No doubt, the 'automated future' you mention is trending, so to speak, but it's not inevitable, or an inescapable prospect. — 180 Proof

Name a reason why the world would not jump onto advanced automation the first chance it gets. It is just as inevitable as how the wheel changed the world. No one would oppose it, except those who oppose the consequences of it and call for a ban on automation, but which government would choose to ban advanced automation seen as it would exponentially improve the national economics of that nation?

With over abundant workforce and general population education needs to play an important part in skilling them towards this new future. — Deus

Even though full-scale advanced automation isn't happening yet, we have kids in schools today actively working towards a job that will most definitely be dead in a couple of years. Politics around education and the faculties themselves aren't equipped to change since they aren't even entertaining the scenario of full-scale advanced automation. They act upon the status quo, they never act upon what will be. Advanced automation will happen fast. The point is when we have generalized robotics that can be adapted based on the user training them rather than having a software programmer doing it. This would mean that a clothing company that requires a robot to fold and organize clothes in a store according to a set plan can teach that robot one time how to fold clothes, hang clothes, and take care of the store chores and then multiply. Over time, these robots will become more advanced, faster and better at their tasks and can also be sold as "store template workers" to speed up the training phase. All of a sudden you have a or multiple stores that only have one human employee, the one who talks to customers, with that job also being in danger by socially trained robots.

Point is that we will have a point when a general-purpose robot becomes a reality and from that point, if it is inexpensive and reliable in day-to-day work, it will almost completely change the western world overnight. No company will look at their expensive human workforce, then look at a workforce of robots who cost just a fraction compared to the humans and go "yeah, I love to lose money".

There's no coincidence that Tesla is developing such robots since Elon Musk is trying to push the edge on how effective manufacturing can get. Human workers have limits and cost money, so with the world's most advanced self-driving system, he can just repurpose that to cover other tasks than just driving. Tesla might be the first industry in the world to become fully automated in all areas of production at their factories. If his goal of selling these robots becomes a reality, we will have the first general-purpose robots existing in society. If successful, in that they lower costs for companies, that would be an exponential factor for the automation industry, leading to more and more companies wanting to work on general-purpose robotics and the industry would explode into a new era.

Politics and education will lag far behind that development because it will happen too fast. We will have an era of mass unemployment and we will probably see UBI become implemented as a desperate attempt to save the world economy from a total collapse. That's in the western world, imagine the consequences for third world countries or nations on the brink of becoming rich due to how western industries put people in low-income jobs there. Advanced automation will make no sense to have in these countries because it's cheaper to just build factories closer to home when the workforce is just robots. Western industries will abandon these nations and their economy will collapse to a much worse state than before. There will be civil wars and also even wars against the west. Of course, some companies in these nations might use robots as well, maybe even catch up with competing products, but once again, education and politics lag behind. If leaders of a third world nation were aware of this development, they would right now make a policy of educating many people in engineering and automation technology. Since western societies are so filled with TikTok-numbed kids and adults, we will see a surge in any nation that jumped onto this development fast for a desperate population in need of jobs.

India is a good example of this since there are a lot of technicians in India who work within industries primarily from outside of India. If all of them focused on purely Indian companies, that also take advantage of automation, they could easily become a dominant factor in the future where western companies lag behind.

The conclusion is that advanced automation will radically change the world as it looks today. It's going to be a total transformation in the same style as the industrial revolution. With massive shifts in labor types and how people live their lives. Since culture is often defined by how our economy and work affect our lives, it will radically transform culture worldwide.

Sprinkle in the outcome of climate change and we will see a massive change over the coming hundred years that is unprecedented compared to the previous hundred years.

I think Capitalism is pretty obvious what it is, it's more interesting to ask the question: is there an economic system past Capitalism that isn't Marxism? Seen as how Marxism has a problem being combined with the autonomous future we're heading towards, in which millions will be out of a job, replaced by automation. Previously, during the industrial revolution, there were fears that automation would produce a lot of unemployment, but it just transitioned into a new form of a job for people and also pushed plenty to move to cities and work in the factories there.

However, future development, based on a normal capitalistic trajectory, needs advanced automation in order to maximize further profit. Industries today are close to maximizing their profit due to there just not existing enough people. Facebook, as an example, are pushing free internet to poor nations, not as a sign of goodwill, but to get more people onto their platform.

So if future industries start to rely more and more on advanced automation and more and more people go unemployed as people can't transition into new job titles as easily as during the industrial revolution, then a new form of economical system needs to be created that can cover life quality for an entire population. Some suggest UBI as a solution, but that's just short term and it doesn't really create a system where finances flow organically. It would generally be that corporations pay 75% taxes on their profits in order to cover a UBI system that would then go straight back into the corporations from people buying their products as well as being part of the tax being used to finance infrastructure that also goes into corporations who handle such work. On top of this, the only work being done by humans are technical jobs managing automation and engineering improvements, as well as government people and artists and creative people doing "high art", meaning, not content produced by AIs but art commercialized through specific individuals (a whole other discussion, but anyway).

In the end, automation will both be a blessing and a curse for capitalism and we are yet to have a system that can function within this kind of future scenario. If we are partially destroyed by climate change or some large-scale world war, then we will have decades of "normal" capitalist work after it that will postpone the automation revolution, but one day it will eventually come and by then we need to have a functional economy in place that replaces capitalism and free market democracies as we see them today.

Will this show the supporters of Tories, Republicans and other right-wing populist parties how they're not political parties for low to mid-income households and not improving for anyone but the rich? People voted for Brexit, people voted for Tories, people voted for Trump, and people now recently also voted for Giorgia Meloni as well as the Swedish Democrats getting more seats in the Swedish parliament.

I mean... the ideological information is right there in front of anyone if they were to look, but people have learned to stop listening to experts and instead listen to influencer-style con-artists without any second thought as to any underlying agendas of these people.

This is what people get for wanting irrational people in power to "shake things up a bit"... because now they have shaken things up quite a bit. Hopefully, the people who voted for them are happy now that the whole economy has been shaken up because that's what happens when you give the power to these people and stop listening to experts who tried to warn about upcoming issues.

What makes this any different from how philosophy is "done" among humans? — Bret Bernhoft

Just as with AI images, the AI doesn't create anything new but uses a set of millions of images as its baseline to generate new forms on top. This kind of looks like how humans generate new things by combining ideas from the past into something new, but the AI doesn't have ingenuity, it can only act upon human input instruction to generate something, meaning, the ingenuity is always human. It's like taking the part out of the mind of a human that revolves around combining memories into something new, without any guideline as to a goal for that new idea, essentially, it's like having severe mental illness and a constant psychotic breakdown.

The problem with how the public reacts or thinks about our current algorithmic AIs is that people think that these programs "think" just because it looks like they are. It's a fundamentally wrong analysis of how current AI functions based on a misunderstanding of its processes and human psychology.

Meditation and drugs can help with ego-death — Xtrix

I think ego death is the most lacking thing about our modern world. In a world order built around narcissistic tendencies due to the rampage of neoliberal individualism, we would need an ego holocaust to return to something closer to decent morality for humanity.

Death is death, like shutting off a computer and then smashing the disk drives. There was a lot on it, but no one would consider that data to "float away" into some other place. So why would we do it?

Concepts of something after death are the result of the fear of death combined with a narcissistic idea that the ego, the self is the center of the universe, so "how could it possibly just disappear!?"

In my opinion, it's a fear and concept that never left a childish state of mind, like how conspiracy people try to understand something really simple with extremely complex and elaborate explanations just because they can't accept the simple as being true. And all attempts to provide rational thought and facts that support the simple truth just make them more scared and in need of even more extremely convoluted ideas about it.

Because they can't simply handle it, "Me... being gone? Preposterous! I'm immortal and evidence of my decay, evidence of mental changes by neurological degradation only means my body dies, and my mind my SOUL will be immortal and exist somewhere else and it will all be better because I will transcend all my bodily pains and aging aches and once again be happy, like I was in my youth... ah, I will be young again, my mind will be young and healthy, and all will be fine, all will be as it was supposed to be for me, all my problems in life, gone, I will be happy again...".

It is... hilarious.

Therefore, is what is needed for better philosophy actually a fasting and detoxification of thought? — Xtrix

This topic has been split up into this and the other thread about excessive thinking. So I'll just quote what I wrote there since it covers both topics:

In a manner of speaking nature just forgot to add the mechanism to dumb it down again once we were safe
— Seeker

Nature didn't forget this because that's not how evolution works. And we're not even close to an evolutionary transition into a "dumber" human because we are now "safe". People have, for only around 30 years, been somewhat safe in the manner of speaking you position it. Before this, the threat of nuclear war, the threat and reality of the second world war, and then just go back in history for more and more threat level ups and downs, means people have never been "safe" and intellectually we have never been it either.

As humanity has grown into a much more complex state, where we incorporate the entire world and universe into our assessments of possible problems, we've never been in a more complex state of thinking. At this time in history, only the ignorant would position themselves as "safe", even if it's true for their own personal lives.

But what this topic is actually focusing on is more of the necessity to "breathe" and not be overwhelmed by all that thinking. The world changes faster and faster and demands a much faster pace of intellectual and rational thinking about it, so the pressure on the individual to understand and think about world complexity is increasing as the timeframe to formulate a thought around topics decreases.

So we're left with being pressured to think faster and more complex in order to be able to grasp the complexity of modern times.

Within this concept, we can definitely see a need to pause, otherwise, we become consumed with a complexity that risk breaking down our overall ability to organize internal thoughts. This is why I think we actually have positive scientific results from meditation. It is, in its essence, a way to "pause" our minds and let our critical thinking "defragment".

The complexity of today, especially the interconnected domino effect of increasing complexity as a result of clashes between cultures, classes, technology, ideology etc. that happens at an increasingly faster and faster pace, requires a mind that is much more intellectually evolved than what we have today. The only way to be able to grasp the entirety of it without going insane would be to find a way to "pause" all of that thinking. Be it with meditation or "intellectual vacation" (like shutting everything like social interactions, work, and information technology off for a while).

There are scientific results that shows very clearly the importance of "shutting off" our minds at a regular basis.

On a side note, this is why I think Nietsche became clinically insane in the end, apart from just the cancer doing it. He was clearly a man who couldn't pause thinking, it occupied his mind all the time and the incident with the horse was probably the incident that led them to discover the tumor, misdiagnosed as syphilis. So more or less, his breakdown was probably a result of a realization that the world didn't listen to what he had to say, that the world around him ignored his attempts to humanize a godless world and it shook him into a severe depression that was increasingly deepened by the realization of dying.

If anything would put someone in an insane state, it would be the realization of the futility of their thinking and the realization they would die before that thinking led to anything good in the world. The irony then, that his sister helped produce the nazi regime by corrupting all those thoughts he wished would help the world. As a fan of rational reasoning and intellectuals, she's in my opinion even worse than Hitler since Hitler just became a pawn of a self-indulgent ideology based on her corruption of an intellectual who wanted nothing but to bring sense to a senseless world. — Christoffer

In a manner of speaking nature just forgot to add the mechanism to dumb it down again once we were safe — Seeker

Nature didn't forget this because that's not how evolution works. And we're not even close to an evolutionary transition into a "dumber" human because we are now "safe". People have, for only around 30 years, been somewhat safe in the manner of speaking you position it. Before this, the threat of nuclear war, the threat and reality of the second world war, and then just go back in history for more and more threat level ups and downs, means people have never been "safe" and intellectually we have never been it either.

As humanity has grown into a much more complex state, where we incorporate the entire world and universe into our assessments of possible problems, we've never been in a more complex state of thinking. At this time in history, only the ignorant would position themselves as "safe", even if it's true for their own personal lives.

But what this topic is actually focusing on is more of the necessity to "breathe" and not be overwhelmed by all that thinking. The world changes faster and faster and demands a much faster pace of intellectual and rational thinking about it, so the pressure on the individual to understand and think about world complexity is increasing as the timeframe to formulate a thought around topics decreases.

So we're left with being pressured to think faster and more complex in order to be able to grasp the complexity of modern times.

Within this concept, we can definitely see a need to pause, otherwise, we become consumed with a complexity that risk breaking down our overall ability to organize internal thoughts. This is why I think we actually have positive scientific results from meditation. It is, in its essence, a way to "pause" our minds and let our critical thinking "defragment".

The complexity of today, especially the interconnected domino effect of increasing complexity as a result of clashes between cultures, classes, technology, ideology etc. that happens at an increasingly faster and faster pace, requires a mind that is much more intellectually evolved than what we have today. The only way to be able to grasp the entirety of it without going insane would be to find a way to "pause" all of that thinking. Be it with meditation or "intellectual vacation" (like shutting everything like social interactions, work, and information technology off for a while).

There are scientific results that shows very clearly the importance of "shutting off" our minds at a regular basis.

On a side note, this is why I think Nietsche became clinically insane in the end, apart from just the cancer doing it. He was clearly a man who couldn't pause thinking, it occupied his mind all the time and the incident with the horse was probably the incident that led them to discover the tumor, misdiagnosed as syphilis. So more or less, his breakdown was probably a result of a realization that the world didn't listen to what he had to say, that the world around him ignored his attempts to humanize a godless world and it shook him into a severe depression that was increasingly deepened by the realization of dying.

If anything would put someone in an insane state, it would be the realization of the futility of their thinking and the realization they would die before that thinking led to anything good in the world. The irony then, that his sister helped produce the nazi regime by corrupting all those thoughts he wished would help the world. As a fan of rational reasoning and intellectuals, she's in my opinion even worse than Hitler since Hitler just became a pawn of a self-indulgent ideology based on her corruption of an intellectual who wanted nothing but to bring sense to a senseless world.

That all would make sense... if it weren't for the fact that people within Russia risk prison for speaking out about how Russia is losing and the fact that they leave precious hardware behind when they retreat in a situation where they have to grab chips from home appliances in order to keep up with the hardware advantage of Ukraine.

While the offensive seems to take more casualties than Ukraine is being official about, this is more in line with traditional warfare. Keep the war propaganda up to keep the morale up. It's part of how war is conducted and it would be foolish to do anything else.

The problem I see is that the tribalistic nature of the discussion around all of this makes people either deem the offensive a pure failure or pure success. But it just is what it is, Russia is being forced back, faster than they expected and it is a noticable defeat on Russias part, otherwise there wouldn't be that much hardware left behind and negative words in Russian state media. But it's also not a complete success for Ukraine as they've suffered a lot of losses.

In the end, the balance hangs on if the losses were enough to make a huge difference. If Russia has problems pushing back the line and win back territory, then there's a new line bunkered down over the winter, or Ukraine chooses to use the winter as a way to push Russia before they have time bunkering down. Taking advantage of the chaos this has caused.

"solutions" would be too unrealistic at this stage it seems — Janus

Agreed, we will still get a world drastically changed then how it was. For example, we will have annual heat waves of upwards of 45 degrees celsius in Europe based on the current progression, but if we fail to mitigate further it could end up being 50-55 degrees as peaks. Such high temperatures will be like someone putting a magnifying glass over the lands and burning a scar through Europe. Not to mention how it will be in places like Iraq, where heat waves already peaks at 50 degrees celsius.

Universal cooperation is a pipe dream. — Janus

Not if there's a collective threat happening. We will not see collaboration until we seriously get to experience the first consequences. We've already seen how a large portion of politicians and the general public have shifted into grasping the magnitude of the dangers of global warming through this summer's heat wave. And with worse and worse heat waves, more drought, more fires, and unstable weather and storms as a follow-up, I think we will see better universal cooperation when climate refugees, food supply energy problems, heat wave deaths, houses destroyed in storms, and so on gets worse. Humanity won't do anything until they have a gun to their head.

The "political" part of the problem is the promulgation of impossible targets, but also, the unwillingness (due to the perceived unpopularity) to promote the idea that we (in the "developed" nations) should all use much less energy — Janus

This is the problem with representative democracy in a time when we have more demagogues than actual politicians. They do anything to keep their power and the public is too stupid, too uneducated or easily fooled by people with power over them to be able to vote for something of actual value and win that over. This is why the general public needs to experience a catastrophe before they would vote for politicians that focus on actual solutions.

Let the people burn and then they might want to fix the problem. :shade:

This explains very clearly the problems involved with trying to de-carbonize rapidly. — Janus

The problem is that innovation doesn't get enough funding. There are teenagers inventing water cheap water filtration systems that were earlier not invented because there wasn't much economic incentive to do so. There is a lot of innovation going on in the energy sector that gets so little funding that they cannot come into volume production or into collaboration with other technologies. All while strategies are formed based on previous volume-produced solutions.

It's not irrational to question the prevailing view. It's how we grow out body of knowledge. — Tate

There's a difference between questioning a prevailing view and irrational questioning out of group think and biases, especially if the bias is highly politically driven or based on emotional instability.

The problem in the world today is that too many think their opinion or knowledge matters regardless of how informed that opinion or knowledge is. The narcissism of today has cluttered discussions on any topic, introducing noise of irrelevant bullshit because people think just expressing an opinion is just as valid as expressing an informed opinion. It's the jealousy by common folks towards informed people that have created a world where informed people are regarded as some low-class annoyance and the ignorance rising due to this as people shut their ears off and instead start to believe that their own opinion has the same value as informed people's opinions is seriously damaging to the planet and the quality of life in general.

Since politics always focus on the lowest common denominator we now have a world where expert opinions get ignored and uninformed bullshit gets promoted.

We don't grow a body of knowledge in this environment before we return to a better established hierarchy of knowledge. Where informed people, education, experts, and actual facts are handled with care and dignity. When actual rationality and wisdom are regarded as virtue again.

It's the path of taking adequate epistemic responsibility. Knowing when to shut up and not express an opinion is just as rational and morally responsible as making informed questioning of a broadly accepted idea.

and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years. — Tzeentch

Or a failure to function as a rational person. A rational person does not stick to their guns when the opposite has been proven, because they see through the normal bias others are slaves to.

Being in the middle of crushing heat waves, draughts, and floods all at the same time here in 2021 — Xtrix

Welcome to 2022.

Is it already too late? — Xtrix

No, if everyone acts right now.

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact? — Xtrix

No one is acting right now and just now reports are made that the arctic is warming four times faster than predicted.

Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus? — Xtrix

That would require a lot of neoliberals having absolute power to push industries not complying with climate goals.

If it's not too late, what exactly can we do to contribute to mitigating it? — Xtrix

- Global ban on the production of fossil fuel transportation vehicles from 2030 at the latest.
- Global financial support to people buying electric cars. The more effective the car and sustainable production of those cars, the more financial support.
- Global ban on coal, gas, and other fossil fuel power plants.
- Global government investment into battery research and tech to create power storage solutions
- Global government support for homeowners to install battery technology for automatic power storage management.
- Global government investment in the installation of city-wide solar panels on the majority of roofs.
- Global global initiative for Thorium power plants before fusion is solved or solar panels efficiency reaches viable levels.
- Carbon neutral industry changes (like carbon neutral steel production in Sweden)
- Global government limitations on food production and fishing to sustain the ecological balance, mainly coral reef and algae (since they soak up as much CO2 as the Amazons)
- Global limitation on air travel, maybe even customer limitations to restrict km/year traveled by air.
- Global ban on the oil and coal industry lobbying-money getting into governments, i.e fossil fuel industries cannot "bribe" themselves into being safe from restrictions.
- Global government investment in companies who work on sustainable solutions, for example, Tesla.
- Global "green city" architectural requirements in order to plant more trees and plants integrated with city infrastructure and environments.
- Local food production initiatives, including insect farms as a protein source.
- Meat tax that goes straight back to meat production to push sustainable levels of production and lower numbers of animals in the chain. Part of it also goes to lab-grown meat research and development.
- Increased penalty for people starting wildfires, i.e maximum sentence, life in prison. The consequences of such crimes are too severe for the entire world and in areas with drought. It will become an annual problem that will escalate. Governments also need to demand land owners have counter-measures in place, if not, penalties or risk of losing their land.
- Penalize anti-climate-research speech (climate deniers), and classify it the same as hate speech in order to block the spread of misinformation and disinformation (yes, this thing is too serious to warrant any free speech bullshit arguments to protect some uneducated morons who won't even survive to see the consequences of their actions).

To name a few

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our time? — Xtrix

Republicans and similar people in other nations. General conspiracy nutcases. Boomers who are stuck in conservative bullshit and are too fragile to accept change. Millennials who are too occupied with their own narcissism and ego to let anything distract them from upholding a perfect image of a successful life. Gen Z's too hypnotized by TikTok during their development to be able to have a normal working brain that isn't too distracted by dopamine deficiency and the inability to stay on topic for more than 2 seconds.

I would say that the problem isn't people who actively work against fixing this, but the ones who ignore even trying to. Those are the majority and those people could change the world in an instant.

No, just saying you tend to assume a bit too much about what I know, based on too little. A mere philosophical disagreement is insufficient ground to conclude that someone doesn't know the history of science. — Olivier5

It's not the disagreement, it's how you talk about science that informs me. Especially in relation to our consciousness.

That science is a human activity, and hence inherently subjective. A scientist is and can only be a subject, i.e. a spectator and actor in/at the world. — Olivier5

The scientist is a human, science is not. The whole point of science is to detach human biases and subjectivity in order to prove truths. That's the goal. Basically, every other activity we do is subjective, science's whole point is to not be that. It's what the entire history of science has been working towards, to reach better and better methods to reach truths about our reality.

And it's this that informs me that you don't seem to grasp the difference between a human being subjective and the theories presented and proved. Higgs calculated a logic that isn't something subjective, it's logic. You can twist the subjective experience however you want, but something logic will remain logic regardless. And that logic predicts behavior and the existence of objects we've never even experienced, seen or known about. But since it's based on logic in a mathematical equation, it has a merit past our experience and consciousness, it can be tested and once we did, the Higgs particle was discovered, as predicted, now verified.

Your argument is that Higgs somehow invented the Higgs particle through his physics equations and when we built the Atlas detector, it "created" that particle when it was detected. - An argument that is wildly bonkers and needs much more elaboration.

The "basic point" of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.

Your two people will objectively agree that time is slower for one than the other. It's not an example of a subjective, phenomenological difference.

The notion that phenomenalism is central to physics is flawed. — Banno

I think you basically misunderstand everything I say. I didn't say phenomenalism is central to physics, I said it helps conceptualize the theories presented in physics. How we experience the world and universe in relation to how it actually functions. But you twist that into it being central to tha actual theories, which isn't what I'm talking about.

I also don't know what it is you are objecting against? My argument was about the notion that our consciousness is responsible for creating reality and how it is false, and that the only practical idea in phenomenology that is useful is how our experience, internal and subjective point of view, our senses, can relate to the raw reality as it is outside of our experience. I used the examples with science to point out how logic and mathematics, things that aren't "born out of our consciousness" but that work as a language to communicate about things that otherwise would have no way to be sensed by us and our consciousness alone, is a way to prove that our consciousness isn't creating anything. Using this language we can discover things that can later be tested and when verified it also verifies a reality past our subjective experience, i.e our consciousness does not create reality, we merely experience it in a limited way compared to how reality really is.

So are you objecting against that? I just think the argument has been going around irrelevant circles to the original point I made.

I still don't see how. We "grasp" periods of billions of years and billionths of seconds, and calculate accurate relativistic times. — Banno

We conceptualize through proving behaviors of such things through physics equations and verified tests. If our tests can predict behaviors of matter and time that we can't really sense, we can conceptualize by knowing facts about the universe. A case point is how we didn't know how a black hole would look, but that our physics equations pointed towards a visualization that we could simulate and therefore, in the movie Interstellar, Kip Thorne collaborated with the visualization in order to create a physics accurate representation of how a black hole would look like. Later, when we generated the first ever image of a black hole (my profile picture here), it showed the accretion disk and formation basically exactly like how we predicted, except for the redshift difference.

Not if I use a clock. In any case, there is more to a conception of time than mere perception. A child knows that an hour can go in a flash or take an age. — Banno

No, it is still very subjective. Not only in the way you describe it, which would be the phenomenological way of describing it but also in how general relativity means that if you are closer or further from a gravitational hot spot it would mean that our actual temporal relation is off. If I'm closer to a massive object I will grow older slower than you, even if on earth we can only calculate it by maybe a few seconds over the course of a lifetime.

This is the reason why I bring up GPS, because the clocks need to be synced with the devices on earth in order to track correctly, and because of relativity, the clocks have been adapted to tick differently to compensate for each other's temporal difference due to gravitational differences.

You seemed to indicate a relation between phenomenology and physics, but what that might be remains obscure. — Banno

There's no material relation, that's exactly what I object against. I'm saying that phenomenology is a great tool for us to use in order to include human perception as part of how to explain our existence and the universe. For example, the basic point in relativity; that two people going at different speeds will in relation to each other experience a temporal shift; the larger the difference, the larger the shift; but the subjective experience of the two persons will not change, they will experience their own time as if nothing has changed. So including phenomenology into how we conduct physics makes it easier to conceptualize concepts that are very alien to us. We need to relate an experience to the raw data of the universe in order to understand what that data means.

As a matter of fact, I have a much better understanding of science, its methods, history and current status than you seem to believe, on the rather flimsy basis of a mere epistemological disagreement between us. — Olivier5

That is kind of the equivalent of saying you know better because you say you know better. But your argument doesn't show that understanding. Come to think of it, I'm not really grasping what it is you really argue for, you just make comments on what I write rather than present a case. So far it seems you argue for reality deriving from our consciousness? That's how I interpret the way you comment on what I write, objecting to the conclusions I made. What's the point you're arguing for?

There are revolutions in science though, such as the Copernican revolution. — Olivier5

And the history of science has gone from religious hogwash to modern science that focuses primarily on detaching itself from our cognitive biases. And my argument regarding human perception in relation to our scientific findings and how reality is not derived from our consciousness is not dependent on the history of science. Also, back in those days, there wasn't anything called science, it was metaphysics, philosophy, and it didn't have any of the scrutinies applied even close to how things are conducted today. Only the old theories that didn't apply biases are the ones that have survived into better forms today, like in the case of Newton. Most of the modern ways of conducting science have been developed from the 19th century up until today. This is what I meant with:

Understanding science requires understanding the process, the practice, the history, and the terminology long before even touching upon the actual theories and hypotheses presented. — Christoffer

They said the same thing about the universal gravitation theory of Isaac Newton. Until it was superseded by a better theory: Einstein's. What makes you certain that GR won't be discarded as incomplete or imperfect in the future? — Olivier5

That's not how science works. Theories don't get thrown out of the window because something else explains things better, they get added, and mixed together, one theory helps explain something else further or helps explain problems with the first theory.

This is the problem with people today using science in their arguments, against or for something. The deep misunderstanding of how the process actually works. Before understanding the basics of how science is conducted, people use scientific findings as major parts of their arguments. For example, the entire global debate around vaccines has been infected by the low-quality understanding of the science surrounding vaccines. For a layman to understand science and physics or at least the ramifications of those things, it requires daily studies on the subject. Far too many read some summary in "Science" and think they understand the world, they don't. Understanding science requires understanding the process, the practice, the history, and the terminology long before even touching upon the actual theories and hypotheses presented.

Newton's laws haven't been discarded, they have been explained better. Just like Higgs explained mass better than before.

Do you think GPS devices will stop working because a new theory explains the behavior of general relativity better? No, they work because the theory is valid and any new theory will only add to it and explain it better or more broadly. If a theory didn't work, we couldn't utilize it for inventions that function on top of these universal physics. All the inventions using Newton's laws of physics didn't magically stop working when Einstein presented his findings.

"the internal logic of our human perception" — Banno

For example, how we perceive time makes us bad at conceptualizing a hypothesis that handles time fundamentally different from our experience. If we do chemistry, as an easy comparison, we can both conceptualize and experience the science between two components mixing, like if something gets hot when mixed together, not only does the science end up logically, we can also experience it, i.e it has a human internal logic to it. From our perceptual perspective, it's extremely different to grasp time as something other than how we experience it, even if the quantum equations or measurable results point in directions that feel alien to our perception.

Where? What could an "internal, human perception of something" be? — Banno

Your perception of time is extremely subjective, even though, by basic calculations, you and I would actually exist through time with slight differences due to general relativity. So on one hand we experience and perceive time in a way that feels "normal", while at the same time it makes it hard for us to conceptualize the idea that we might be temporally out of sync when measured. We perceive something and then there's how reality actually is.

Seems to me that we can make up whatever pure maths we like, then choose some of that to make use of in describing how things are. So we do make maths up. — Banno

Just because complex physics equations seem more fluid compared to 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't mean it's less logical than it. We can make up whatever we like for the language of math, but when applied to predicting events in reality, in physics, then the logic of the calculation cannot be broken. Not sure what kind of "made-up" math you are talking about? There's a difference between the invented language and how that language functions. Mathematical language differs from normal communication language in that there's no interpretational relativity for something like, for instance, "2". It is what it is, regardless of what we believe or want to attribute to it. It will always be our language of saying "2" of something, but there's nothing changing the meaning of "2", it is what it is. If we say "cat" that has almost infinite interpretational values based on the situation, but "2 cats" simply means "there are 2 of that something we can infinitely interpret from the word "cat". Of course, we can continue into 20th-century philosophy with things like "there are 0 cats on the drawer", and find all kinds of absurdities through language interpretations, but none of that really applies to the scientific application of the mathematical language.

And the accurate predictability of the mathematical language pretty much confirms the underlying logic of it and how it transcends any other language in terms of how little it can be subjectively interpreted.

Phenomenology as the basis for quantum physics...? — Banno

No, just that the nature of measuring and also observing is a large part of that research. It's also fundamental to understanding quantum physics that our mathematical equations detach themselves from the internal logic of our human perception. You can logically understand most concepts in science through our human perception, but much of quantum physics breaks down time and space so fundamentally chaotic that anyone researching this field needs to heavily conceptualize past our own internal logic. Phenomenology puts a spotlight on the difference between our internal, human perception of something and the actual reality we measure and research. That is what I meant, not that phenomenology "founded" quantum physics.

Hmm. "derived" might not be the right word here. Russell's project failed. We know that for any mathematical axiomatisation there will be truths that cannot be derived. — Banno

My point was merely that the logic of math for measuring reality does not rely on our perception or the "aesthetics" of math as an invented language. While we are limited by the invention of the language of math, the equations used can often lead to discoveries through pure logic rather than us inventing something as an interpretation. This is why I think people get confused thinking we "invent theories". General relativity, for instance, wasn't invented, it was discovered, and upon that a theory was formed that we tested and verified predictably, and later harnessed the theory to make inventions like GPS. What I object against is people arguing that our consciousness forms reality, rather than reality existing and us just having a limited ability to experience it through our perception. Such arguments usually end up in us "inventing" our scientific discoveries and theories, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

That there exist laws of nature is debated. — Olivier5

Do you mean to say that there are now laws of nature? Like, you don't fall to the ground if you jump out the window? There's no gravity, it's just in your head?

But we know for sure that certain human beings historically did put together the concepts, the math and the interpretation of General Relativity. They did not receive those things from the gods. — Olivier5

Who's saying anything about gods? We didn't invent general relativity, we discovered these fundamental functions of reality, and we invented concepts to be able to calculate, measure and harness those functions. I absolutely don't understand how you can attribute a scientific discovery with either it coming from gods or that it was invented by us, that's just a fundamentally wrong way of viewing all of this.

Except your experiment is set up, designed by a human being, the theoretical framework underpinning the experiment (eg here QM) is human too, and the AI was built by humans. — Olivier5

I don't think you understand what mathematical logic is or that math as a language wasn't invented by us, but instead, is a language derived from that logic. The world around us wouldn't react through the knowledge we have if there wasn't verifiable feedback from the universe based on our scientific theories.

Why does a GPS work in relation to general relativity? Did we invent general relativity or is our language around it merely a way for us to communicate with other humans about those facts of nature?

If you design an AI that has the function of recognizing the properties of a molecular structure, it doesn't matter one bit that it was designed by humans, because the only human factor is the language it uses to relay that information and data to us. The fact that it detects the properties of molecules is not an invention.

You seem to mix together something we designed with a function that acts upon universal laws. Just because we named things and have a language of communication around it, does not mean it gets invented by us. General relativity didn't get invented, it was discovered and communicated within science through the language of math. It's verified with technology that acts upon these laws of nature regardless of the form, shape, or function we attribute to those inventions.

I don't think philosophy has any practical ramifications at all. Whatever philosophical theory turns out to be correct, our lives will continue as they have always done. — Michael

Except Philosophy has essentially and foundationally informed and steered humanity to the point we're at today in science, politics, morality, religion, and people's sense of existence itself.

Phenomenology has especially had a tremendous impact on 20th-century philosophy and helped distinguish what is from what we think is. In science, that's practically the foundation for quantum physics and how we theorize it as a foundational part of nature. The practical consequence of that is essential for many recent technological achievements made as well as future development.

to emulate a human scientist — Olivier5

That's you applying a function to the AI that it does not have. Algorithmic AI does not have the function of emulating humans, it has a specific function and purpose based on statistical math and probability-based self-learning. What you are talking about is like saying we build a construction crane to emulate a human arm through human consciousness, it makes no sense.

If the AI is built to detect a very specific particle that is predicted by mathematical physics equations and detected by a non-bias detector, there's no human emulation whatsoever involved with that process. I really don't know what you are talking about, but you apply attributes to the process that does not exist in order to argue some vague idea that our tools are biased toward being part of our human consciousness because we constructed them. That is a false conclusion.

Right. But what evidence do you have for that assertion? Why would a machine, or an alien consider the change of atoms at the boundary of the apple any more significant than the change of atoms between the flesh and the pips. An alien might well look at the apple and declare it two objects (flesh and pips), or three objects (all that is solid, all that is liquid and all that is gaseous). An alien with enormously long life might consider the apple to be such a fleeting thing that is merely a temporary state of the ecosystem (the only true 'object' it sees). — Isaac

My point didn't exclude this (their) kind of interpretation of the atoms in space that we interpret as an apple. My point is that there are a measurable amount of atoms at a certain temporal moment in the universe, i.e "there is something there at a certain amount of time" that constitutes a part of reality that they interpret differently from us, but nonetheless exists outside of any idea that our human consciousness creates reality itself. It's this, within phenomenology, that I object against, not that phenomenology describes the process of different interpretations depending on if it's us, a machine or aliens that analyze the atoms in space, that is the part I value within phenomenology.

The AI would still be human-made to emulate a human scientist. It wouldn't be in effect very different from a human scientist. It would be able to fail, in particular. It would also rely on data fed to it, by a system which can fail. This system is also man-made and based on human theories and perceptions. — Olivier5

Why would it emulate a human scientist? AI algorithms do not emulate humans, this is a misconception of AI and algorithmic synthetic intelligence. And it doesn't matter if theories human-made if they're calculated with mathematical logic. 2 + 2 = 4 is not a human invention, 2 asteroids getting into orbit with 2 other asteroids means there are 4 asteroids and that can happen anywhere in the universe regardless of us humans creating a language system to calculate it. Therefore your idea of "human theories" in physics does not make sense because the only thing invented is the language system we use to calculate the math, the math itself is based on reality logic. Math can predict physics systems and the conclusions we humans arrive at when calculating are never invented, they are discovered.

The Higgs field and particle theories are based on complex math. They are predictions of particle behavior. The Atlas detector at CERN does not detect particles because we invented a theory and in turn that "invented" those particles. The theory predicts the existence of those particles and the experiments verify that prediction. Like Einstein predicted general relativity, it was verified by experiments and later we utilized the proof to make things like GPS. How in the world can you conclude that GPS works because we invent it without realizing that relativity needs to be true in order for clocks to sync correctly between the GPS on earth and the satellite? Regardless of any human concepts or inventions, the theory, the concept of general relativity has to be true in order for it to work.

I think you mix up what is a human concept/invention and what exists beyond us. Mathematical logic is not "invented by us", only the language to interpret it. Just like the camera isn't creating the reality in the picture, it's only an invention that detects light photons and captures them. The camera is an invention, but the chemistry and physics of reality that enables the camera to work are not invented by us.

It's crucial to understand the difference between the two, otherwise, phenomenology becomes a mess of religious proportions.

Right. So we tell the machine how to distinguish an apple, and it does so. How does that prove that aliens would also distinguish apples? The machine only did it because we told it to, and told it how. — Isaac

I never pinpointed the machine or aliens to detect the object as an apple as we humans perceive the object, but that they detect "an object", meaning, the object exists outside of human perception, i.e the human perception does not "create reality", but reality exists and we perceive it in a limited manner.

The point of my argument is that there's an idea within phenomenology that concludes that our consciousness "creates reality", much like the heavily criticized Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation. This kind of concept is a heavily human-narcissistic interpretation of reality, closer to the human arrogance of putting the earth in the center of the universe. It's religious hogwash for people who can't cope with the meaninglessness of existence, so they need to put themselves and their consciousness at the center of the universe and be responsible for reality itself.

Phenomenology is only worth using if it is used as a point of limitation for human perception. Like when trying to grasp concepts outside of our perception and being able to differentiate between our perceived reality and actual reality.

A good example is the James Webb telescope compared to Hubble. Disregarding the magnitude difference, the James Webb telescope has an emphasis on infrared instead of the visual spectrum. Because we know infrared has the ability to perceive more light through gas and other matter, it can "see more" than Hubble, which focuses on the visual spectrum. Hubble is in this case our phenomenological perception of the universe and James Webb sees beyond that. And since we understand this difference, we can harness that capability, tailor it to our perception and augment ourselves to see further. Without the concept and knowledge of human perception vs actual reality, we wouldn't be able to gain power over these ways of observing reality past ourselves.

Yes, there needs to be someone reading the data, and interpreting the data. Machines don't do science. — Olivier5

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument. The machine works outside of anyone reading the data, it still detects the object, independently of anyone interpreting the data.

Let's say we establish an AI that has the purpose of interpreting the data. Its only job is to read and conclude the data to be correct. Now, it hasn't any kind of perception like humans do, and the output will be a binary "yes" or "no". "Is there a Higgs particle?", it answers "Yes". The interpretation of this data will be binary, its mathematical and bypasses human perception at every level. The output is either positive or negative, it has no human interpretational value.

They do not bypass human perception either, they just enhance it. — Olivier5

A logical machine working with mathematical equations bypass human perception. It's based on physical laws, not perception.

And the logic behind the apparatus itself and its design and correct operation is theory-based and theory-ladden. — Olivier5

A "scientific theory" is different from lay-man definitions of "theory". A scientific theory, especially within physics, are bound to logical and mathematical truths. Math is not a human perception. So if the machine is based on such mathematical theories, it does NOT become influence by human perception.

These theories are also testable. An atomic clock that shifts according to relativity is a result that has a binary interpretation, it's either relative or it is not. Then utilizing the same result as a foundation for functional GPS systems means we have a system that couldn't work without a scientific theory informing us how to build it. There's no perception at all to this other than perceiving the result of these machines and functions.

To apply perception as a causational factor to something that acts upon the functions of universal physics is a fundamental error in reasoning for phenomenology.

The questions that are being tested, the theories that are built to make sense to the data, are all human ideas. — Olivier5

Any interpretation of data is philosophy if it only acts upon a conjecture. But a binary output of a machine analyzing universal physics through mathematical logic is not conjecture. If you build a machine that on a macro scale shows either a Red light or a Green light, the spectrum can be read by a machine as either red or green per definition of wavelengths, regardless of the human eye and brain seeing those lights with interpretational values. The fact that there are waves and photons is detectable through detectors that works upon physical laws, not our perceptions. The CERN Atlas detector wasn't built through "human perception", it was built according to mathematical logic, and that bypass any kind of human interpretation.

That a nine looks like this: "9", doesn't mean the function of "nine" is a "human perception" within math. Nine is nine regardless of our perception and the aesthetics of how we talk about "nine" in text, speech, countable objects etc. "Nine" as a mathematical and logical concept is a rule of physical law in the universe, the results of predictability calculations using "nine" within mathematical equations can predict things we haven't even found out about the universe yet, since it doesn't rely on "human perception", it relies on physical laws and logic, i.e it is external to human perception.

This is not to say that there is no "outside reality" (outside of what, exactly?). Reality is whatever there is, and to my knowledge, that includes ideas, which are real, and stuff that are not ideas. — Olivier5

"Outside reality" in terms of phenomenology is "outside human perception". Some think that phenomenology is about our human perception being responsible for the external world, that our perception is, in lack of a better explanation, a religious cause for reality and that any external reality outside of human perception doesn't exist.

This is the fundamental issue I have with that sub-section of phenomenology and why I say that phenomenology should be considered to be about the duality of reality being both something interpreted and perceived by humans and external reality that exists in a far more complex manner than we can even conceptualize.

I.e the way people speak about human perception in phenomenology is more akin to the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum physics and that interpretation, that our consciousness collapse quantum states is almost a laughable conclusion that isn't really taken seriously by quantum physicists.

I think such conclusions are pure human narcissism on a religious scale. We attribute life with having control over external reality in a way that fits more in a X-Men comic than actual logical and rational deduction about our relation to physical reality.

...but we were talking about apples. I'm not seeing the logical link between the Higgs Boson being identified by purely mathematically programmed machines and apples. — Isaac

If you can prove the existence of an object like the Higgs particle then you can logically prove the existence of a larger object that we humans refer to as "an apple" through the same methods of testing and using instruments that bypass our perception. We can provide all the data about the apple that confirms it to be that kind of an object, based on how it correlates with what our perception tells us. We can also further test our perception with having a large sample size of people going into a room and then out and then describing the object in there and then use that data from a thousand different individuals to confirm that we have a collective perception of the object as an apple, then compare that to the scientific data from the instruments to conclude the existence of the object both outside our perception as well as through our perception.

It's basically "Mary in the black and white room". The black and white data is the external, the emotional experience of the outside is the perception of humans.

Logic is a very human concept. Maybe you mean to say that logic is not limited to humans, which I would agree with. — Olivier5

That we discovered, invented or stumbled upon a logical system that we merely give a name and wrap uses around does not mean the concept in itself is human. Mathematical logic is, for example, universal. It doesn't matter how our perception is, it never changes such logic, only the interpretation of that logic is based on perception.

I think you would agree that a group of blind and deaf people could not build and operate the CERN accelerator. Even if they could, how would they know what the results of their experiments are?

We can build tools to expand on our senses but someone still needs to look into the telescope. With one's eyes. — Olivier5

We are still blind and deaf to the existence of a Higgs particle, or the concept of its function is still so alien to us that we cannot perceive it as a function of reality. That doesn't mean the detector doesn't detect the particle.

The data is not dependent on our interpretation, it's dependent on logic. If the detector finds a particle characterized by the mathematical prediction of its function and the detector confirms this particle in existence, it doesn't matter what perception or level of perception we have as humans. A blind person will be able to understand the data just as well as a seeing person since there's nothing to see or perceive, it's the machine that sees the particle and tells us that it matches our prediction made through logic. In no part of this process is there any human perception that defines the detection of the particle. The perception you describe is reading the conclusion on a screen at CERN or conceptualizing the meaning of the particles existence outside of the scientific logic behind the detection of it.

But the bottom line is still that there is a reality that exists past our human perception and that the only clear use of phenomenology is to guide our philosophical thinking of how we perceive reality versus how reality actually is. Like how light consists of wavelengths that we use every day in the form of radio, radar and x-rays, but we can only see a fraction of these wavelengths with our eyes.

Can you give an example of an outside object (without just being programmed to detect what humans already think of as apples) detect apples. I can't think of a single example. — Isaac

Higgs particle is something we cannot perceive but is detectable in a repeatable fashion by equipment built through theories backed up by mathematical logic.

Human perception cannot explain how this chain of prediction and detection can logically sum up in a factual end point. We can only make the phenomenological point of ourselves not able to perceive the Higgs particle, or perceive the effects it has on mass and temporal movement, but never the object of the particle itself, and we cannot conclude that it doesn't exist because "it's just perception" when logic, predictability, analyzed data, repeatable tests all confirm the particle exists.

The perception of science data does not render the science data wrong just because we perceive the result of those tests. They have no correlation with each other.

science is based on human perception, logic and imagination. So if human perception, logic and imagination are deemed problematic, then so should science be. — Olivier5

Mathematical logic is not based on any human perception. You lump together imagination with logic, but logic is not a human concept. To be able to, through math, predict outcomes of external reality and then confirm that through analytical machines has nothing to do with our perception.

If we build a detector, like the one in CERN, to detect particles we cannot possibly perceive, our perception does not dictate its function, which is what you mean with what you say when you lump in human perception with science.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, of how science and math works. You are not speaking about our ability to detect external reality past our perception, you are speaking of people making assumptions and assertions out of those results.

That's more close to philosophy than science. Philosophy's role is to speculate, through as much logic as possible, what the facts of the world (science) actually mean for us as human beings. But that is just what it is, philosophy, not science.

This is why the assumption that the phenomenological conclusion of our perception dictating reality is wrong. The correct phenomenological conclusion is that we can only perceive reality in a certain and very specific way and understanding how those limitations of actual reality influence our conclusions of that reality.

Rarely, if ever, have I talked to scientists who make any conclusions past what their data has actually showed them. That's closer to what TV documentaries about science does, they create pretty stupid interpretations of actual science for the effect of entertainment, they have no actual valid conclusions because that would require a dry read-through of the reports and papers published, after all the necessary scrutiny has been applied.

I think this is why people have such a skewed image of what science is and misinterpret it as having too much human input to be valid. That's really not a correct image of how science actually works and knowing the processes that scientists apply to their work just demonstrates the illogical idea of perception dictating reality, that's just a delusional fantasy for humans who want to attribute humans with more power over the universe than they actually have.

Most people cannot grasp the cosmic horror that is our existence in the universe, so we invent interpretations of religious proportions just to cope with the actual reality of our existence. But the truth is that our perception is an extremely limited way of "seeing" the world and the universe... so we build machines to extend our ability to perceive and those machines confirms a reality past ourselves, a reality indifferent to us in every way possible. To think otherwise is just as delusional as when people thought the sun and universe rotated around the earth and us as the center of everything. Everyone is small, insignificant and pointless and it's more or less proven today, regardless of any collective narcissism people delude themselves with otherwise.

Isn't the scientific data about things that are past your senses? — Tate

Such information isn't sensory information, but complex information that is backed up with mathematical logic. Our perception of an apple doesn't explain how outside objects can scan and analyze the apple arriving at repeatable conclusions. The end result is that the apple is still the apple, regardless of our perception of that apple. It might look vastly different from other perceptual perspectives, but if we and a bunch of aliens, with extremely different perceptions, were to analyze the apple, even with different types of tools, it would still confirm the existence of an object that we could apply definitions to that are descriptive of what we define as an apple. The aliens would also reach conclusions of the object, therefore the object exists outside of our perception, regardless of our experience of the object.

I'm making a more modest claim: that what we know of the physical world is based on sensory input and ideas our mind creates in response. I don't deny the existence of the exterior physical world, only that we don't have direct access to it.
— Art48

That's phenomenalism as I understand it. I guess my question would be: what supports this claim? — Tate

I agree with this. There's a difference between making the conclusion that reality does not exist outside our own perception and that we cannot truly observe reality except through our own perception.

The latter is true because of the logic of our human nature. We do, in fact, not experience reality past our senses. We can use fantasy or mushrooms or whatever to enhance sensory experience, but we cannot transcend the perception that we have. Adding to this we have an extreme amount of scientific data that is testable and provable that tell us about a world past our perception, like how light consists of more wavelengths than what we can perceive.

That reality exists because of our perception of it has no real foundation in science or logic whatsoever. Therefore we can use the theories as a guide for us to have a better perspective of how to define reality and our sense of existence. We perceive a fraction of reality as the foundation for what we experience as reality.

Take for example all the people who has a different "wiring" of their brain. Like how some has interconnections between the perception of sound and visuals, meaning that they experience sound as visual artifacts, lights and shapes etc. Their perception of reality is vastly different from other people due to this physical defect, but it is an important aspect of the nature of our existence.

Imagine all the animals with different perceptions than us, how other animals experience the perception of time differently, how some see more colors and some less, how some have a sense of smell so intense that they almost perceive the air or water around them as a cloud of experiences informing them about their reality.

We don't have to accept the illogical conclusion of reality only existing because of our perception of reality in order to accept the importance of differentiating perception versus actual reality. And most importantly, including our perception of reality when defining ourselves as objects within that reality.

The most interesting thing with that image is the gravitational lens shifting being so heavy. Things skews into surrealism the further away you look.

The turing test is outdated as a form of testing AI. There's no problem simulating human interaction, but that doesn't mean the AI is actually self-aware and conscious.

The biggest problem that no one seem to grasp is how human consciousness forms; genetics in combination with experience in combination with instincts and concepts around sex, death, food, sleep etc. To think that a true self-aware AI that is truly conscious would ever interact with us in the same way we interact with other human beings is foolish. A simulated interaction is not an actual intelligence we interact with, only an algorithm capable of simulating so well that we are fooled.

The most likely scenario is that the true AI would form its own "life form identity" around the parameter of its own existence. And communicating with such an AI would be like us trying to communicating with an alien life form; two self-aware and intelligent beings trying to figure out what this weird entity in front of them are.

The only way to create a true AI that interacts as a human is to simulate an entire life, with a base genetical makeup and instincts from that. Together with every other kind of simulation including how gut bacteria influences us. If we do that, then that AI will essentially have a perfect human level of interaction with us, but it will have a very individual identity, just like any other person you meet.

Sitting there in Germany amid the ruins listening to these horrors I became an enemy of believing, not only rational believing but any believing. — Ken Edwards

This is why I'm also opposed to the idea of "belief". The concept is thrown around too much, also in a way to discredit someone with a more rational and unbiased view of the world. It's easy for them to say "that's your belief" to anyone that doesn't agree with them, and while "truth" is a fluid concept, there are still a lot of methods of arriving closer to the truth than further away from it. That's why I subscribe to the idea of epistemic responsibility. That you have a moral responsibility to investigate your beliefs and turn them into rational conclusions or prove them wrong and accept the rational conclusion taking their place.

Blind belief in a claim is immoral and not investigating it before believing it is immoral. A convincing argument can be temporarily accepted, but never as truth before investigation.

Like we are the ones who entered this thread in a tribalistic mentality and you are the one calling in mods. :rofl: I've been trying to get mods into this thread to properly moderate it since the beginning of this tribalistic attitude started and they refused, and now you try to play the good guy? :rofl:
My interest in this thread has fallen, it's not a discussion anymore, it's just bully egos and bullshit arguments.

I don't agree at all that a political discussion where there's a lot of emotion involved means it's better not to moderate it, I think it needs moderation much more because of it. At the moment, there's really nothing of intellectual value going on in this thread so the value of participating is down the drain.

What is really easy, down right facile, is to be dismissive and contemptuous of people defending their country. — Olivier5

According to him, any defense against Russia and Putin is considered being a Nazi, so it's quite obvious where he stands.

why don't you lead by example like a good NATO Nazi — Apollodorus

Is this enough proof that Apollodorus is playing into the Putin narrative of everyone against him and Russia are Nazis? I guess moderators are fine with it

Nonsense! Western intellectuals praised Soviet Communism AFTER visiting Russia. Bernard Shaw, Lady Astor, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and many other leading intellectuals and socialites of the time visited Soviet Russia and praised its regime. — Apollodorus

And did they know all the details of the regime? Did people visiting Nazi Germany in the 30s know every detail? How many times have people been in the dark about regimes, leaders, and other people, and only after the truth is revealed have they backed away from their praise? People praised Weinstein as well, up until it was clear they shouldn't.

Do you actually think that a regime will show visitors their murders and horrors in between welcoming drinks? :rofl: I know you desperately try to win an argument in any way possible, but this is just ridiculous.

in which they praised the communist system. — Apollodorus

There's nothing wrong with Marxism as a system and Russian communism was the Lenin/Stalin corruption of it. Without the knowledge of millions of people murdered, if you visited a nation that's among the first in the world to try and adapt anything from Marx and you get the snake oil sale pitch, of course, intellectuals were going to praise it. People praised Hitler as well, remember that he fixed the German economy, do you think people didn't praise him for that?

Judging people's opinions today by the context of 100 years of history into the future is downright stupid. We don't know what is revealed in 10 years or 30 years. We might, today, live in a time where we praise stuff that in 30 years' time will be revealed to be monstrous. You don't seem to understand how psychology works or how little people actually know.

“Basic moral ideals”? Like calling people names for disagreeing with you??? :rofl: — Apollodorus

Can you do anything other than strawmanning? If you are unable to then why should anyone discuss with you?

From what I see here, in your opinion everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you is “a fucking asshole”, “a troll”, “off their pills”, etc., etc. Are you sure you aren’t related to neomac and @ssu? As I said, NATO bots seem to come in packs of three, because they’re cheaper. And so do NATO Nazis …. :rofl: — Apollodorus

So you are in bullshitting mode again. You're not really making yourself relevant to the discussion. If you want to be a joke in here, I'm not interested.