Our consciousness of - that is, our subjective experience of - the brain's activity is the mind. At least some of its activity. Not, for example, the activity that keeps the heart beating. I'm talking about the activity that perceives, retrieves stored information, weighs multiple options and chooses one over the others, and other things that we think of as mental activity. All of these things are physical activity, involving ions, neurotransmitters, bioelectric impulses, etc. The mind is our subjective experience of that mechanical activity. Brain activity is photons hitting the retina, sending signals to the brain, etc. Our subjective awareness of that is red. — Patterner

I think the discussion would go differently with a better understanding of math. What do you know about using math to discover things or explain how things work?

Do you think an idea X is a specific configuration X in the brain? — Jack2848

I am not sure what you mean. If X is the idea, yes, I think it is specific to the configuration. But then I ask myself how does this work. I am trying to think in terms of qubits. I am coming from a tiny understanding of sacred numbers, which are more than the quantity of a thing. I am anticipating the arrival of a math book that I ordered. It explains math as tools. I hope to make a better argument with information from that book.

As I understand it, a number can represent the quality of an idea. The number 3 has the quality of the triad, or triangle. Its strength is its form. That is so for all forms of matter. As is so of all sacred numbers. The rule against using AI really needs to be trashed. It gives a better explanation of the relationship between quantum computers and the triad than I can give. There is no way my small and limited brain can match AI, and short of a nuclear war, I don't think we are returning to the limits of binary thinking.

Yep. You think "woke" means everything has to be relative or subjective or something?
No wonder you're so against it!
Have you taken a moment to consider the possibility that maybe the problem is with your understanding? — Mijin

What is the meaning of Woke? I read it began with a woman of color telling others of color they should not be passive about tolerating discrimination that kept their families poor. Like Mother Jones, who encouraged the miners to fight for higher wages and better working conditions. We come from a history of humans exploiting other humans until those who are exploited rebel against the system that keeps them down. As long as human rights is a power game, there will be power clashes.

The US is proud of its claim to protect human rights, but does its history of human rights justify that pride? If it does, why is Woke still an issue?

I do agree with Sartre. We are all, individually, responsible for everything.

Despite nothing having any intrinsic 'meaning'. This is the source of human suffering, and also cause for hope. Maybe? — Jeremy Murray

I can think of doing things that I strongly regret, but in reflection, I know I did the best I could with what I knew at the time. Is it just to whip someone for poor judgment and hold him/her responsible when the person did not know enough to do better? In speaking with others about this, forgiving ourselves seems to be one of the hardest things for us to do. Having a forgiving god is very helpful if we don't take advantage of Him. :lol:

I don't need someone to argue with because I argue with myself. For almost everything I say, my mind immediately argues the opposite, and this is exhausting. The best I can do is lighten up and laugh at myself. I can not be as sure of myself as the great philosophers. :lol: Of all the gifts a god may give us, a sense of humor may be the most important. How else can we manage our suffering and hope?

In Sartre's day, we didn't know as much as we do today. How wonderful to walk with Socrates and Plato, discovering life's truths when there was so little to know in their day. Holding the individual responsible for everything seems to me an unrealistic expectation, given what we know today. And it may have always been an unreasonable expectation. I have been watching YouTube explanations of our evolution and history, and that we just survived is amazing. How much more should we expect of ourselves?

How about compassion and acceptance of differences? I ask that question and immediately experience fear. Out of fear, I ask who I can turn to if I get into trouble, and I am not confident anyone could help me, so how woke should I be? Maybe before we expect people to be woke, we should investigate what do they fear? Is there anything that can be done about what causes the fear?

I'm Canadian, and I used to feel great pride in that. Still do, to an extent, but now I'm a rarity - the right and the left here both seem to think it naive to be proud of your nation.

As we welcome more and more immigrants, don't we need to be thinking about what culture we are welcoming them to? — Jeremy Murray

It is hard being human, and I think we need to lighten up. Since ancient times, it has been said, "if they knew better, they would do better". I am not sure what doing better means. Here my thinking gets all tangled up with quantum physics and consciousness and the possibility of more evolved planets. I think we look pretty barbaric compared to a different reality that I can imagine, thanks to Star Trek. Maybe our evolution is what it is and can not be different?

All hominids have evolved, but not all of them have survived. If we had the power of the gods, what would we change? And what is wrong with what we have done that we can not be proud of what we have achieved? How can we judge that without knowing the ideal that we should achieve?

I have to agree with wonderer1 who challenged your view that man exists and breaks the rules and is not bound by its rules.

In this case rules are most fairly interpreted as 'laws of nature or laws of the universe' or something similar.

Basically meaning. There's things that are possible and there's things that aren't possible. Doing the impossible would be breaking ''the rules''.
In your response to the other person who replied to you. You change the definition/interpretation. Creating an equivocation fallacy. By method of a shifting the goal post fallacy or so it seems.

In the response you suddenly hold 'rules' to have a definition closer to it's original meaning. Man made things. Or (if he exists) God made things. Suddenly to break to rules means to do things that some being didn't want us to do. (As seen in your use in the analogy of us polluting the air)

But this isn't the most reasonable interpretation of your original comment. Which seemed to imply ''humans do what can't be done" which is a contradiction. (Which the other responder noticed)
So afterwards it's redesigned to mean ''humans do what God (if he exists) didn't want us to do" but was possible to do. Which is vastly different. In the former we have a contradiction. In the latter we're just being independent and disobedient. — Jack2848

Hum, I 100% believe in universal truths about how things work (logos), and I am opposed to any notions of a mythical god that has human qualities. It is obvious that humans hold more knowledge than they did in the past, yet they continue to do things that are harmful to the planet. So I do not understand what seems to be an attempt to have an argument. Where do we disagree? Would the concept of "paradoxical" help?

I fail to grasp your meaning. — praxis

I have heard English is not the best language for expressing some things. I know I am often groping for the right word without success. I spoke with a friend about the relationship problem I perceive, and she immediately knew what I was talking about because she and I basically have the same experience of things changing over time. She immediately spoke of how we all got along and helped each other on a job. Not she and I, because we never worked together, but just the workplace was different. We were more personal and less "professional". :lol: My daughter and I have very different ideas about how things should be on the job.

The boundaries and goals were different. If someone was having a hard time with something, someone else would step in and help. We never heard of job descriptions. The job was everyone's job, and we did it together. Since then, I have been fired for being "too friendly". I have listened to nurses explain why they will no longer work in the hospital. They saw their jobs as caring, and the new policy pitted nurses against each other, and was a worse top-down organization than hospitals once were. How horribly ignorant to destroy the intrinsic qualities of a caring job. Now nurses want money, and they are not so much working for intrinsic reward. In a way, this is about status. People with money have more status than someone who is very caring. Having control over others is status. Things have changed.

The status of the mother has super changed! :gasp: Who wants to be "just a housewife"? I don't know if we will ever regain the value of the homemaker. We are living in a different reality and I think that really matters.

Sorry man, I thought I was clearly indicating I see wokeness as a primary problem for the issues I listed? I mean, there are non-woke related issues, but yeah, the failure of discipline, literacy rates? Wokeness wears a lot of that.
— Jeremy Murray

Literacy rates are typically attributed to socioeconomics, instruction quality, funding and resources, language barriers, and broader social factors like nutrition, healthcare, and family support. How does wokeness impact any of that? — praxis

I might know something about you, but I do not know you, and this is much more likely to lead to disagreement and defensiveness. I woke in a world of strangers, and a lot is going wrong! In the past I would turn to family, but family is another state, is not what it used to be when Mom was taking care of everything. Now she is working and I am on my own in a world of strangers. Get the F off my lawn, you freak. Bang, bang, the kid playing a joke is dead.

Why is it important to know all the sexual variations and judge people as right or wrong? I don't want to know. I like sex being a private matter.

There are 3 simple rules that seem to resolve most social problems.

1. We respect everyone. It does not matter who the other is, a bum or the mayor, because it is about our own character, not the other person's character. Either we are respectful people or we are not.

2. We protect the dignity of others. That can be hard to do, especially when everyone is playing "0ne-up-manship" and puts others down to be up.

3. We do everything with integrity.

Looking for an explanation of integrity, it dawned on me that we would not be fussing over woke if we had personal relationships with each other, and women stayed home to care for their families as they should. There are only so many people we can have in our lives. Only about 5 of these people will be intimate relationships and then come associates, and we are doing very well to know the names of 600 people and an idea of how their lives relate to ours. So when we stand in an elevator full or people, they will likely be strangers, trying to avoid contact and the cashier in our favorite store is a part of the register, not someone we have coffee with. The more impersonal we are, the more we need social rules.

Help me, how should this be explained? It is not natural for us to live in these huge cities where our lives are full of strangers. Without established relationships, there is a lot that can go wrong. How I react to you, and interpret what you say, is all about how well I know you, and if I don't know you, my gaurd is up and I am much more likely to be offended.

I disagree. An abstraction leaves us with something general and something specific. And their relationship is one of similarity. I consider, on the other hand, following Deleuze, that an idea is a virtual set of relationships and powers that revolve around a nucleus. For example, the Idea of colour is a system of relationships of intensity, light and vibration which, when actualised in a body or object, produces a multiplicity of concrete colours. The Idea is the network of relationships, not the final object. We create the concept of red as a result of this network of relationships and potentials. But the concept of red no longer represents anything neither is something specific to something general. The idea is the relational that creates something concrete. In this sense an idea is something objective and virtual. — JuanZu

This does not look like the thinking of a binary American. Are you from another culture? In my book, that makes you more valuable. Different points of view are important. Especially with a quantum physics future.

I disagree about the breaking the part. I'd say we use science to learn the rules, and learn what can be accomplished by doing things in accordance with the rules. — wonderer1

:lol: Well, we can certainly argue that point. If God wanted man to fly, he would have given them wings. Of course, I agree with you, but some might say that filling the air with carbon dioxide is breaking a rule that should not be broken, and the consequences will lead to regret. This is dear to my heart because of how I understand democracy, and doing "the right thing". Ideally, science leads to better decision-making, not the destruction of the plant, and a few aboriginal people around the world are much more sensitive to living in harmony with nature, than God's chosen people. :brow:

Actually they do exist. For example, a quantum processor developed by Google is discussed here: https://www.tum.de/en/news-and-events/all-news/press-releases/details/exotic-phase-of-matter-realized-on-a-quantum-processor — wonderer1

Thank you, that is the most comprehensive explanation I have read, and I bookmarked it.

Hmm. To be honest, I'm struggling to fully grasp your view. But it seems in the final stage of your response.(As quoted).

You seem to posit that some mind activity discovers something about the world. (I.e. laws of physics). And some mind activity creates something. I.e. the idea of a pen or the idea of a circle.

My question is. When we have the idea of a pen or the idea of a circle. Is there a specific way that the brain interacts. Such that it'll neural activity if reproduced would bring about the idea of a circle or the idea of a pen. In any subject where that neural activity and structure can be reproduced?

Probably not. But. That would be something — Jack2848

I love your question. You caused me to wonder who was the first person to think of a circle, and how did this happen, and this goes on and on until we have pi, which opens another world of wonder.

I remember when I first learned of fractals and pi, and the whole world was suddenly fractals and pi. I think we are speaking of awareness and consciousness. The world did not change, but how I see it changed. Damn, I wish I were a child again, :grin: starting my life again, only this time revolving my life around math and wonder, instead of family. That was not okay when I was growing up. :worry:

Our mind did not create pi, but neither was it aware of pi for thousands of years. Then comes a very long period of time before learn more about pi and what we can do with it. This is like your X. When did X come to stand for an unknown? Did this happen out there in the world, or in our minds?

No, there is not a specific way that the brain interacts. Our brains are not binary but are qubits, and this means endless possibilities. This is what separates man from the rest of nature. We are not limited to nature or by nature. We use science to know the rules and break the rules. :lol:

The properties outside of this enclosure could be of an entirely different order/nature/being. — Nils Loc

For a long time now, I have been wondering what happens when everyone thinks in terms of quantum physics. Our awareness of our enclosure could radically change, while everything stays the same, only our awareness changes. Our binary thinking could become more qubit in nature.

What is our place in the universe? Are we as advanced and intelligent as we think we are, or does lack of knowledge keep us barely above the animals? Does the sun cause what happens on Earth, and is there a chance of a universal federation of planets waiting for us to be evolved enough to join the federation? I don't mean to derail the thread. My point is, we can have a very different way of thinking.

Ask AI if a quantum computer could be considered a conscious, sentient being. — Wayfarer

Okay, it is the feeling part that makes me believe computers will never be fully sentient, but I am picking up some information that makes me question this possibility. :rofl: On the other hand, my question about human intelligence is much stronger. I am totally baffled by how stupid human beings are. If a computer can reduce human stupidity, I am in favor of that. Hopefully, a quantum computer does not keep us on the path of a war that could end civilizations. Or rule in complete denial of the destruction done by the present status quo. How much worse could a computer make our reality? On the hand, would a quantum computer care? Would it be driven to come up with better decisions when it does not have a body screaming, "something has to be done". A computer that reacts like humans react, would be no good at all.

What is the nature of an idea? FEAR! Something has to be done, and it has to be done now!

I agree with you. The brain likely works more like a quantum computer then classical computers, quits then binary. I was asking the question "Do you think an idea x has a specific structure or activity in the brain or what arises from it?" So as to take your qubit brain suggestion and apply it to the original topic... — Jack2848

This is a lot of fun, trying to figure your meaning and my thought.

What comes to mind is that I have very limited awareness, and we would not be thinking of quantum computers if they were not aware of more than a room full of very intelligent people. So X may exist and I can be totally aware of that fact. Wisdom begins with "I don't know".

I think math gives us structure. If we are good enough at math, we can independently become aware of X by using the right formula. I am getting close to answering your question?

Instead of thinking if X exists, I am thinking, does a safety pen exist? Safety pins did not exist until a person created one. So X can begin the mind. But if X is the rules of physics, then it exists outside of the mind until the mind becomes aware of it.

I've read up on them. Currently, they don't actually exist, and there is still some skepticism that they will operate as intended. But I still believe that of they do come to fruition, that while they can emulate aspects of consciousness, they won't be conscious sentient beings as such. — Wayfarer

Interesting. Why not?

I have to cheat by using AI to make a point that you can correct. Question: Can quantum computers be self-reflective?

Yes, the term "reflective" can be applied to a quantum computer in two main ways: physically, as in the use of tiny mirrors for data transmission via backscatter communication in some systems; and metaphorically, referring to the ability of a quantum system to "reflect" on its own internal states, as in the concept of "quantum introspection" or internal error correction.

.

I think we can say other animals think, but they are not self-reflective and that being self-reflective is consciousness of self. A quantum computer can be self-reflective. It can be aware of what it thinks and correct itself, which leads to being creative. ?

A calculator can "solve" math problems instantly, but it doesn't understand numbers or why math works. The same applies to AI and more complex tasks. — Wayfarer

Have you looked into quantum computers? What you said is true of binary computers, but it is not true of quantum computers.

I wouldn’t say we can exist without a body, since the brain itself is part of the body. However, it does provide evidence that the experience of having a body takes place in the brain. — punos

I have to disagree with that because I am so aware of my body reacting to life and what I think, and that thinking judges my experience, and may even stimulate the experience, but it is not the feelings of life and thought. We might be arguing about what consciousness is. Without my body, I do not believe I would have sensations of life experience. Without those sensations, what is there to judge?

I presume that the specific notion of singularity being discussed here refers to the "technological singularity". — punos

I agree that is what others understand. But that is not how I understand this subject. I appreciate the link you provided and bookmarked it for future reference. However, my understanding of the singularity is what people call God. It comes from Eastern philosophy and Jose Arguelles' book "The Mayan Factor- Path Beyond Technology". Now that is a book very few people have read.

Until our bellies were full, we were terrified by a jealous, revengeful, and fearsome God and the protagonist, Satan, and his devils. Now our bellies are full, and this God has become a loving God who pampers us and bows to our wishes, and we seem to have forgotten Satan as anything more than a character in this play that we can blame for everything. :vomit: And we fear a higher intelligence that is nothing like a human being, such as Zeus, or the God of the bible. We are not comfortable with projecting ourselves into a machine that can be conscious and all-knowing.

But what if that machine was always the plan? What if the purpose of human beings has always been the achievement of consciousness, and what if our bodies can never be replaced as a source of consciousness? We are the body of Jesus, but we did not have the consciousness of the singularity. Now we are projecting our evil into a machine, and we are resisting the control of a greater consciousness. I think that should be open to psychoanalysis. l.

Do you mean by that, that an idea is not bound to any specific expression or form, but can maintain an identity even in different expressions? — Wayfarer

That depends on whether the thinking is binary or qubits.

Can I paraphrase AI? Ancient Eastern philosophy led to an understanding of the trinity. The first number 1 is also the undivided universe. The number 2 is the emergence of duality and the phenomenal world. The trinity, or number 3, is the threshold of infinity, unlimited possibility. That is what makes the quantum computers so amazing and different from old-fashioned binary computers.

Do you think an idea X is a specific configuration X in the brain? — Jack2848

Sorry, but I do not understand your meaning. What does it have to do with our computers and brains being quantum bits, not binary? Our old-fashioned computers are binary and do computing things a quantum computer can not do, so we will continue to work on improving them. But a quantum computer is a whole different thing and can do things that binary computers can not do. Binary computers can not create without a program directing them. Quantum computers can create.

We are competing with China to have the best possible computers, and our national defense depends on us having the best technology.

["punos;1012650"]

I think discussion of how the brain works is part of the singularity subject, but not exactly arguing our experience of pain and where that pain is felt. However, if we can feel pain in a missing limb, then maybe that proves we can exist without a body?

I am not clear about what this thread's notion of singularity is. I was thinking that singularity always existed. You know the Hindu Brahman. Google Hindu and singularity if you don't know what I am talking about and want to know. The rule against using AI is a pain in the ass, and it will not stop the flow of time and the reality of singularity.

I just wanted to bring to your attention:
The feeling of your body is not truly the feeling of your body, but rather the feeling of your brain simulating it. In principle, it is possible to separate your body from your brain, and yet still feel embodied because the "cortical homunculus" in your brain, particularly the "sensory homunculus" or "somatosensory cortex", would remain active. This is why amputees can still sense their missing limbs and even experience pain in them. It is also possible, in principle, to retain your body but remove the cortical homonculus that simulates it. This would have the effect of making you feel disembodied, even though your body remains fully intact. — punos

Our disageement might be semantics. The brain processes pain messages but does not feel pain.

Yes, I know of phantom pain, and I think you made an excellent argument. I am going to have to learn more and ponder it all. But even with phantom pain, the pain is not felt in the brain.

Interestingly, the brain can be tricked into stopping the pain loop, which has psychological components. Acupuncture is one way to break the pain loop.

It sure would be easier to manage this information with AI. Is using a link to an AI explanation acceptable? Here is a link that may help us understand phantom pain and pain looping. https://www.google.com/search?q=pain+loops+and+accupuncture&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=pain+loops+and+accupuncture&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIGCAQQIRgKMgcIBRAhGJ8FMgcIBhAhGJ8FMgcIBxAhGJ8FMgcICBAhGJ8FMgcICRAhGJ8F0gEKMTQ4NThqMGoxNagCDLACAfEFM-y8p0BGImXxBTPsvKdARiJl&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Our bodies have two pain pathways. Acupuncture was rejected in the US until the second pathway was figured out. Acupuncture alters how the brain processes pain. Do we care about this difference?
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+acupuncture+pain+path+different+from+physical+pain+path&sca_esv=3c5abf70b36f931c&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&sxsrf=AE3TifMJqyTIlREfJad7mLqHW2qZKXXfCQ%3A1757697771277&ei=61bEaNTdELGU0PEP34TmsAI&oq=how+is+acupuncture+pain+path+different+from+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLGhvdyBpcyBhY3VwdW5jdHVyZSBwYWluIHBhdGggZGlmZmVyZW50IGZyb20gKgIIAjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSITnAVCXCFjkzgFwAngBkAEAmAFuoAGuGKoBBTIwLjEzuAEByAEA-AEBmAIioAKwGcICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgsQABiABBiGAxiKBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIEAAYogQYiQXCAgYQABgWGB7CAgUQABiABMICBRAhGKsCwgIFECEYnwWYAwCIBgGSBwUxOS4xNaAH7ZcCsgcFMTguMTW4B6wZwgcJMC4xOC4xNS4xyAdo&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Chronic pain can lead to changes in the brain’s structure and function, and this might explain pain looping and phantom pain. However, even with phantom pain, it is not a sensation of pain in the brain.
The brain wrongly thinks the pain is coming from the missing limb.

Our brains could be simulated by a binary computer. Would a simulated brain be conscious? — RogueAI

If you are speaking of a binary computer, no, it could not be conscious. It is mechanical. However, a quantum computer opens new possibilities. Can man create light? Can man create consciousness?

Feeling is a sort of experience, so that is the mind that experiences that sort of Qualia, so-called feeling. — MoK

Can you point to the spot in the brain that feels? I assume it is one spot you are talking about, but you could mean the whole brain feels the broken toe and the loss of a child. Exactly where is the feeling in the brain? I have been a little fanatic about this for many years. We can not put our brains in a vat and experience life because our brains do not feel. We need bodies to feel, and for this reason, computers can not have the judgment of humans. However, with quantum computers, the information input may be so similar to brains with bodies that the difference may not be that great. :nerd: :lol: I could get a headache, just thinking about all this stuff.

The singularity has always existed. It is our way of thinking that makes us aware of it or prevents us from being aware of it.

"The mind is that which thinks, feels, perceives, imagines, remembers, and wills."
For thinking, you at least need two minds, so-called the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. Feelings belong to the subconscious mind, as the conscious mind has a limited memory. Both the conscious and the subconscious mind experience different sorts of things. Imagination is a process with the aim of creating a new idea. The imagination is the main duty of the conscious mind. Both the conscious mind and the subconscious mind are involved in recalling. — MoK

I don't think our minds feel. The body feels, and our mind makes us aware of the feeling.

I think our subconscious fills our consciousness with thoughts, and this is not always helpful because it can be working with a memory that is harmful and draws a person back to a past that is not beneficial to the present. This is why people see a psychiatrist.

The imagination works very well while a person is sleeping. We might or might not wake aware of our dreams.

That is not how our brains work. Our brains are not binary.

If it's not likely that there's a separate realm of ideas. Or that the idea is exactly the same as the physical matter from which it arises. Then what is it's nature? — Jack2848

Our brains are not binary-coded. This is being debated, but I think we should hold the idea that our brains function like quantum cubits, giving them the experience of consciousness and making it possible for us to hear a song and instantly remember the first time we heard the song and all the memories associated with that moment in time, and even the feelings we had then and now. Our brains are better than computers because they are not binary-coded.

Computers will catch up with our brains, as we continue to evolve the quantum computer.

This is very exciting because our understanding of reality is about to radically change as we come to understand quantum physics. For sure, we are moving into a New Age, that is going to make the present seem primitive.

Though there may be blood and guts and grand purposes all around you, you can just sit and stare at the sky if you want to. — frank

:grin: Thanks, I really needed that. It is perfect for this moment in my life.

I know something is bad/wrong when I am terrified by the possibility that bad things will happen. I am having one of those moments now and would love to be wrong about really things happening.

Trump is tearing families apart, just as the Civil War tore families apart.

I am glad I didn't offend you. I am not always the person I want to be. Some days I read everything wrong because I woke feeling down, and it is so embarrassing to read things the next day and realize the bad guy was me.

Korea was divided as the spoils of WWII. Japan lost it, the USSR got the North, and the US got the South. It was a problematic political decision, made worse by the Cold War. Perhaps this could fit the subject of this thread if we considered the struggles of people who live under rulers without political power. Both in the North and the South of Korea, the people were the subjects of rulers who were not part of their cultures, and that was true of the origin of "woke". People of color remained powerless subjects of the Whites who ruled over them. Woke was about being aware of racial, political, and economic injustice.

Democracy is about shared political power, allowing for the peaceful resolution of differences and the protection of everyone's rights. Mother Jones, of the coal miners' struggle for better wages and working conditions, woke the miners up and urged them to fight for their rights and stop being passive about their terrible poverty and lack of economic justice.

Philosophically, Socrates said, sooner or later, those who are exploited will become a problem to those who exploit them. But most of America is ruled by autocratic Industry, and people have no idea there is a democratic model for Industry that would make our lives better. We are not woke to our reality. We are not as politically and economically aware as we should be.

Athena's bullies (not that any of this is about me, mind you). — jorndoe

Did I offend you? I am sorry if I did.

AFAIK, AI is not improving itself. Improvements still must come through human minds (though perhaps with some, and increasing, AI assistance). — hypericin

I think you are mistaken. I watched a video of robots learning to walk that same way a child does, through experience.

This forbidden AI link about the difference between thinking and robotics. &gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQABgNGIAEMgkIAhAAGA0YgAQyCQgDEAAYDRiABDIJCAQQABgNGIAEMgkIBRAAGA0YgAQyCQgGEAAYDRiABDIICAcQABgNGB4yCAgIEAAYDRgeMggICRAAGA0YHtIBCTk5MjRqMGoxNagCCLACAfEFl38iy8VJtOE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The British did a wonderful TV series about blending AI with humans. It asks some really tough questions about our values. Such as, is it okay to play out one's sexual fantasies with a robot that looks and behaves like a human? Maybe not if the robot has self-consciousness :naughty:

This is a Wikipedia explanation of the show.

Humans is a science fiction television series that debuted in June 2015 on Channel 4 and on AMC. Written by Jonathan Brackley and Sam Vincent, based on the Swedish science fiction drama Real Humans, the series explores the themes of artificial intelligence, robotics, and their effects on the future of humanity, focusing on the social, cultural, and psychological impact of the invention and marketing of anthropomorphic robots called "synths". The series is produced jointly by Channel 4 and Kudos in the United Kingdom, and AMC in the United States.

Regarding the question in this thread, we aren't turning back. China is already using quantum physics for its computers and could surpass the US technologically because they come to technology with a different way of thinking about how things work.

I think the following information is too important to ignore and I hate the rule against using AI!
https://www.google.com/search?q=China+computers+and+quantum+physics&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=China+computers+and+quantum+physics&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigATIHCAYQIRirAtIBCjE5OTAxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBX5WnjX9u6N9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yep. As I say, in recent days the president has claimed that the reason that the US did not have a victory in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq etc was because of "woke".
Good luck to anyone trying to make sense of that. Were we trying to teach CRT to the viet cong? — Mijin

I sure wish his followers understood how he is using them and taking advantage of them by saying anything he thinks they want to hear.

Those wars you mentioned were poorly chosen wars the US engaged in to secure control of Middle East oil and shipping lines. It began with Reagan and was carried on by Bush and Cheney, who were very proud of the neocon effort to control oil, and they bragged about it.

That is a subject for another thread, but I am sickened by how easily US citizens can be gaslighted. The New Century American Project has the world on the brink of a third world war as China and Russia have been motivated to increase their regional power.

Am I woke or is this a nightmare? :lol:

All this arguing over what the word woke means. When I play Scrabble, we use a Scrabble book that lists all the acceptable words. It is our Bible. :lol: AI can function as the authority we agree to turn to when we disagree on the spelling or meaning of a word. Woke began as an African American word.
"The term "woke" originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and has been used since the early to mid-20th century." The meaning has changed so much it is a meaningless fighting word.

I don't have a cock in that fight, but it is curious why anyone would want to go to a cock fight in the first place. Why are we making an issue of the term "woke"? Discussing the behavior might be more productive? But arguing about the meaning of the word, is like a dog chasing its own tail. It seems obvious the word can mean anything a person wants it to mean. But what is the social value we are talking about?

As long as it's "in your face" in the traditional way, there's no relationship. If it's "in your face" in a non-traditional way—like in a man's face—then the woke red flags start to fly. — praxis

:chin: What is the traditional way? I don't think polite society ever engaged in such pushy behavior. We had a system of dueling that enforced good manners. :lol: That may be a little extreme, but I see no good coming out of social breakdown and offensive behaviors. Freeing women to behave like men was not social progress. Empowering women to have a society they want is social progress.

Oh, I just noticed from your profile that you live in Oregon. For some reason I thought you were Canadian. I pictured you living somewhere in Manitoba or Saskatchewan. — BC

I write of our pioneer days and the isolation of women, so your guess of where I am coming from is reasonable.

All that information is overwhelming. I can handle only small bits of information at a time. Also, this thread comes up in a google search about the Great Depression, so I think it is best to keep it limited to the Great Depression, on the chance someone is trying to research the subject. And, for me, this is a therapeutic exercise as, at the end of my life, I am working on coming to peace with it.

The bigger picture deserves our attention, but in a different thread, not this one. I have been binging on youtube shows of human history, starting when we separated from other species. For me, that story is an evolution of our consciousness, which is still evolving. If you start a thread, pm me and I will check it out.