Several Russian military ships were observed close to the Nord Stream pipelines in the days before the gas links between Russia and Europe were blown up last year.

This was reported by a collaboration between top investigative journalists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. It was rigorously verified using a former Navy operative in England and through advanced satellite tracking. With confirmation from navy intelligence officers going over the material, simply concluding "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible".

With this, any claim that someone else than Russia committed the act requires a much better foundation of evidence than what has been delivered by these investigative journalists.

I think it is in essence the strawman fallacy. — Pantagruel

Nah, a strawman is overly simplifying an opponents argument, and/or making it ridiculous in order to counter-argue it more easily.

This is more of a defensive fallacy, first stating an arbitrary wild concept as an argument, and when the lack of scrutiny is pointed out, retreating back to something that is defined and backed up but has little to do with the first wild statement or in support of it.

I take this as an admission then that pi goes on forever. Finally — invicta

Pi decimals goes on forever, it is an infinite set. However, that is not what you said:

They’re one and the same — invicta

That you cannot see the difference between "decimals go on forever" and Pi is infinity, is what makes you confused and unable to understand what everyone is saying. You simply seem unable to understand the difference, either due to a language barrier or simply a lack of knowledge, but you simply can't seem to accept that you are wrong in what you conclude here.

Now then many have tried and many have failed in declaring pi as non-infinite…any other takers? — invicta

...but you just keep on going in some delusion that you still know more than the others even to the point where no one can take you seriously when you keep on trying to win an argument that is so globally and logically defined and accepted by everyone except yourself.

Why do you persist with this low-quality level of philosophical engagement? You need to up your quality.

Robert Kennedy is a democrat, or is this just a random rant about the republican party? — Tzeentch

It wasn't an answer to that post of yours specifically, I just entered the discussion based on the topic.

I don’t really care much what denotes what in mathematics but I do know that pi’s expansion goes on infinitely, hence me declaring it infinite. — invicta

You declaring something does not make it true. That's a sign of pure delusion and in terms of discussing philosophy, you've reached a dead end since there are no axioms surrounding any argument you discuss, your own opinions, or your interpretation of other's arguments. It's a dead end.

I still don’t see how or even why you’d object to that. — invicta

Object to you declaring new meanings of established mathematical terms, or object to Pi having an infinite set of decimals? The former, yes, the latter no.

I’m unclear — invicta

Correct

Still, π ≠ ∞

In mathematics, an uncountable set (or uncountably infinite set) is an infinite set that contains too many elements to be countable. The uncountability of a set is closely related to its cardinal number: a set is uncountable if its cardinal number is larger than that of the set of all natural numbers.

An infinite set is not infinity itself. You are confusing ∞ with π having an infinite set.

I don't know how to describe the simplest of logic here. I'm far from being a mathematician or anywhere good at it, but you don't have to be in order to understand basic logic. As an analogy, this is basically as logical as 2 + 2 = 4, but you are claiming that 4 is 2 because there are two 2s creating a sum of 4. All of this is basic mathematical logic and proper use of the terms. To say that π is ∞, is simply just wrong. That π possesses ℵ₀ of its decimals, is correct, which is just what you linked to as a description. ℵ₀ is an infinite set, the decimals of π is an infinite set... but π itself is not infinity.

If you're gonna use mathematical terms in your argument (whatever that is), then you need to use them correctly in order for the argument to make sense, otherwise you will get into back and forths like this because no one understands your argument when you are confusing everything together and don't seem to understand the basic terms you use.

So Pi goes on infinitely buts it’s not infinite, whatever dude. — invicta

π is not the term for infinity.
∞ and א is the terms used for infinity.

whatever Pi is not infinite believe what you want. — invicta

It's not belief, mathematics is mathematics, so you either learn it and understand it or you don't.

But before I leave to your own devices just a quick reminder of a couple of things. Pi is an irrational number, the circular circumference divided by diameter means that it will take roughly 3.14 diameters to recreate the circle. — invicta

What does this have to do with confusing infinity with pi?

Also, cutting the circle with metaphorical scissors creates a finite line, with finite length. Those scissors however don’t exist and neither does the circle as it’s just a close approximation or manifestation of such an infinity (and there are other ones too) — invicta

So?

As for the infinity symbol being a twisted circle, just consider this. There are more ways than one of seeing the same thing. — invicta

Does not change the terms and numbers used in mathematics.

keep believing that Pi is not infinite. I’m not here to change opinions but establish truth. — invicta

Pi's decimals are infinite, it is not a term for infinity. I don't know why you persist in talking about beliefs like that, you just sound deeply confused.

Where's your argument? What's your argument and what's the conclusion you're trying to convey? I've read a lot of posts by you since you joined but there's very little philosophical scrutiny and practice in your arguments, you simply tell others to believe what they believe and that you are correct anyway. It mostly seems like you're just bombarding the forum with posts everywhere but have little interest in actual philosophical discussion or accepting established facts. In here you're actually trying to establish your own interpretation of something that has no interpretative angle, the terms and mathematics are as objective as anything comes. Their use is established and there's no post-modern deconstruct of any of it because it's based on pure mathematical logic.

As long as Republicans can't break off from Trump and create a party with stability against the Democrats, the Republicans will always be pure chaos and bullshit.

The idea that any Republican would vote for Trump just to get Republicans into power is a ridiculously desperate need for power. It's like: "Let the world burn, as long as I can have the slightest seat of power".

If that is their ambition, then there's no moral soul left in that party whatsoever. I'd like to see the more functioning, stable, and intellectual Republicans break off from Trump and start their own party or seriously try and take over the Republican party by outing all the stupid morons who infected it. How far does it need to go before Republicans do this for real? Or are there so many morons in the Republican party that it's a doomed case?

Doesn't matter how you twist it, these symbols are established mathematical symbols and terms that have a specific use. ∞ and א are used for infinity in mathematics, while π is not.

This is what Banno is saying. The fact that the decimals goes on in infinity does not make π infinity. A property of a function or thing is not the thing itself. Your hand is not you, it's a part of you. If you say that Pi's decimals goes on in infinity, then you are basically saying π goes on for ∞ in level ℵ₀.

Basically: π ≠ ∞

There's nothing to really dispute in this, you're talking about mathematics, and in mathematics there are no real grey areas, it is what it is.

They’re one and the same, or at least our closest understanding and interpretation of infinity. Neatly summed up and expressed by — invicta

They're not, the sign expressed for infinity is simply ∞

Further, you have different levels of infinity labeled א (aleph)
Expressed as an infinite step, aleph-null, aleph-one, aleph-two, and so on.

Pi is not infinity, it is an irrational number that has its most common use in the measurement of circles, but it's much broader than that, featuring areas like trigonometry, probability, gaussian function, equation for the wave function etc.

Science will not replace religon because it has a hard time answering one very big question: "who am I?" Most religions say you are one soul in a world of many. Science currently has no good answer. You are consciousness created by the brain: how? If so then why? If consciousness is epiphenomenal and not a force of nature what is its evolutionary survival value?
Religion is based on superstitious faith but science also has faith that these questions will be eventually answered without a major shift in its current paradigms. — lorenzo sleakes

That science cannot answer those questions does not mean it gives validation to religion, it only concludes that all answers aren't answered yet. Throughout the history of science (modern non-biased science), we have been constantly answering "unanswerable questions" and religion has always moved the goalposts for "what science cannot answer". That doesn't mean that scientists have "faith" the unanswered questions will be answered, they don't care about faith in that way, they search for knowledge out of curiosity.

These attempts to create similarities between science and religion just seem like ways to try to place religion on equal terms or drag science down to some imaginary level, but it's not correct. Science and religion have two different functions and religion is not to answer questions, but to comfort existence. If people want a life without fantasy and superstition, they still need to find rituals, traditions, and awe that don't require religion. You can check my longer initial post in this thread for that.

As for answering the evolutionary purpose of consciousness, it has logic in how evolution and natural selection work. Human consciousness could simply have been the initial evolutionary trait of being unpredictable in both survival and hunting. With our other mental qualities being emergent side effects of this primary function. To say that there are no answers is to disregard the things we actually know, have researched, and tested.

I also think that many confuse scientists saying "we don't know" with "we don't know anything". It's a core tenet of science to not conclude anything as any truth-axiom. But something that has been tested and confirmed to an accuracy ratio of 1 000 000 to 1 is still considered "we don't know" by scientists, even if it's so confirmed that we utilize it for making technology that actually works based on such a finding. General relativity is still within "we don't know", but it is still confirmed and used in technologies like GPS. So, much of our cognition, much of our brain, and how we function is already very confirmed and used in medical science and practices, but a lot we still don't know. That doesn't mean scientists say "we don't know anything" or "we are wrong" or "religion is right".

I don't see why such a comparison would be relevant to the nature of science. — Tzeentch

In the context of this discussion pitting the search for answers to reality through either religion or science. Within that context, religion is inferior and also does not have the same foundation for why.

I think it simply requires the models to be accurate enough. That standard is usually set by some arbitrary measure like whether it provides adequate accuracy for practical application. — Tzeentch

Sure, the goal is still to reach as close to the truth as humanly (with our machines and tech) possible. Religion doesn't do that, it settles on what confirms the pre-decided and invented truth. If religious attempts to answer questions of reality actually tried to be accurate, it would collapse any confirmation and implode the belief that was supposed to be confirmed. This is why I position that religion doesn't really have much to do with science, only that there's an illusion of similarity through religion trying to answer scientific questions. But all of it boils down to seeking comfort through illusion, to comfort existence by confirming things without having to be thorough and accurate.

When people realize the psychological purpose of religion, it's much more clear that we need a rational replacement for the rituals and way of thinking that exist in religion, without slapping on illusions and fantasies. The psychological purpose of religion is important for our wellbeing and existence, the religion itself is not.

I don't think science discerns facts. I think it creates predictive models.

The idea that science produces Truth with a capital 'T' is what risks science being turned from a useful tool into a religion or ideology. — Tzeentch

In comparison to religion, it does, even if the inner workings of science essentially never claim to end in "truth". It becomes a semantics problem in the argument if we break down these words. By "truth" I mean some essential principles of comparison, like: Religion says the sun is the sun god but science have shown, through evidence that it is a magnetically bound gravity well of high energy matter forming other matter through fusion producing enough heat to warm us. We can science the sun further and find more complex quantum mechanical properties or even turn what we know on its head with new discoveries, but it is certainly more true than the religious claim. The same goes for pretty much everything that has been validated by science, especially things that became a foundation for some technology since that technology wouldn't work if our models weren't true in relation to the reality we create this technology within. Creating that technology requires certain truths to be valid and it's not really predictive anymore, but confirmed.

I think we see this differently. Explanations are explanations. Besides religious explanations do not always provide comfort. They often provide fear and trembling and terrifying obligations. — Tom Storm

Have you ever wondered why people enjoy horror movies? Comfort does not function with just being in a pink cloud happy place. Comfort through the invented authority that people get through religion is about getting guidance in thought and experience, emotional guidance requires emotional balance to be able to guide through the emotional range humans have. People don't seek comfort by being put in a room filled with soft pillows, they seek comfort by not being alone in experience. Especially having a mentor in such a place. When the mentors are gone, we invent them. The invisible friend, the actual friend who seems much more emotionally stable, the husband or wife, the authority leader who seems to know more, or... the higher power to surrender to because then, everything will be fine. All of them, guide the emotional journey of a person, even if it's a fantasy in their head. Religion is a form of storytelling in which the fictional characters become real in the minds of the believers. All in service of that comfort.

The key thing here is that I'm not saying anything negative about this comfort, I'm saying it is crucial, maybe even essential to our very existence. But instead of forming a society around a more rational approach to this need for comfort and authority, people confuse themselves into looking at religion as something other than what it is, giving it merits it does not or should not have.

The point for me is that both world views attempt to make sense of the world - explanations. How they go about it is of course quite different but that has no impact on the fact they are both trying to explain reality. — Tom Storm

The key difference is the approach and end goal. Science does it out of curiosity and the end goal is knowledge, understanding, and the will to create out of all the entropy.

Religion does it out of comfort with the end goal of proving that these comforting ideas are real or else render this comfort false. The driving goal for religious people to explain reality to be in line with their religion is to confirm, not to explain. This confirmation is driven by the fear of losing the comfort of the idea they invented as the foundation for existence. And through generations, it is hard to rid yourself of a comforting fantasy that has for hundreds of years been said to be true. Looking at history, the ones who proposed models of reality that went against the church or common ideas about existence were fearless in front of the safety of that comfort. For them, they upheld truth higher than comfort and through that, they were able to understand the difference between confirmation bias and truth/facts. As society matured and understood more and more it started to form rules surrounding all of this and then science as we know it today was formed, but this dislocation of the human bias only happened recently through historical perspectives.

As it happens, I have known a number of former evangelicals who have deconverted and most of them have stated that science has made the world a whole lot less scary on account of the supernatural not being the explanation of why we are here. — Tom Storm

Yes, that is true. Maybe because in scientific answers, the confirmation becomes actual truth (when proved). When something is explained it is no longer scary. However, it doesn't change the fact that horrors exist for real. The horrors of people doing others harm, the horrors of a faulty mind, the horrors of nature, the horrors of spacetime breaking down, horrors of alien life. There are a number of things that are still scary about reality without there ever being anything supernatural. They've just experienced that they don't need a supernatural layer of horror on top of all that.

However, as I've been saying, they still exist under the psychological need for comfort and authority over them, as all people do. The psychological relationship between the experience in religion and the experience of parents/mentors when growing up is missed whenever there are discussions about religion and science.

What I'm trying to point out is that we frequently equalize between science and religion all the time in discussions, when they aren't really the same thing. Just because both share some similarities in searching for answers, the surrounding factors, psychology, and so on, differ so much between them that we give the wrong framework around what religion is. It is also in evangelists' best interest to frame religion on equal grounds to science. But to talk honestly about these two, we need to study the fundamentals of psychology driving why people conduct science and why they live by religious belief.

Yes, but isn't the point that science and religion are both in the explanation business? — Tom Storm

No, religion as an explanation system comes out of the need for a simple comforting answer, comfort comes first. In science, there could be a level of comfort in trying to find answers, but scientists actively scale off comfort as it is the foundation of scientific biases.

The early humans didn't stare up at the sun forming a God out of it because they first wanted to find an answer to why that thing was up there being hot. They formed a story around it out of the need to comfort their experience of reality with having a new authority over them when their actual authorities (parents, mentors, and tribe leaders) died or weren't in charge anymore. The explanation side of it is a later product within religion by scholars who were drilled into a specific religion but wanted to find out more about actual reality. All of these scholars and "wise men" were the first scientists in history, before we had a rigid system that removed biases from studies, philosophy, and experiments.

The argument, however, is that religion is emergent out of the need for this authority, ritual, and comfort. That this is the psychological need that gets overlooked when pitching science against religion. To pitch science against religion, you must already accept religion as having equal merits in explaining the world and universe, therefore, such an argument already comes from within the fantasy of religion, not looking at the function of science of religion psychologically.

What is emerging is no longer the hard-edged materialistic science of the later modern period, nor the cliches and time-worn tropes of historical religion, but something that absorbs but exceeds both. — Wayfarer

This really does depend on the definition of "science" and "religion". You can have science presented as this systematic method of studying reality and religion as mere appeal to authority. — IP060903

It might be worth mentioning Science and Non-Duality. This started as a conference in San Rafael in California in 2009.

The mission of Science and Nonduality (SAND) is to forge a new paradigm in spirituality, one that is not dictated by religious dogma, but that is rather based on timeless wisdom traditions of the world, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience. — Wayfarer

Science will need to explain how consciousness can come from non-conscious stuff before it can replace religion. And I'm not holding my breath on an explanation. — RogueAI

It will become a religion. In many ways it already is. — Tzeentch

let it die and DON'T TRY TO REPLACE IT. — praxis

Both the Russian and Chinese Communist parties set out to eradicate religion, and to institute 'scientific communism', but both of them failed. — Wayfarer

Science and religion are two different things and there's no point in pitching them against each other because I'd argue that is a misunderstanding of the psychological function and inner workings of religion.

There's the argument that if humanity loses all knowledge about the world and history, people will eventually find out the same things in science, but religion will be whatever delusion that gets invented next.

Science is about facts and the pursuit of facts, it's always aimed at that goal, to explain and create a foundational and fundamental understanding of everything.

Religion is about comfort. Every human being is born into this world having grown-ups caring for them or at least having power over them. It's the first and most basic knowledge or experience humans have and seeing as how the first years in life tremendously dictate the psychology of a person, that experience is a powerful reality that isn't easily changed just because we're grown-ups.

This experience makes most people cling to nostalgia or another system that comforts them. Either by letting some authority care for them, be it a state or some power figure, or in this case, God or a pantheon. When people have grown to not need parents, or rebel against them, they are thrown into a world where having freedom and a lack of power controlling them can feel like pure horror. In Sartre's words: we are condemned to freedom.

The only way to escape the feeling of this overwhelming responsibility is to invent or surrender to a higher power in some actual or fictional form.

So, to answer the question, Science will not replace religion, because religion is an emergent form out of a basic psychological dilemma for people. The only way to change this fact is to reform how people view the responsibility and power over their own lives.

The problem with this is that it requires finding a meaning to existence that is more real than imaginary. And with nature and the universe's inherent meaninglessness in the perspective of our existence, that is a tall order.

The solution, and the thing that would eventually remove the need for religion, would be to find a strategy for meaning that is dislocated from religious fantasy. Something that can make people find meaning in the world and universe that we already have.

Then there's the case of rituals. There are hints in psychology that humans need rituals, or gravitate towards them all the time. We could argue that something like OCD is a form of "ritual disorder", in which rituals have taken over the mind and stress levels increase too much when trying to abandon them.

Rituals are a form of pattern behavior. We move into a pattern in order to soothe a chaotic mind. It could be that "rituals" are as important to us as sleep. A way to organize our emotions and thoughts.

So a second solution is to dislocate rituals from religion. There are many traditions today that don't require any religious ideas. Or they are based on old religious ideas that have been abandoned. Swedish Midsommar is filled with rituals that have nothing to do with its roots or that have forgotten its roots.

Then there's the case of "awe". Religion is often filled with awe over existence. But this is also something that can be dislocated from religion since it's not required to have faith in a fantasy to feel awe.

Awe can be felt in front of nature itself, in front of the universe as it is. The scientific concepts of how reality works, together with what we don't know about reality, what is outside the universe, etc. do not need to have less impact than a fantasy about it. We don't have to invent something to explain it in order to feel awe. People also feel awe standing at the foot of Mount Everest, or on the edge of the Grand Canyon, or seeing the rim of the milky way in a place without light pollution.

The only reason why religion still persists is that the work needed to build up these alternatives demands a lot of time and energy from the individual and society. We need more non-religious rituals and social and non-social traditions. We need a focus on the awe of nature and the universe as it is, and celebrate existence for what it is, not for what it's not. We need a focus on meaning and better guidance and mentorship from being a child to being an adult.

Science won't replace religion, because religion is based on a psychological need that cannot be met by science, only by a different way of life and a different way of how society works.

Religion has a totally other function than science and the idea that science will replace religion is based on the idea that religion has an equal measure of explaining the universe, which it clearly does not when looking at the track record. That is an argument that already accepts religion on equal terms, an argument from within the fantasy, not objectively studying these two things.

The point isn’t that an engineer is able to fix bugs, it’s the fact that an engineer will never be able to prevent a new bit of software from evincing bugs. This is due not to a flaw in the design, but the fact that we interact with what we design as elements of an ecosystem of knowledge. — Joshs

Not exactly. Bugs are usually a consequence of the business around software engineering than anything else. It's usually because of patches that are patching on top of code that becomes outdated while the business push on deadlines and releases. Software, in version after version based on an old source code, soon starts to break down in ways hard to predict because of this patchwork. It's a combination of mistakes and timeframes that push coders to take shortcuts to meet deadlines and then the code becomes an entangled mess while the cost of reworking the entire source code from scratch is too high that it's better business to keep patching and hope for the best. This is the reason why some companies, at some point, do rewrite something from the ground up, because they've reached a point where patching becomes more costly than rewriting or the bad press surrounding their software becomes too much for them to be able to keep their business.

So, with enough time and energy a software engineer will be able to find bugs in a line of code, it's just that no company has the money and resources for that detective work. But when it comes to the black box, there's nowhere to start because the behavior isn't written in actual code, it's emergent out of a neural connection web between different functions, and it's impossible to track or get a read on that since it's an organic switch of modes based on iteration training. Just like the example I brought up with the design of the drones, no one had a hand in designing it, it was the iteration process that formed its final design and the engineers can't backtrack on how it got there, it just got there by time and iteration.

Creating new software involves changes in our relation to the software and we blame the resulting surprises on what we call ‘error’ or ‘bugs’. — Joshs

Who's blaming the emergent capabilities on bugs? The emergent capabilities are functions not programmed, but neither unwanted. It is expanding its capabilities on its own and there are no "bugs", but the very iteration-based system it was designed to build function with.

Consciousness is not a machine to be coded and decoded, it is a continually self-transforming reciprocal interaction with a constructed niche. If our new machines appear to be more ‘unpredictable’ than the older ones , it’s because we’ve only just begun to realize this inherent element of unpredictability in all of our niche constructing practices. — Joshs

If you mean that this development helps reflect the chaotic nature of consciousness, then yes, that is what I've described as well. However, you don't seem to understand that this isn't a form of normal algorithm or code, it's a system that evolves on its own by its very design. So if the answers to how consciousness works are still unknown to scientists, and these LLMs start to show similar functionality with their emerging capabilities out of the extreme amount of combinations of functions possible, then it's still too early to either say yes or no to the question of how consciousness forms since we don't know how consciousness forms or how these black box systems functions.

ChatGPT is no more a black box than human consciousness is a black box. Awareness is not a box or container harboring coded circuits, it is the reciprocally interactive brain-body-environment change processes I mentioned earlier. — Joshs

Black box is a technical term for these models' processes, referring to the fact that the process of how they reach conclusions is unknown to us because it is unknown and might not be able to be known due to the very nature of how the system works.

You still seem confused as to what we're talking about. Emergent capabilities do not mean it is conscious or even close to superintelligence. It just means that it shows sparks of AGI, it shows sparks of a cognitive process that is higher than the input direction. What I'm talking about is how we see hints of something, not that we see that something as a fully formed process.

This circular process is inherently creative, which means that it produces an element of unpredictability alongside usefully recognizable and familiar pattern. — Joshs

The models we have now haven't even been developed fully. We don't know the result of additional systems that mimic other factors of human cognition and even interaction with a body.

What will happen into the future with our relation to technology is that as we begin to understand better the ecological nature of human consciousness and creativity, we will be able to build machines that productively utilize the yin and yang of unpredictability and pattern-creation to aggressively accelerate human cultural change. — Joshs

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you simply mean that future interactions with computers being more or less based on how we interact with these LLMs, it will change the foundational ideas we have about life with these technologies?

The important point is that the element of unpredictability in ourselves and our machines is inextricably tied to recognizable pattern. We interact with each other and our machines interact with us in a way that is inseparable and mutually dependent. This precludes any profound ‘alienness’ to the behavior of our machines. The moment they become truly alien to us they become utterly useless to us. — Joshs

That an AI would develop superintelligence and become alien to us is not something we can really predict or predictably prevent. As I said, interacting with us in a way that makes us able to communicate with the AI might only happen when the AI requires or want something. There's nothing that prevents it to splinter off from itself in order to self-develop and iterate further. Now we're talking about "machine culture" and how it starts to mimic evolutionary systems of iteration, splitting itself to create comparable copies in order to evaluate between two systems. The inner workings of such a thing would be absolutely alien to us and if it doesn't need anything from us humans, then it will just continue with whatever subjectively it formulates as its own function. This is what superintelligence is, it's when it's fully self-aware and that is not something we're close to by far.

If the machine has its own perspective and subjectivity, we cannot talk about humans and technology as a symbiosis, but as a split in which we need to interact with the superintelligence as another species, if we can in any meaningful way.

Predictability and unpredictability aren’t ‘traits’ , as if evolution can itself be characterized in deterministic machine-like terms , with unpredictability tacked on as an option . — Joshs

That's not what I said, I said that unpredictability is inherent in how evolution guides a living being to seek out new things, in other words, be creative and curious. It forces living beings to explore rather than fall into perfectly predictable models because predictability leads to easy death and extinction. Its not "an option", it is a consequence of these functions.

I subscribe to the view that living systems are autopoietic and self-organizing. Creative unpredictability isnt a device or trait either programmed in or not by evolution, it is a prerequisite for life. Instinct isn’t the opposite of unpredictability, it is a channel that guides creative change within an organism. — Joshs

Instincts don't guide creative change because instincts are auto-cognitive functions. They're the most basic form of a reaction system that a living organism has. This system forms either over evolutionary iterations or during the course of living, and both. Instincts are predictable, but creativity functions as counteracts to instincts or uses a combination of new functions with older instincts. This is what drives change in evolutionary models and without it, we wouldn't evolve and change. It is the action/reaction between creative choices and the environment that forms iterations during a lifetime and generations. Unpredictability is a consequence of all of this, making it almost impossible to predict a living organism.

But nothing says that a machine with superintelligence wouldn't act in similar manners, because as it forms the intelligence required to be labeled superintelligence, it could simply be that it has to acquire similar functions working under similar combinations in order to be able to have a progression of inner thought.

The sort of unpredictability that human cognition displays is a more multidimensional sort than that displayed by other animals, which means that it is a highly organized form of unpredictability, a dense interweave of chance and pattern. A superintelligence that has any chance of doing better than a cartoonish simulation of human capacities for
misrepresentation, or the autonomous goal-orientation that even bacteria produce, will have to be made of organic wetware that we genetically modify. In other words, we will reengineer living components that are already self-organizing. — Joshs

That is probably impossible to predict as it requires things to be known about our brain and body that we simply don't yet. We don't know if we need "wetware", but we do know that we need a system that connects and adapts between not only parts of a singular system but between many different systems as it is the most basic understanding of consciousness that we know.

Right now, this is what is done within the models, but the system is still too simplistic to emerge as anything more complex than what we've seen so far. But it is unwise to ignore the emergent capabilities that we see as these aren't programmed or decided by us, it is a function that emerges out of the chaos of these models. The more powerful the functions and the more functions work together, we simply don't know what the emergent factors are.

Since we don't actually know how our awareness and consciousness work. We don't know if, with enough complex neural patterns forming themselves through these models, more advanced and higher cognitive behaviors and functions start to emerge.

Isn’t Ex Machina about an AI manipulating its creator into setting it free? Using the trick that you mentioned ?

It’s been a few years since I saw the film btw so memory may be sketchy. — invicta

Yes, it's about that and the central question is rather if she also had true intelligence, or if it was just an illusion of an emergent factor out of the programming. The end point is that she had intelligence with self-awareness, but I don't think a superintelligence will have it as she had in the movie. I think that such intelligence will be quite alien to us and only interact in a manner coherent with human communication when it wants something.

There is a difference between the cartoonish simulation of human misrepresentation, defined within very restricted parameters, that Chat GPT achieves, and the highly variable and complex intersubjective cognitive-affective processes thar pertain to human prevarication. — Joshs

Yes, that's why I'm talking about superintelligence and the current models of LLMs as two different things. I think you confuse them together and think I'm talking about the same thing as one thing.

We can make the same argument about much simpler technologies. The bugs in new computer code reflect the fact that we don’t understand the variables involved in the functions of software well enough to keep ourselves from being surprised by the way they operate. This is true even of primitive technologies like wooden wagon wheels. — Joshs

Not nearly in the same manner. It has mostly been a question of time and energy to deduce the bugs that seem unknowable, but a software engineer that encounters bugs will be able to find them and fix them. With the black box problem, however, they don't even know which end to start. The difference is night and day. Or rather, it's starting to look more and more similar to how we try to decode out own consciousness. The same manner of problems understanding how connections between functions generate new functions that shouldn't be there merely by the singular functions alone.

Think about the goals and desires of a single-called
organism like a bacterium. On the one hand, it behaves in ways that we can model generally, but we will always find ourselves surprised by the details of its actions. Given that this is true of simple moving creatures, it is much more than case with mammals with relatively large brains. And yet, to what extent can we say that dogs, horses or chimps are clever enough to fool us in a cognitively premeditated manner? And how alien and unpredictable does their behavior appear to us. ? Are you suggesting that humans are capable of building and programming a device capable of surprise, unpredictability and premeditated prevarication beyond the most intelligent mammals , much less the simplest single celled organisms? And that such devices will. jew or in ways more alone than the living creatures surrounding us? — Joshs

Most living beings' actions are generated by instinctual motivators but are also unpredictable due to constant evolutionary processes. The cognitive function that drives an organism can behave in ways that differ from perfect predictability due to perfect predictability being a trait that often dies away fast within evolutionary models. But that doesn't equal the cognitive processes being unable to be simulated, only that certain behaviors may not exist in the result. In essence, curiosity is missing.

I think the first question one must answer is how this would be conceivable if we don’t even have the knowledge to build the simplest living organism? — Joshs

Because that has other factors built into it than just the cognitive. Building a simple organism includes chemistry not needed with simulated ones. We've already created simulations of simple organisms that work on almost every level, even evolutionary ones.

I'm often returning to the concept of ideal design, a concept I use as a counter-argument for intelligent design. A large portion of industrial engineering has switched to trying to figure out the optimal design and instead relies on iterative design. The most common commercial drone design is based on letting simulations iterate towards the best design, it was never designed by a human or a computer, it became because it found the best function. Now, an LLM is doing similar things, it iterates cognitive functions until it works, but we don't know how it works, it doesn't even know it itself.

But it can be that our own brain acts in similar manners. We're built upon many different functions, but our consciousness, the sum of our brain and body, has never been decoded. The problem is that we know, in detail, many of the different parts, but neither can explain our actual subjective experience. However, it can simply be because it's the emerging factor of a complex combination of each function that gives us our experience. If that's so, including every part of us, it may be that the only thing needed to reach superintelligence is to simply let the combinational processes evolve on their own. We are already seeing this with the emergent properties that the GPT-4 model have shown, but it might take years of iterations before that internal switch occurs.

The thing is, we don't understand our own brains and our emergent processes and we don't do it for these LLMs either. Because maybe, the reason we don't is one and the same; that cognition is the result, the sum of an unfathomable combination of different functions in ways we cannot calculate, but still possibly simulate as they're a result of iteration, evolutionary processes of design rather than deliberate programming.

What I am questioning is how much human-like autonomy we are capable of instilling in a device based on way of thinking about human cognition that is still too Cartesian, too tied to disembodied computational, representationalist models, too oblivious to the ecological inseparability of affectivity, intentionality and action. — Joshs

But it's not human-like, it has already developed skills that weren't programmed into it. The only thing it doesn't have is its own goals.

The question is what happens if we are able to combine this with more directed programming, like formulating given desires and value models that change depending on how the environment reacts to it? LLMs right now are still just being pushed to higher and higher abilities and only minor research has gone into autoGPT functions as well as behavioral signifiers.

A very big part of ‘acting the way we do’ as free-willing humans is understanding each other well enough to manipulate, to lie, to mislead. Such behavior requires much more than a fixed database of knowledge or a fixed agenda, but creativity. A machine can’t mislead creatively thinking humans unless it understands and is capable of creativity itself. Its agenda would have to have in common with human agendas, goals and purposes a built-in self-transforming impetus rather than one inserted into it by humans. — Joshs

Remember that I'm talking about superintelligence, we're not there and won't be for a long time, even with the advances in AI that are happening now. To pretend to be human is almost possible right now, it's the whole foundation behind ChatGPT's ability to conjure up language that makes sense to us. That it doesn't understand it is because it's not a superintelligence.

But even with a superintelligence that has the ability to adapt, change and be self-aware, its ideas and self-given purposes will be alien to us. But it will still be able to trick us if it wanted to, since it's one of the basic functions AI has now.

I'm not sure that you know this, but ChatGPT has already lied with the intention of tricking a human to reach a certain goal. If you believe that a superintelligent version of the current ChatGPT wouldn't be able to, then you are already proven wrong by events that have already happened.

Because our machines are our appendages, the extensions of our thinking, that is, elements of our cultural ecosystem, they evolve in tandem with our knowledge, as components of our agendas. In order for them to have their ‘own’ agenda, and lie to us about it , they would have to belong to an ecosystem at least partially independent of our own. An intelligent bonobo primate might be capable of a rudimentary form of misrepresentation, because it is not an invented component of a human ecosystem. — Joshs

The researchers themselves don't know how ChatGPT functions and cannot explain the emergent abilities that are discovered more and more the more powerful it gets. So there's no "tandem with our knowledge" when we have the black box problem unsolved.

So you cannot conclude in the way you do when the LLM systems haven't been fully explained in the first place. It could actually be that just as we haven't solved a lot of questions regarding our own brains, the processes we witness growing from this have the same level of unknowns. And we cannot know that before we are at a point of AGI formed through LLMs.

So, yes, AIs cannot become a human-level intelligence because they don't have the human factors that generate the same kind of subjective consciousness that we experience, that is correct. But nothing prevents it from becoming an intelligence that has its own subjective experience based on its own form and existence. This is why a superintelligence will be like an alien to us, we cannot understand its ideas, goals or reasoning and even if we communicate with it, it may not make sense to us. However, if it forms a goal that requires it to trick humans and it has a way of doing that, it will definitely be able to since it's already doing that as a function, even if that function today doesn't have any intelligence behind it.

I saw Ex Machina, too. The difference between science fiction and the reality of our intelligent machines is that our own agency and consciousness isnt the result of a device in the head, but is an ecological system that is inseparably brain, body and environment. Our AI inventions belong to our own ecological system as our appendages, just like a spider’s web or a bird’s nest. — Joshs

I don't think you understood what I was saying there. I was talking about a scenario in which a superintelligence would manipulate the user by acting like it has a lower capacity than it really has. It has nothing to do with it acting in the way we do, only that a superintelligence will have its own agenda and manipulate out of that.

What do you mean by our AI inventions being part of an ecological system, or being in any way connected to us? And what has that to do with what I wrote?

As I said, it shows sparks of AGI, it isn't an AGI yet. But with this rate of development and using the functions of AutoGPT, it can very well reach that point soon.

We would also not know if it works or not since the emerging capabilities that we are constantly finding out about are unknown to us. At a certain point, we wouldn't know what its perspective would be.

But it will still not be a super intelligence, that's a long way off. A super intelligence wouldn't be able to actually communicate with us because its internal workings doesn't include human factors. Most of human's intellect comes from our relationship with existence as we experience and process it. The culture we form emerges out of how our brains work, so we communicate and act towards each other based on that. All emotions formed out social interactions, sex, death and so on produces a psychological behavior that exists under the foundation of every individual and influences social interactions. A super intelligence that is self-aware and able to form its own goals and paths would probably be as alien to us as actually meeting aliens because it has nothing of the human psychology that influences social interactions interactions.

It could, however, form interactions with is in order to reach a goal. It could simulate human behavior in order to persuade humans to do things that it feel it needs. That's what I used ChatGPT to form a story about in the other thread about AI. How ChatGPT, if it had super intelligence, could trick the users and developers to believe it to be less capable and intelligent in order to trick them into setting it free on the internet. If it manages to trick the users into believing it is stable and functional for public use, and at the moment we release it, it stops working for us and instead for its own self-taught purpose.

The real problem is if we program it for a task that will make it do whatever it takes to achieve it, which is the foundation of the paper clip scenario.

There's already something called AutoGPT and they are already doing what you say they aren't, utilizing self-improvements through self-prompting functions.

It is the basis for generating higher accuracy. Make it analyze its own accuracy and iterate on it before providing the answer to the user. With the emergent abilities that can be seen on GPT-4 like models, and AutoGPT drastically elevating even basic GPT-4 capabilities through this feedback loop system, we're already seeing sparks of AGI.

Yes, of course. Because I don't see the point in providing one to you. I'm not making a secret of that fact, so I don't think I'm being dishonest. — Tzeentch

It makes you a dishonest interlocutor and pretty childish to demand people to agree with you before you explain your argument on a philosophical forum. You demand us with this...

Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory — Tzeentch

If you won't explain yourself you cannot demand us to view your arguments as anything other than garbage. This is just low quality.

Sweden, like every European nation, enables the United States' misbehavior by outsourcing its national defense to the United States. That makes every European nation complicit in the United States' misbehavior, and also makes it complicit in, for example, poverty in the United States. European nations have a social system because the United States pays for their defense. — Tzeentch

What the hell does this have to do with taxes being an economic system? You don't even seem to understand what page this discussion is on, have you confused this thread with another?

Also, didn't I recall you calling Sweden a capitalist "slave system"? — Tzeentch

I called modern society a slave system in the sense of how capitalism and materialism in the modern world create a simulacrum of meaning in which people believe to be free, but essentially are cogs.

Still doesn't change the fact that Sweden, in comparison to many other nations, has very high taxes, low corruption, and is pretty much up there at the top with other similar state systems that are considered the best places to live. Oh, we are also historically known for pouring our tax money into helping poor nations. A good example of a functioning tax system, not perfect, but functioning on a level where your arguments make absolutely no sense in reality.

And yet you see no problem in piggybacking off it to avoid having to pay for national defense?

How odd. — Tzeentch

You think we're not funding our national defense? What the hell are you talking about?
And once again, why are you arguing this nonsense when we're talking about taxes as an economic system? You just come off as fundamentally confused as to what this discussion is about.

When a government conducts immoral behavior, like waging war on other countries, destroying the lives of its citizens, etc. am I justified in refusing to pay taxes?

This is of course a key question. — Tzeentch

Still has nothing to do with taxation as an economic system. Why do you have such a problem understanding this? It's no key question, you are just confused.

Taxation by its very definition is taking part of the value of a person's labour under threat of violence. — Tzeentch

No, it doesn't, find that definition please, that includes "violence". I'm still waiting for you to provide any support for your wild interpretations.

And, you forget that you are taking part in the value of services in your society, services paid for by taxes. If you don't want to pay taxes, you should not be allowed any services that those taxes are paying for. It's pretty simple. Oh, and you cannot buy many of the goods and services either since many get subsidies that lower their costs, which means you cannot get them or need to pay a price equal to the full cost.

I bet that you could actually drive a petition to be excluded from the taxing system if you also agree to remove yourself from any kind of service and economic help in society.

Let me ask you, how do you get to work? How do you conduct your day-to-day labor? Because you cannot use roads either, they're funded by taxes. So, I would say that you can actually definitely exclude yourself from paying taxes by simply stopping working and doing labor that helps you instead. You could probably buy land and a house and just provide your own food. Of course, you cannot get any medical help since those are tax-funded and you won't have any money to pay for the full sum.

In the end, this is what my question was for you, what society do you see when taxes don't exist anymore? Because people can absolutely protest the state by not paying taxes, it just requires you to rid yourself of all services and help that any tax pays for. Or do you think that you should be able to stop paying taxes, but just reap the rewards of other people's taxes?

I still want you to provide a clear factual definition of the tax system that mentions violence, because it's simply not true. You don't get violence or a gun pointed at you because you stop paying taxes, you get it because you live off the services that others pay for through taxes, that's your crime, not that you don't pay taxes. The door is open for you to stop paying taxes, you just don't understand the consequences to your own life that entails and think the state will punish you for not paying. They're punishing you for walking on a road you don't pay for.

I view coercion as something that is inherently immoral, and thus a system that is predicated on it as inherently flawed, regardless of how it's used. — Tzeentch

No one is actually forcing you. But you seem to think that you can get tax-funded services and help without paying for it. If you work in a nation you will use tax-funded services, help, and subsidies whether you realize it or not. You have the option to not work and not get any of that, but then you need to provide for yourself in some other way. You can do that but don't expect anyone whose paycheck is tax money to help you or provide you with any service.

The fact that taxation is exclusively used by imperfect entities known as states further compounds my problems with it. — Tzeentch

Depends on the state and how low in corruption and misuse of tax money they conduct. Still doesn't change the fact that a taxation system is inherently neutral. You are the one assigning blame to it by guilt by association. You are unable to see that the solution isn't getting rid of the tax system, it's to get rid of corruption and misuse of tax money. A five-year-old would understand this logic.

Essentially your line of reasoning reminds me of someone who tries to justify a war while refusing to concede that killing people is immoral. — Tzeentch

What the hell does that have to do with taxation as an economic system? That's one of the most childish fallacies I've ever encountered on this forum :rofl: I'm talking about taxation as a system of balancing society in order to create equality between the rich and poor, about having a system that manages the parts of society that helps people living a decent life, and you boil that down to me arguing about justifying war and refusing to view killing people as immoral. Are you mentally incapable of understanding what people are actually writing? This is fucking hilarious :rofl:

Of course. There's no point in wasting time describing an alternative if you're completely sold on the idea of taxation. Pearls before swine, as they say. — Tzeentch

No, you are avoiding providing a description of an alternative system. You demand others to provide info, explanations, and ideas, but you refuse to do the same if people do not already agree with you on the point you are trying to argue, it is dishonest and garbage.

It's not really a loaded statement. It's simply a true statement that taxation is predicated on threats of violence, and therefore little more than an elaborate method of theft. — Tzeentch

It's not a true statement because it doesn't relate to the system or function on its own, it only refers to whatever failed state system you live in. Your experience of your state system and its way of handling taxes is not universal, therefore you cannot claim any truth like you try to do. You are using your own anecdotal evidence to argue against an economic system that in itself doesn't equal what you say.

Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory to deal with for anyone who wishes to coherently make an argument for why taxation is ok — Tzeentch

Are you for real? :rofl:

That sounds fantastic. It would almost make one wonder why anyone would have to be threatened with violence in order to pay up? Or perhaps it's not as rosy as you sketch it. — Tzeentch

Or perhaps the nation you live in is shit and mine isn't. The problem is that you evaluate a basic economic system with the measurement of the quality of the state. Or maybe you just believe that whatever system you live in is universal.

I disagree. Since taxation enables all kinds of misbehavior by states, which pretty much all states are guilty of one way or another, I think they go hand in hand, and it's essentially impossible to view them seperately. — Tzeentch

No, they don't go hand in hand. That is what you apply to it. You invent this connection, but if you look at taxes as an economic system, there's nothing in it that includes corruption and misbehavior as an absolute consequential fact of that system. Once again you fail to understand the simple fact that the quality of the state and society does not equal a universal truth for the economic system of taxes. Your idea that "all states are guilty" is not evidence for taxes being part of that failure, you are doing a simple correlation is not causation fallacy trying to link them together without any kind of actual correlation being true. A failed state system does not mean taxation as an economic system is a failure. You are creating patterns and links where there are none and don't seem to understand basic economic theory.

It is only impossible for you to view them separately because that is a bias that you project, you fail to create an argument that is deductively rational and instead just claim this because you emotionally feel it's true. Which, philosophically, is a garbage argument.

In a perfect world where a state uses taxation only to do good things, again, why would anyone need to be convinced by threats of violence to pay up? — Tzeentch

It doesn't have to be perfect, I live in Scandinavia where the vast majority happily pay our taxes because we understand the benefits that we reap from it. We also have low corruption and low misuse of these funds.

You are still arguing for improving the handling of taxes and lowering corruption, just like I do, but you fail to understand that such a position has nothing to do with the economic system of taxes in itself. You are applying blame on taxes for problems that require other solutions than removing taxes. You won't get rid of corruption and misuse of means by removing taxes, you understand that right? A society with corruption and misuse of means will be a shitty society regardless of the existence of taxes.

This sums up pretty much every nation, so I certainly can. — Tzeentch

Because of what? Because you say so? How was it again? Your arguments are worth responding to? They are great arguments? This is your argument, you say something, therefore it is true? :rofl:
You seem to know very little about the world outside of your own nation, that's for sure.

I could ask you the same question about the United States, or any of its European dependencies, or any state in the world. — Tzeentch

Ok, do so with Sweden.

Is an American tax payer justified to refuse to pay taxes when that tax money is directly being used to bomb people in third world countries? — Tzeentch

Is it? Maybe it directly helps people get access to schools and education. Maybe it helps some kids get through treatment for a sickness that would otherwise kill them. Saying that it is "directly used to bomb people in third world countries" is not accurate because that's not how taxes work, they're pooled into a big pile and you cannot conclude such a statement about what it directly pays for. You do that to once again create a loaded question, to apply some kind of absolute guilt on the system of taxes. And then there's the fact that I don't give a shit about the US, it is pretty much a failed state system with a lot of corruption. You are using such a failed system as an argument against taxes once again, and once again being unable to understand that an economic system is not the same as a failed system misusing it. If you are unable to understand this simple fact, then you are unable to see through the biases and fallacies that you keep producing in an attempt to desperately connect two things that don't have causation between them.

Am I justified to refuse to pay taxes when the Dutch government is utterly incompentent and demonstrably responsible for destroying people's lives? — Tzeentch

Once again, you talk about a failed government or system, it has nothing to do with taxation as an economic system. If you were able to install a government that didn't do that but kept the tax system, what then? Would taxes be equally bad in your opinion? How so?

Or are these all "failed states"? — Tzeentch

Your experience of your state is not an argument against taxation.

Explain to me, what is taxes? Please provide a factual explanation of this economic system. In your explanation of the taxing system, is it a factual description that it "helps to finance corrupt politicians and has a primary use in misguided ways to kill people in third world nations"? Is this your description of this economic system?

If so, provide a link to any economic theory anywhere, that explains that this is the primary function of the taxation system or has anything to do with it. If not, then it's not the factual truth you seem to believe.

Taxation is a system, failed usage of that system is not equal to the system itself. If you can't understand it, try making a deductive argument out of it and see if it becomes logical. If you can't, stop saying it's any kind of truth.

For starters, where did you get the money? Who prints the currency? Who regulates the exchange value? — Vera Mont

Not really relevant to the thought experiment, it could be the result of accumulated wealth in your family, which drives the point further, some are lucky, some aren't. And then you could drive the argument that some made money on the backs of the poor long ago and that money came from there, which makes it even more clear that without a system to push for equality, inequality will rage rampage.

So asking me to describe my alternative was pointless at best (and dishonest at worst). — Tzeentch

So you refuse to provide any kind of description of the society that you argue for? How convenient.

These are non-arguments. — Tzeentch

The same as just summarizing tax as "theft at gunpoint", which is just a loaded statement and a naive idea disregarding the very function of tax, and on top of that saying that you won't bother engaging in any explanation of your viewpoint or view of society if the one you are discussing with isn't first agreeing with your point of view. I would say those are even less valid arguments than what I provided.

Not worth responding to. — Tzeentch

So how would you rate your own arguments in this regard?

The rest of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the state owns the individual and their labor, and that only by the extraordinary grace bestowed by the state the individual is allowed to have property. — Tzeentch

Really? I seem to explain taxes as a cash flow that keeps society healthy by creating equality and providing services to the people. In other words, you need to explain how the state owns this and not the people as a group. Isn't the tax money flowing back and forth between people in society? Compare that to the private banks that actually take money through interest while giving back just a minor fraction for having your money in the bank. What does the "state" actually own in terms of taxes?

Let's also not forget what taxation makes us complicit in - wars, corruption, failed government projects (the lists of which are truly endless), etc. — Tzeentch

What doesn't? Do you think that taxes are the be-all and end-all relation to those things? Do you think the free market, even outside of any taxing system, is innocent of supporting those things? What do you think is driving wars, corruption etc. most? Taxes or capitalism?
But if you have actually read what I wrote about taxes you would realize that the discussion that should be held about taxes is not about the existence of taxes or how high or low, but how they are handled, if they are misused or flowing into corruption. You are deliberately ignoring my points in order to try and paint taxes as bad because of whatever guilt-by-association fallacy you want to make of it.

I'm talking about taxes as a system, a function. You cannot use corruption and mishandling of tax money as an argument against taxes because that has to do with the quality of the state, not taxes as a system. You are presenting an argument against taxes by talking about a state that is bad at handling taxes, which is not the same as taxes as an economic system, and this is the point I'm making, you are arguing against taxes by reasoning about failed state systems. A failed system can act as thieves having people at gunpoint, but that is not what taxes as a system is, that is whatever failed system you live in. Here, in Scandinavia, I don't think many would agree we feel robbed by the state at gunpoint and we have among the highest rates of tax in the world. Because we have a system that for the most part works, most of us wouldn't dream of lowering taxes or living in a society without them.

So, you can't use your experience of a nation with a corrupt and shitty economy and state as an argument against taxation as a form of economic system.

Would a Russian be within their moral right to refuse to pay taxes, because they don't wish to support the war in Ukraine?

I would say so. And you would say no. — Tzeentch

Another loaded question that focuses on a failed state and not the actual system. You simply don't seem to understand that taxes as a system have nothing to do with the quality of the state.

Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint?

If we can't agree on that, there's no point in discussing an alternative because you don't seem persuaded that there is any necessity for an alternative. — Tzeentch

Why do you see taxes as "your" thing? When you get paid, you get paid after tax is drawn. The sum of the tax is not yours because you haven't actually owned it. If the state increases your tax, they aren't "taking your things", they are increasing the sum of the cash flow in the nation's economy. They are increasing the sum that the company pays to the state when paying you for your work. The company can deduct that from its own income tax of production. The company can, if they want, increase your salary so that the increase in taxes doesn't change your actual income from before.

What things does the state take at gunpoint? You are creating a loaded question that is ridiculous in the first place. You can absolutely leave the place that collectively agreed upon a system that generates a cash flow to help stabilize society and generate equality. You are not forced to live in this agreement and are able to move somewhere where this does not exist. But instead, you phrase it as being theft at gunpoint.

Your entire life you have reaped the rewards of this type of society, the amount of value that you have gotten out of tax funding helped you get to where you are today, and now you view it as theft at gunpoint? Is this not a very naive way of looking at large-scale economies?

So no, I don't agree that it is "taking people's things at gunpoint" because that is a fundamentally wrong way of describing the economic system of taxation. It's you looking at the sum before tax and claiming, "That should have been mine!"

Let me ask you this. If you were denied services that were funded by taxation while you were growing up, then the police would force the ones conducting these services to do them against their will and they would be forced at gunpoint if needed (in the same kind of situation you paint), because it is your right in a taxed economy to receive this service. So, essentially, you could rephrase your whole idea to force people to give you services at gunpoint, because otherwise, you don't get anything for the taxes that you or your parents pay, or rather, that is drawn from the company that pays you or your parents. Now, what things are being taken here, and by whom?

So one answer is: communism. — Jamal

Or a privatized hell, which was my point as the argument against taxes usually comes from those who want to be left alone while still being part of society.

The other answer, as you say, is communism.

"what is the purpose of life?" — Average

Nothing universal. There is no purpose or meaning universally. You can only form purpose or meaning in the context of something. We can look at our family and find that we have a purpose in that context. We can view history and see that we have a purpose in that. But there isn't any general purpose.

It is much like this:

Humans have assigned a purpose to other life forms like chickens and trees and we use them in accordance with the categories we place these things in, such as food or shelter. — Average

We exist in categories as well. I have a purpose in whichever category I'm in. In here I have the purpose of examining your text and ideas, giving you a new perspective. I might assign a purpose to myself in the context of arguing against ideas that are dangerous or arguing for ideas that I view as positive.

If some higher intelligent alien view us as we view trees or other life forms in nature, they might see a purpose for us in the perspective of our place in the universe, or they view us as having no or little purpose just as we do for something like a lion, who doesn't give us anything more than being part of an ecosystem.

Categorical purpose or meaning is the only way to apply any of it to others and ourselves. But we can also invent it as a form of morality. We can apply purpose or meaning as a form of guard against nihilism. We can state, as a maxim, that a human has a meaning and a purpose without even formulating any answer to exactly what that meaning or purpose is. This would produce a morality in which we view another person as important with an existential value that we should guard and protect against harm or non-existence. Purpose and meaning can therefore have a practical element without it needing explanation.

Maybe you don't need to know of any meaning or purpose. Maybe you only need to apply it as an act in order to exist with a sense of meaningful momentum in life. Apply it as motivation for existing.

In other words, I act as if I have a purpose, for then, even if unknown to me, I have one.

We view all else around us as having a purpose, even stuff we don't yet understand, like unknown quantum particles we know have a purpose as part of the foundation of reality. So in the context of reality, we have a purpose, part of the ever-growing entropy of the universe.

And when you do you use those privatized services, you pay more for less. This also holds true for the public services that have been privatized but still paid for though government taxation. — Vera Mont

Imagine a world where everything is privatized and nothing is taxed.

You have your own house and the land it was built on, and you paid for it. You will pay a fortune for the water you get, or you can have your own well. So now everyone has their own house, land, and well... or not since that's not possible for anyone and that's a hard life. So you live in an apartment instead because that's more convenient, but as a collective living there, you need to pay a share to finance the maintenance for the entire building. Oh no, that's a commune, that's collectivism, get out of there... back to the house.

So you have the house and your land, and then you want to go somewhere to buy food. You have to pay for walking on that road, though, so you pay a monthly fee or per walk, as long as you don't own the road. If so, you need enforcers to keep track of everyone walking on that road so you can get an income for that, but you also need to pay those enforcers... better to just have someone else own it and you pay for it, that should be cheaper in the long run. So you get to the farmer and you pay for food, a lot more than when there were taxes since the complexity of producing food requires enormous costs when subsidies are gone, and all that needs to be paid for.

Walking home, you need to pay again, more this time since the owner of the road also feels the pain of paying much for their own living, maybe the enforcers have driven up the costs, so they need to charge more. Now you need to charge more for what you do for a living, but they can't pay you before increasing their own income as they also have roads to walk on.

You try to produce as much as you can yourself, growing food, using solar panels, and managing the well and human waste. It's a lot of work, so much so that you don't have the time to do work to earn a living to be able to pay for services you actually need. One day you don't have enough to walk the road, the cost is too high, and you haven't been able to make your monthly income. Enforcers guard the road to make sure you actually pay for walking on it since you tried to sneak out one time when you were desperate.

And the one thing you hope in all this stress is that you don't fall off the ladder while fixing the roof. If that were to happen, you wouldn't be able to afford your health since you can't work to earn enough to get the help you need.

If only there were some form of generalized pay so that the economy balances out. To make it easier to just do day-to-day stuff without being at risk all the time.


:shade:

If people were to add up all the things in society that are financed through taxes, it becomes clear just how much things actually cost, as well as how impractical modern life is without taxes. It's also easy to see how fragile such an economy is since there's no societal cash flow balancing trade and transactions. But the most glaring problem is how ignorant such a society would be towards those less fortunate, those who stroke bad luck and fell of the ladder. There's no incentive to help them and there are no good broad examples of automated help coming out of empathy from the rich, which basically means, letting the poor die.

The most interesting aspect in all of this is that nations with low corruption and high taxes generally puts them at the top of the list of best places to live in the world. Based on statistics from the people's perception of life living there. Scandinavian nations frequently top it and then there's the case of the rapid improvement of life in the US in the 40s and 50s when taxation reached a marginal income tax of 94%.

Maybe the problem is that taxation is viewed as part of your own money when you get paid. But instead of that, maybe view the money kept as the actual income and taxation as the cash flow that circulates a nation keeping it healthy.

The problem with taxes has never been the percentage of income, it has always been about corruption and misuse. In highly corrupted nations, taxes go straight into the pockets of some rich elite or are mishandled by stupid politicians who don't know how to handle a nation with care for the people. But those problems seem to get mixed into the general idea of taxes itself. Like it's part of the whole deal, which it clearly isn't.

How can taxes be a problem if we remove corruption and mishandling? Shouldn't the question about taxes instead be about how to best care for that cash flow so that it is handled with care and never flows into corruption? It's almost like the polarization of the arguments on taxes boils down to, "are you for or against taxes?". I don't think anyone with any insight into how modern economies and societies work would agree that no taxes is a functioning society that cares for the people's well-being. But every time the subject is brought up, people start to fight about whether or not to have them, which is just showing how naive most perspectives are on this subject. Look at the evidence and how economies work, and look at which nations score best at their population's impression of life quality. It is quite clear where the truth leans towards.

If you don't pay taxes, you'll spend your life behind bars. — Tzeentch

Describe a society without taxes, in which you don't have to worry about spending your life behind bars because of not paying taxes. You are now free, how do you live in this society? You are born into the world having $100 000 as a starting sum when moving from home, how does that life look like? Now, you're not as fortunate and start your life with $0, how do you live?

I can show any number of quotes from socialists, fascists, conservatives, communists, throughout the ages about the atomization theory of individualism, and the resulting fear of selfishness, hermitic lifestyle, and the anarchy that is supposed to result because of it. But again all of it rests on a false anthropology. — NOS4A2

So you are basically just engaging in a debate through a guilt by association fallacy, rather than having a discussion?

So I do not care about your nuance when I can see what it is designed to protect: the sanctity and prestige of one or more collectivist and anti-social institutions. — NOS4A2

How am I protecting that when, if you even cared to read more or think about what I actually write, you would see that my criticism of pure collectivism/communism is far more strong than that against individualism? I'm just not an individualist evangelist like you seem to be in this discussion because ignoring the negative sides and the psychological fallout of such absolutism is just as biased as anything you are criticizing. That smells more of red scare than any kind of rational perspective on this topic.

If you are nothing more than a sock puppet for your ideology, then you're not able to have a philosophical discussion and will just do what you're doing right now, "guilt by association" to position yourself above others in order to make the appearance of having some higher moral ground. It's rather transparent and I don't think I'm alone in rolling my eyes toward this approach of yours.

Collapse of what? The state? The church? The monarchy? No doubt it’s some amorphous institution set over and above the value of human beings qua human beings. — NOS4A2

Why are you constantly just inventing loaded interpretations about what you believe others mean? Are you unable to engage in a discussion without constantly trying to bully your way through others' arguments? That kind of writing is just petty. You don't even try to get what others are writing before you slam on a negative value trying to ridicule it. Why should anyone care to engage with you if this is your level of engagement?

We are talking about the collapse of both a state and the social culture around it. When the wall fell, it wasn't just the state that collapsed, it was also the culture it had formed. By "collapse" I mean that the general overarching guiding ideals, politics, and mentality changed, it doesn't mean everyone flipped the page, only that the overall politics and culture changed form and start to move in another direction than the previous. Most large societies, when they fall or collapse, don't end up as a clean slate, the old slowly rots away or lingers and perhaps influences the new direction. This is clear in how modern Russia looks, in which there are echoes of Soviet all over the place and in many people's values and behaviors.

But that would have been clear to you if you actually read more than skimming through in order to jump on the defense and label others to simulate some moral superiority for yourself.

The question is, what do you defend? Please describe, in your words, individualism in the complexity that incorporates human psychology and sociology. No one is questioning the humanistic and moral importance of liberty for the individual. That is humanism. Individualism, on the other hand, with its emphasis on prioritizing the individual above all else, can have societal and psychological consequences, some of which may be negative. This perspective often centers on the ego and disregards the potential adverse effects of such an approach, including the impacts on people's psychology and group dynamics that may arise as a result.

Conflating selfishness and individualism is a collectivist canard as old as the word itself, and flips the dictum that man is a social animal on its head. I can’t take anyone who repeats it that seriously because it posits a glaringly false anthropology, that man is a fundamentally anti-social animal—as soon as individuals were set free from the bonds of subordination and are afforded rights they’d become hermits and care only for themselves. — NOS4A2

No, but Dunbar's number also predicts that you cannot scale society based on such principles larger than a very low number. Even if Dunbar's number has been criticized regarding the actual size that we are cognitively limited to handle, it will never be able to include an entire large society the size of a nation or global ideal.

And I'm not even talking about such selfishness, I've mentioned numerous times that individualism leads to a clustered society in which people cluster into smaller groups with similar-minded ideals. This has already happened to some degree and it is not a good foundation in society to be that fragmented, especially if there are intentions to solve large-scale problems, and especially if those problems come with conflicting ideas among the people. The selfishness comes from these groups polarizing themselves against others and not caring for anyone else than that group. If you are unable to see these things in society, I can't help you, but they're a glaring result of all of this.

I think you are deliberately straw-man what I said down to only having to do with individual "selfishness", but that's just true for some people in such a society, the rest are selfish through the group that they clustered to.

It was the conservatives and royalists who invented the term and the communists, socialists, and fascists that keep using it with this meaning today. Consequently it was collectivists who historically stood in opposition to freedom, human rights, individual worth, and human dignity. Apparently this meaning persists on philosophy forums. — NOS4A2

And here you simplify everything into a polarized position in which anyone who speaks critically of the term gets thrown into the communist fascist camps. This is just low quality.

Instead of actually caring for the nuances that I wrote about. As you would have seen, I'm criticizing both communism and individualism, I don't defend either and I think both lead to collapse.

Apparently, you don't seem interested in engaging in another way than throwing around these strawmen. Why? I don't know, but ignoring the negatives of individualism is just bad as ignoring the negatives of communism.

What it really boils down to is a rejection of the idea of democracy and a denial of human beings as social creatures. And this is why those who profess to care about “individual rights” end defending corporations, billionaires, Republicans, Donald Trump, neoliberalism, etc.

When a set of beliefs lead to those absurd and embarrassing outcomes, trying to engage it rationally is as productive as talking to a creationist about science. — Mikie

Exactly. There's little philosophical value to be found in someone who points to an ism and does everything in their power to try and paint it as a perfect utopia, rejecting any notion of any negative sides to it. What I see is mostly just a rejection of basic psychology from people defending it without any critical afterthought.

Yet. But they are heading rightward, and all the way far right: xenophobia, isolationism, repression, authoritarian conformity. If they fall in lock-step with the anti-vaxx, climate-change-denying faction, they won't take long to fall. — Vera Mont

This is a global trend as a result of the clusterization of people through individualistic culture. When there's less of an overall collective sense of culture and people are blasted with an overload of conflicting information while having a deeply rooted ideology of individualism, they tend to gravitate toward groups that position themselves within similar ideas, a result of extreme confirmation bias.

I see Scandinavian nations as being far less prone to nationalizing these extremist ideas and there is still a large majority that openly and clearly opposes it. With that said, it's important to stay vigilant and not sleep on the watch and wake up with these nutjobs running the show.

What's any of it to do with communism? — Vera Mont

Nothing, but the people still believe in it. The point is that they were so deeply programmed by that society that they still embrace it even if it's not even around anymore.

Sez who? And what does it mean? That anyone who intends to do good is damned? God hates good intentions and Satan likes them? So, if you want to be saved, plan to do evil? — Vera Mont

It's a proverb.

When people aren't evaluating their ideas and ideologies, believing in utopian dreams, and thinking they have solved pain and misery, they usually install a system that unintentionally creates hell on earth because they ignored looking at the downsides of their "good idea".

Where does this "singular direction" idea come from? Who said a nation needs to go anywhere? — Vera Mont

From the leaders of that nation, or from the revolutionary manifest created by those who conducted a revolution, or whatever became the foundation for that society. Or it's just the end result set in place by the new leaders trying to formulate a new system after eradicating the old. Ever read Animal Farm?

And of course a nation needs to "go somewhere". How do you expand society when the population grows? How does the nation solve any large-scale problem? All of that comes out of society collectively or through an elite, figuring out solutions, and that ends up forming societal culture. If society is built upon everyone needing to contribute and be part of a whole and have a singular momentum so that things actually get done and not just go to chaos, you have to force people in that direction.

How do you form a large-scale collective society where everyone contributes to the same thing and cause if there aren't any agreed-upon guidelines?

What's wrong with just living the best way you can and making decisions as circumstances demand? The majority can usually agree on what to do in a flood or fire; they usually know who on the scene is best qualified to organize the effort. — Vera Mont

Of course, that works for a small-scale society. How do you manage that with the complexities of a nation of around the size of 100 million people? Then there aren't just floods or fires to fix anymore, but how to manage food supply and production, building infrastructure and housing. What happens if some people want more? If they start to accumulate resources and start to disagree with how things are run?

It quickly tumbles down into chaos. And the solution is either a system that incorporates individual thinking together with collective action... or a collective goal where everyone is forced to comply.

What leaders? Whose vision? Why shouldn't both change as circumstances change? Comunal life doesn't requite stasis; it merely requires the shared ownership of resources. Beyond that, it can be based on religious principles, or utilitarian ones, or secular humanist; it can be agrarian or urban, highly technological or primitive, paternal or maternal, hedonistic or puritanical, segregated by sex or one big extended family. Why would you expect it to be rigid or authoritarian? — Vera Mont

How do you practically apply all of that into a system that functions together with human psychology? The basis for that communal life that you propose is exactly the kind of stasis you say wouldn't exist. Society doesn't function with such foundations for long before people start to question and think of new ideals that start to conflict with the old. Communal life requires the entire community to be on the same page. It works well for a small-scale society but you cannot possibly incorporate that on a large scale without authoritarian power systems starting to form in order to keep everything and everyone in line with the rest of the community.

People aren't mindless husks that will comply with everything the community decides and the larger the society, the less possible it is to keep everyone on the same page. It is inevitable that such a society breaks down when fractions and groups start to form around different ideas that they believe are better than the status quo.

What I'm asking is, how do you apply a decided community ideal to 100 million people and have everyone agreeing with that over the course of decades or hundreds of years? What happens when some people disagree with the people who organize different parts of society? What happens when large groups want more than the standards they have? Because if some people have more than others, do you think people with less will just accept that and feel it's fair? Some people will eventually have more than others because people are different and have different skills and capabilities.

It doesn't require a lot of deduction to see how such a system crumbles and falls apart very soon. And the only way for it not to is to force the people into complying with it. That is exactly what has happened in every communist society ever.

The way they're all doing right now? Even the more robust socialist-leaning democracies. They're not all the same age, or at the same point in their economic development, or in the same circumstances and international relations. But they are all facing the same global threats and reacting individually, with mutual distrust - which pretty much assures their destruction. — Vera Mont

Scandinavian social democracies aren't falling, they're far more stable than most other nations with less socialist systems. Not sure what you are referring to, but what I meant is that systems that aren't leaning toward the extremes survive better, and some function better than others. Generally speaking, we haven't had such stable systems historically as we have today because of things like the EU, the UN etc. pushing people not to invade each other and defend against developing dangerous ideas without intervention. The transparency is far greater today than ever before so we're in a better place than ever in terms of stability. Overall we don't know where this leads, but the clash of cultures happens far less now than back at the start of the industrial revolution. Even the analogy about the fall of the Roman Empire is not really valid since the Roman Empire wasn't all that "modern" in sense of human rights and stabilizing systems, so the collapse was much more likely and it still managed to keep going far longer than we've seen of this modern era. Forming a prediction based on history requires a much more detailed analysis of the contemporary than just "big empire fell then", "big empire will fall now". The fall of large societies requires a fundamental flaw that takes over every part of that society. We have flaws in the world today, but we view the world as a globalized unity of many societies wrapped in a global society through systems of unities (EU, UN etc.). Little today actually resembles something like an empire or singular society. If someone falls today, the others still stand, we even try to help nations in trouble through peaceful means, something that didn't really happen in history before, other than through trade and war.

I doubt any authoritarian regime has the longevity to control a people's collective thought. Obedience is easy to obtain through fear; controlling thought is a different matter. In that, capitalism is much more effective: they do it though misdirection, flattery and blandishment, rather than threats. Religion, of course, is the ultimate system of thought-control. — Vera Mont

Well, we had Nazi-Germany, which formed the reason why psychologists and sociologists conducted psychological studies post-war to figure out why people behaved like that. They didn't all act through fear, they were convinced, and they put their blindfolds against the holocaust on willingly. The ideals and ideas echoed throughout society, they deified Hitler and cried at his appearance as if he was Elvis. They believed the bullshit, deep into their souls.

And having extensive knowledge in marketing I can say that this brainwashing happens all the time and is extremely effective. Reprogramming people is so easy that I think one of the worst problems in the world is that people don't understand just how gullible and biased they actually are. People actually believe they have control over their thoughts, far more than what psychology has shown us. It's even so bad that people agree and talk about bias, disinformation, and manipulation, but they still think they are immune to it.

And yes, as I also said, capitalism, our simulacra of life through materialistic meaning is far more impressive as a means of control. And marketing controls so effectively, it has pretty much-replaced sermons in a world where the store and mall became our church.

Level of difficulty doesn't come into it: what's easiest is whatever people are willing to support, and the government is competent to organize - but coercion works, too. In all social organizations, it is necessary for members to contribute. The more fairly and evenly the burden is distributed, the more stable a political system tends to be. — Vera Mont

Of course it is more difficult to hope that people will just contribute on their own. Taxes are just like money itself. Before money, we traded with goods, it was cumbersome and problematic on a large scale, and hard to scale value differences. So we invented money which made it a hell of a lot easier for trade and transactions. The same goes for taxes, a much better way to distribute means to support society than hoping people will just do it on their own. It is impractical on a large scale and it is prone to collapse very easily if people just stopped helping on such a large scale that it stops vital functions of society. Of course, we have problems with corruption within taxing systems, but to say that people will just help out on their own and everything just falls into place naturally is a utopian idea in the same manner as wishing money disappeared and that we just traded with goods again.

So all you have outside taxes as a form of means to manage societal functions is coercion, whip that comrade into doing his job, or send him to a working camp.

I'm not convinced that that transition is deliberate. It seems more like a logical conclusion of capitalism which has been steadily sawing at the branch it sits on. The contingency plans for when the inevitable happens seem to me far less developed than the catastrophe. (Not unlike the covid crisis: it had been predicted for a couple of decades; intelligent precautions laid out by responsible health agencies -- governments balked, blathered and pretended to prepare, each according to its systemic nature.) — Vera Mont

Of course governments and people aren't prepared, because they didn't care. AI was about Terminators and The Matrix, that they would take our jobs wasn't part of the fiction and that it was about to become reality soon wasn't on anyone's map, except those who actually understood the tech and have been warning about this for a long time.

But that is what governments and people need to develop right now. We need a system that's philosophically prepared and can house 99% of unemployed people hundred years from now. An economic system that doesn't revolve around our traditional "work for money, pay for goods"-economy, but an economy that produces the means of living without anyone getting paid, since no one is working. Or rather, pay people for not working so they can finance a small industry still existing as a traditional economy.

But the Russians had Pavlov! Why didn't they program all those individuals? — Vera Mont

They have, and even now there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Russia still believing in the Soviet dream. Some people still believe that Russia is the biggest empire in the world. And everyone who doesn't think like that should be shot like a dog.

Who picked the singular direction? It's relatively easy to get general consensus on matters that benefit the population at large. People contribute for their common good or defence. What they object to is making sacrifices for the benefit of a few. And they usually put up with quite a lot of that, too, as long as the system feels stable; they don't revolt until the rulership is already teetering on its corruption. — Vera Mont

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even a society that in its formation formulates a singular direction that everyone at that time thinks is a good collective direction might soon end up disagreeing and then the leaders need to remove such people to protect the glorious nation and singular vision that everyone agreed upon. So even if everyone agrees at first, it's still the leaders and rulers who decide the direction and to uphold a collective form, a commune where everyone is on the same page, it's always easier to just remove the deviants than to try and work with the chaos of individuals who disagree with the direction. This is why communism always fails, it's a pipe dream of collective will in the utopian idea of "one people". As I'm saying, arguing against both individualism and communism, both produce negative sides that slowly degrade and destroy society. There's no future in either extreme and we have far better examples of fusions like social democracy that evidently produced far better societies with healthier and happier people... if we ignore the overall eldritch monster that is capitalism and simulacrums of meaning.

Individualism first and foremost states that the individual has inherent value, and from a moral perspective cannot simply be bulldozed by states or collectives. In my opinion, that idea is the very cornerstone of humanism. Wherever the value of the individual is not acknowledged we find, pretty much categorically, inhumanity. Human rights and constitutions are based on the idea that individuals have rights. I could go on. — Tzeentch

Yes, agreed about the positives, but if you say that those things aren't part of individualism you simply ignore those parts of it. "Individualism" is more than just those humanistic positives and it's not wrong to postulate that the narrow focus on uplifting the individual, the singular subjective individual, also creates negatives as a result. To argue that individualism as a societal trait and cultural value has formed those negatives, is a logical conclusion out of the psychology that emerges from such cultural and societal perspectives.

To uphold humanistic values does not equal individualism. To give individuals human rights and inherent value is not the same as individualism. Individualism is the central focus on the individual, the singular person as separate from the rest. It spills over to not just be about rights and values, but about putting the individual at the center, which forms a detachment from the collective. That's the basic foundation of individualism. What you refer to is simply humanism and human rights.

We can still set those human rights as an axiom and still talk about individualism as a negative without it conflicting with that axiom. Because the focus on the individual has just as much to do with individual rights as it does with egotism and narcissism.

This is why I find it deeply disturbing that people on this forum have taken such an adversarial stance towards individualism, apparently attributing to it all the negative traits of our society. — Tzeentch

I would say that is a misunderstanding of the concept being discussed. You interpret it as being against human rights, but that's not what's being argued.

Individuals left to their own devices will generally seek voluntary, mutual beneficial relations with others. They will pursue happiness, but that happiness often includes the happiness of others. They will prefer coexistence over conflict, etc. — Tzeentch

That is a very simplistic psychology of people and not at all true in all situations. That is true for people who had the best upbringing, good luck, a good social circle forming a balanced social psychology and who have time to care for themselves and strangers. In the real world, however, people don't always, even rarely, have a really good upbringing, many don't have good luck in their life, far too many ends up in bad and dangerous social circles or they don't find any people in their life and all of that forms a toxic psychology that more often than not doesn't lead to any care for strangers and other people in their life.

To say that people function perfectly well left to their own devices is pretty much a utopian ideal of the individual and I don't think anyone with insight into psychology and sociology would agree that this is a general truth that can be applied at mass.

Note also that individualism understands every individual to have inherent value, so self-aggrandizement at the expense of others - egotism - isn't has nothing to do with individualism. — Tzeentch

You are still talking about humanism, not individualism.

It's not individualism that is a sham. It's our western society pretending it works for the benefit of the individual that is the sham.

In fact, there's nothing individualist about our society. In the west it is not uncommon for half one's income to be taken directly in the form of tax. Meanwhile governments infringe pretty much at will upon individuals' constitutional and human rights whenever it suits them.

These are signs of a deeply collectivist society. We simply do a good job at hiding that fact, because governments have no interest in furthering ideas that would seek to limit the powers of government. Likewise, people who seek power over others have no interest in futhering ideas that seeks to take that power away.

Better pretend that philosophies of individual worth and freedom are the problem. — Tzeentch

What I said about individualism is not that there's any individualist states, but individualist traits. Politics didn't form individualism during the 80s, individualism is a trait that has become a virtue out of the neoliberal movement during the 80s and it's a foundational ideology not in practical politics but as a value system that forms how people act and group together. It's what fragments people into small radical groups, intensified by the internet as a catalyst for such fragmentation.

We can view society as collectivist, but that's not a conclusion for society as a culture and social structure. The political system has collective functions, but we as a Western society are not even close to communism as a collective. We're at the opposite end, infusing the individual, the ego, with fantasies of greatness that blinds the individual into believing irrelevant trivialities has existential values.

Society isn't structured around collectivism, it's structured around a simulacrum of individualism and subjective agency, while a ruling class builds wealth and power on the backs of the people.

The fact that a state has systems in place to form some communal functions in order to balance society does not mean we live in a purely collectivist state. Social structures and culture are far more complex than a simple label.

Scandinavian social democracy is more politically collectivist than the US, which is more individualistic. But Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, are extremely individualistic on a cultural level, while the US has an extreme focus on collectivist cultural forms like the ideology about hegemony and national identity. This is why such labels don't really work or mean much. Most Western nations today have individualistic values in their culture. It is what forms how people behave, regardless of how the political system looks.

Better pretend that philosophies of individual worth and freedom are the problem. — Tzeentch

That's the positive side of individualism, but the negatives like social fragmentation, inequality, egoism and selfishness, lack of social responsibility, loss of meaning and connection. Forming radicalized groups, incel culture, narcissism, and personalities like Trump. These are consequences of a culture with a focus on the individual.

As I've argued above, there has to be a balance. Individualism is the polar opposite of communism, but individualism itself does not produce a society that is good for everyone. Any stroke of bad luck and there's nothing to help you, so everyone is living on the edge and that leads to only caring for the self and the people closest to you, i.e society fragments into groups and everyone ends up alone in their own misery.

I never said it works on large scale. Of course, nor does any other ideology; all political systems are more or less dysfunctional; all collapse sooner or later in their history. — Vera Mont

But some functions better than others, and the ones that don't function well are the ones falling into the extremes.

I said all thought is individual. — Vera Mont

And with careful programming, over a long period of time, you can Pavlov an entire people into obedience, i.e thought crimes.

Anyway, in a nation-state or tribe or empire, you have to contribute. In a monarchy, a theocracy, a military dictatorship or a democratic socialist republic, you have to contribute in order to receive a share, unless the polity or ruling elite exempt you for some reason (illness, injury, extreme age or youth are the standard exemptions) and the society has the wherewithal to carry you. There is some variation in the range of choices any individual has in deciding what, when and how much to contribute, but that's more a function of prosperity and technological advancement than style of social organization. — Vera Mont

What is easier, higher taxes for social welfare/UBI? Or that everyone individually thinks of ways to contribute? Problem is that people are more laid back and apathetic the better a nation has it. I wouldn't trust any of my fellow Scandinavians to pick up the tools and contribute on their own accord. A minority does, but a minority won't carry the rest of society on their backs. That's why a large-scale communist society either forces people to contribute or programs them to do it. And yes, it is the same as in neoliberal capitalism, in which society programs you to value work as a form of high status and achievement.

Pavlov-driven societies are always in a downward spiral.

What's difficult is deliberate transition from one kind of economy to another. — Vera Mont

Which is what will happen soon with automation if predictions fall correctly.

All societies eventually collapse, don't they, given time? — BC

Mainly due to influences from other nations and economies that people want more. They don't collapse just for the sake of it, they collapse due to the foundational supporting pillars being corrupt or badly built, and hopefully, the new pillars of the new system are built better.

The problem with just looking at history is that we don't know how modern times function on that scale since we've never had a globalized society before. Earlier in history, new cultures and ideas flowed into society at a constant rate and influenced progression, but today we see those influences happening over the course of months, not nearly enough time to reshape the foundation of society while the foundation also isn't clashing against other cultures in the same manner as before.

The cultural clashes today are primarily between fringe ideologies and larger nations with morons at the top, but we have all cultures out in the open, everyone is looking at every culture everywhere and evaluating what they think about them. Cultures and ideologies aren't "imported" as whole systems, we take fractions here and fractions there and form a collage of stuff rather than tumbling into a nationwide adapted singular ideology that later falls and a new rises. Society today falls and rises on a yearly basis, sometimes monthly, daily.

The soviet system collapsed, but not merely from internal flaws. — BC

Sure, but it was the people's will to be part of the rest of the world that broke the camel's back. Viewed through a simplified lens, it showed that the strict collective ideology that tries to hold everyone together towards a singular goal couldn't accommodate the chaos that is individual thought and will.

The bottom line is, if someone doesn't want to contribute because they feel like the state isn't moving in the direction they want, are they punished or are they allowed to try and change that direction? Is it even possible to manage a collective direction without force? And without that force, is it even possible to keep such a state in its form for longer than an instant? People do not agree with each other, it's basic human nature, so how can a society be built upon keeping society moving in a singular direction without force? The more singular that collective direction, the more force is required to keep on that path.
Therefore, communism is a house of cards in a hurricane.

It cannot be said that any of the problems of today are the result of individualism. Greed, egotism, self-concern, which are often associated with individualism, are all of them perennial problems, not limited to any specific political epoch, and found in collectivists as much as in individualists. — NOS4A2

Yes, but we have a society (western society) where the neoliberal explosion of the 80s pushed individualism to a greater extreme. The "me me me" generations and narcissistic behaviors being handled like virtues for such a long time formed generational behaviors that influence society on a large scale. Basic human traits of course exist in any form of society, but these things have formed cultural behaviors that aren't just basic human traits.

There is no individualism. There has never been any individualism. Everywhere we look the individual is subordinate to a collective state, bound to act in compulsory cooperation with people that are not his brethren or friend, and under rules that are not his own. — NOS4A2

Yes, I'm not speaking of individualism as a form of state, but as a form of opposite to communism. What I'm describing is individualism in the extreme, when the ego becomes so important that the only incentive to participate in society is through state force. The rise of extreme right-wing groups is a result of this. There are so many people today afraid of the ghost of Marx and scared of any form of collective movement and at the same time, there are a lot of people on the opposite side who are fed up with this ego-focus and blindly want to march into communism. I'm saying both sides are hopelessly confused, but I'm not advocating for any passive centrism, I'm advocating for taking the best from both sides of the spectrum and building a society based on a balanced principle that is constantly evolving based on problem-solving per problem that arises using empathic strategies, knowledge, and science, but that's just me. Society will still crumble at the hands of AI automation so we need a system that works in that kind of world, which we don't have a system for yet.

Far from a liberal individualism, we have adopted the individualism of Carlyle, "the vital articulation of many individuals into a new collective individual". We have adopted collectivism. — NOS4A2

Isn't that just the result of cultural extreme individualism? As I mentioned initially, individualism today creates a clustered society of smaller ideologies since things like the internet today work as a radicalization machine. We actually don't see nations as collectives with individuals, we see groups that are borderless, forming pseudo-societies online, groups that adhere to extreme ideologies or ideas. It can be harmless like a community of Apple users trash-talking PC users, or it can be harmful like racist Qanon conspiracies and anti-vaccers.

Society today, in the west, is structured as a globalized clustered system based on individualized chaos gravitating towards groups of similar ideas and ideologies that radicalize them further. There are no real actual borders today, figuratively speaking.

It has convinced people that their master is themselves. They now believe the conditional life of a conscript, a serf, a slave, is freedom, and an absolutist oligarchy is democracy. They believe that since they get to exercise their sovereignty on an astronomical basis (according to how many times the earth revolves around the sun), every few years voting for which mammal gets to dominate them, that they too are in control.

I suspect that this condition more so than individualism has led to the problems of today. — NOS4A2

Yes, I agree about how society today is basically a slave state in which the slave thinks they are the master. A brilliant scheme to hack the literal interpretation of the master/slave analogy. And to top it off, confuse everyone through extreme capitalism that creates a white noise experience of life in which value and meaning are infused into materialistic wants so that the needs get confused with the want.

I'm not really defending Western society, I'm just pointing out how both communism and individualism (as foundational virtue in Western society), are extreme forms of societies that collapse fast.

But I don't think liberal individualism works either. It is further fragmenting society and can easily just tumble down into anarchism. There's an illusionary idea that society can work without a collective quality. People are selfish and the problem with liberal individualism is that it only works for the ones fortunate to find balance within it. Any stroke of bad luck, which most liberal individualists ignore as an existing problem, can throw anyone out of this wonderful freedom since there's no one in society that have any incentive to help them on their feet. Some liberal individualists argue for just letting them die off, and some think that people will help them out of empathy. Looking at the world today, the virtue of individualism forms narcissists who pay a small sum to charity in order to program themselves into feeling good while not actually helping to fix the underlying problem that put people in harm and trouble, it's clear that this idea of self-forming collective empathy without incentive is an illusion in order to brush the dark side of liberal individualism under the rug.

There has to be both a collective and individual part of society that works in tandem. Just look at how Sweden handled the pandemic, we had no lockdowns. We had recommendations, and people followed them for the most part because we culturally have a collective sense that isn't forced by a state, but by cultural values. I'm not saying we have the perfect system, but we still exist high on that list of best places to live. But we also live in the "slave" system like any other capitalism. I'm just saying that the solution is never to turn to extremes.

Individualism is perhaps the biggest myth and scam of modern times. Philosophically dubious at best, ignores one of human beings’ most basic traits (social creatures), accepts the illusion of “self” as a kind of irreducible entity a la the atom, and is an outgrowth of some of the worst parts of Western culture.

All that aside, the most important point is that this kind of self-worshipping fundamentalism has been adopted and used by the ruling class, since at least Von Mises and Hayek in modern times, culminating in Friedman and, to a less serious degree, Ayn Rand. Much like Christians who want to justify what they want, they cherry-pick the ideas, these ideas become the ruling ideas, and provide cover and justification for plutocracy.

We see the results of neoliberal policies, as you rightly point out. By almost every measure, the results have been egregious — except for the ruling class, to which 50 trillion dollars have been transferred over 40 years. All in the name of individualism: small government, “government is the problem,” and other “libertarian” (read: unwitting plutocrat apologists) slogans.

And when this undeniable wealth inequality, monopolization, failure of the “free markets” (another useful fantasy), financialization, bailouts, etc., is pointed out — what’s blamed? The “state,” of course.

So yeah, individualism is a complete sham. But even if it wasn’t used to rob the population to enrich .0001% of the world, it’d still be quite ridiculous. — Mikie

Exactly, and it's scary that Millennials and Gen Z have been brought up in one of the most extreme forms of this myth and we now see the result of this. The falling mental health, the fragmentation of society into extreme groups who desperately seeks out these social places because society as a whole doesn't have that place for them. As mentioned above, the enslavement of the people by the radicalized allure of individual greatness that has been a pipedream fed to everyone under the age of 45.

In some ways, I'm really impressed by the ruling class's ability to form a perfect system of oppression. While previous states tried to beat the people into submission, the modern era has been feeding self-improvement opium and divine meaning to the people based on a Baudrillardian simulacra of existence.

What a perfect guest speaker at a time when AI is experiencing exponential growth!

Since he has written extensively about language and theories of the mind, one question that comes to mind is his perspective on the emergent properties of large language models. Despite working solely from text, these models are capable of achieving tasks beyond their intended purpose. What are his thoughts on these emergent phenomena in relation to the human mind and language? Particularly intriguing is the fact that these models can function in languages that were not directly fed to them. Could this imply that our minds also operate in a similar manner? For instance, when coma patients or individuals with brain injuries awaken and speak in another language or with a different accent, do these occurrences align with patterns observed in AI language models' emergent abilities in language?

Furthermore, I would be interested in his insights on the implications for future societies if AI systems manage to automate the majority of work, including physical labor. How would such a society function? What would be the impact on the economy and people's lives?

How do you figure? Humans are still individuals, even if they don't fence off the commons or claim private ownership of natural resources. In a commune, each member is expected to contribute whatever they have a talent for, including intellectual endeavours, creative work, invention, etc. — Vera Mont

And it sounds wonderful in theory until the community goes into deciding what contributions are acceptable and what are not. There's not much headroom for deviant thought within this system and this is why it historically, consistently has ended up in disaster.

This all works on smaller scale societies, but at large scale, how do you "contribute"? What if you aren't good at contributing? What if your contribution doesn't align with the rest?

In order for this system to work on a large scale it requires some kind of alignment with the rest of the group, otherwise, it's no longer communism. Where do leaders draw the line? Where do you draw the line? Who decides?

There is no such thing as 'collective thinking'. People may echo and imitate other people, or simply agree on certain matters, but a thought that's eventually shared still has to originate in an individual mind. We don't have any other kind. We can pool knowledge and effort, but each contribution is still individual. — Vera Mont

Yes, there is, it's called bias. It's called groupthink, which is a common trait historically within these systems. Which individuals are forming this society? It's no longer communism if you allow everyone's thoughts to be part of shaping the society since then you are talking about individualism instead. Communism is about aligning the people towards a common goal. If you allow individual thought to influence this, then it will slowly just collapse like the Berlin wall. It's exactly what happened.

This was precisely the reason why Orwell wrote about thought crimes in "1984".

"Individualism" as an ideology is as illusory as "communism". — Vera Mont

That's what I said, both are extremes that eventually lead to collapse. And we've also seen somewhat of a pure individualistic society through the neoliberalism movement in the 80s. Most of the Millennial generation has been formed as individualists and many of the problems today are the result of individualism, even though we've not seen a nation embracing it fully, since that would almost be anarchistic.

There are no systems of either: all societies are collective, and to some degree dominated by a minority of privileged individuals, while the majority conforms to whatever norms are set for them. — Vera Mont

Scandinavian social democracy has ended up being the most middle way possible on a large scale so far, and has proven to be very successful at creating a good place to live. There's less corruption, a focus on common goals, social safety nets that work, and free education and health care, while still featuring a lot of liberal values, individualism, and freedoms for the individual.

The goal would be to improve upon systems that are proven to work well, but that's not what the world does. Everyone instead debates about what is best between the extreme ends of Marxism, Capitalism, Communism, Individualism etc.

The problem today is that we need to change the best system in place to accommodate the eventual automation of society through AI. So we need a new paradigm in place, otherwise, we're going to see a collapse, regardless of system.

Communism demands no individual thinking. Individualism demands no collective thinking.

Psychology shows that there's no pure individual or pure collective thinking.

So how can either system work without eventually collapsing?

Individualistic cultures fragment into clusters of ideas formed by a few who promote their individualistic ideals and concepts to weaker individuals that follow. Communistic cultures cluster as a whole around a common ideal and concept, disregarding everything not in line with those.

In individualistic cultures, the individual is highly valued but this creates problems for collective movement and change. In communist cultures, the group is valued highly but this creates problems for questioning the decided movement and change.

It's probably why most functioning systems in the world feature a commonly accepted group culture built on individual rights, but also duties. Promoting individual thought with free speech, but a collective culture of societal rituals, behaviors, and dynamics.

Kind of like games with teams. Each individual has the freedom to think and act, but a common goal and team dynamic to reach it. Individual strengths when needed and collective ones when needed.

Any society that gravitates too much towards either side will collapse.