there are many garbage passages in the bible. The Sun itself 'formed' and there was a time that it did not exist, yet other objects did exist. So did the writers of this dumb book not know that?
The planets formed under the sun and were new, The dinosaurs were new, humans were new, the bible is mostly utter inane BS and you know it.

Yeah sure, I will click on YOUR recommendations. :lol:
I am seeking more wisdom and enlightenment so, no thanks, I have no such spare time to waste.

That way you can pick out all the cherries from the present and prove to your own satisfaction that they are better cherries than the coconuts of the past were. (and vice versa, as required) — Vera Mont

You can use fruity and nutty analogies if you choose Vera, but they are a rather simplistic attempt to diminish the points I am making and are unsuccessful in that goal imo.

Affectionate bombs, guillotines and spears; honest land-mines, mustard gas and man-traps won those wars? News to me — Vera Mont

That's your interpretation of the points I am making to connect the ancient servile wars and the revolutionary wars, civil wars and 2 world wars since? You think my main goal was to impose human emotions such as 'affection' and human traits such as honesty on to weapons that kill people?
That's a rather bizarre conflation, to say the least.

10 million more people were in modern slavery in 2021 compared to 2016 global estimates.

Is that 10 million out of 8 billion and is that slavery as nasty as it was in Roman times.
Out of an entire Roman Empire population estimate of 50 million, an estimated 5 to 10 million, were slaves. Do you still think 'modern slavery' is anywhere near as bad as slavery in ancient times?

Your point regarding child soldiers pales when compared to ancient abuse of children.

Your point regarding sex trafficking pales even more in comparison to sexual abuse within ancient civilisations.

You have allowed your 'jadism' to blind you to the fantastic improvements that historical altruists, socialists and humanists have achieved. You prefer to hype what still has to be done, instead of (at least also) celebrate what has been achieved and celebrate those who still 'fight the good fight.'
Better to hype the fact that they have a brilliant legacy, they can look back on, to inspire them to vigorously continue to 'finish the job,' started by good people, who died in their millions, fighting for a better human experience, thousands of years ago.
The pain/disappointment of your current jaded outlook, is your burden.
Why do you want to export it to others?