Do you reject the idea of a merging of the human brain with a future cybernetic body (cyborgs) or a cloned body or some combination of tech/mecha and orga?
I dont understand why you think any process/sensation/feeling that you have ever experienced in your body an interpreted in your mind, CANNOT EVER be reproduced by scientific efforts. — universeness

Yes, I do not think merging the human brain with a future cybernetic body is a good idea. Our brains are limited and I think we need to understand the limits and stay within them. There are concerns about what could happen to our brains and also what could happen to AI.

"I, Robot" starring William Smith is about an attempted robot takeover. The original Star Trek TV series addressed the potential of people being under the control of a computer. A British show "Humans -made in our image out of our control" a show about robots having self-awareness as humans do. It offers many many things to think about. I so wish we could sit together and watch these shows and discuss them.

Also, how far can we go in a discussion of feelings? Exactly what is required to have a feeling? Why do we have feelings? Would we be better without feelings? Star Trek also addressed the question of the good of our feelings. Joseph Campbell said Star Trek is the best mythology for our time. The Greeks shared a mythology and there are many benefits to having a shared mythology. You and I have the problem of no shared mythology and it is hard to build a debate without a shared understanding of what we are talking about.

I am posting now so it is easy to find this thread when I return. Tomorrow I will join my sister's protest at the Oregon State capitol. She needs someone to watch her tent while she testifies and then goes off to help a homeless person. I will go with my warmest clothes and an excellent raincoat.

We have agreed to help people, but the resources are exhausted so people are not getting the help they are qualified to have. No, we are not intentionally killing them like the Nazis killed Jews, it is death by neglect, and a failure to deal with today's reality. The US is still mentally where it was in the pioneer days when we had more land than people. Exponential growth has radically changed all that.

I will be back to talk about reality and how the US is not dealing with it well.

Not current AI no. Do you reject the idea of a merging of the human brain with a future cybernetic body (cyborgs) or a cloned body or some combination of tech/mecha and orga?
I dont understand why you think any process/sensation/feeling that you have ever experienced in your body an interpreted in your mind, CANNOT EVER be reproduced by scientific efforts. — universeness

Yes, it is the same guy. I want to talk about that in the thread for that subject but not this thread.

I have a preference for life on this earth being organic. I was thrilled with the internet when it first came up but hate what has been done to it. Opening AI to everyone is like giving a teenager the keys to car and ignoring Saturday night is a party night and all may not go well. We have some serious problems and need to stop here for a while and contemplate what we are doing and where we want to go with this.

But I also have a spiritual concern as well. It goes with wanting to preserve the organic earth and valuing humans. I think valuing AI more than we value humans, and nature, can be a path into the darkness. I want to be very clear about this. I am concerned about how much we value humans.

Emulating the human brain processes that cause emotions/sensations/feelings in the human body is POSSIBLE in my opinion but I fully accept that we are still far away from being able to replace your pinky, with a replicant which can equal it's functionality and it's actions as a touch sensor. — universeness

Artificially measuring the pressure of a touch may be possible but that is not equal to an emotional feeling. Right now even the sensation of touch requires a physical body.

https://www.science.org/content/article/prosthetic-hands-endowed-sense-touch

More interesting is how an emotional feeling is different from the sensation of touching something. I can recognize my emotional feelings as illogical. Like duh, I am talking with a man who has right frontal brain damage, and getting angry with him because he does not understand what I am saying. That is pretty stupid. For several years I worked with a mildly retarded guy who never got upset when someone didn't understand something as simple as sweeping the floor. He could relate to not understanding and would help the person understand. While I am instantly screaming at someone for being an idiot. Who is the idiot? It is not easy being human and really, I don't understand why it is so hard but my emotions make me behave will an idiot even when I know better. So what is up with these emotions?

I love the demeanor of the Asian people I have met. They stay calm and basically more logical than emotional. It is our culture that makes us so hyper-emotional. But just wanting to be like them, and repeating their logical statements about things being as they are and fussing about them does not help, does not make me the reasonable person I want to be. We do not mentally manifest our emotions. Our emotions can control us, especially if we are unaware of them and think we are being rational.

I too give my sympathies, for your mother and for any caregivers, a heroic task similar to caring for an Alzheimer's patient. I have a cousin-in-law that is in final stages of ALS, in hospice now. — noAxioms

Yes, and that is so for us because we are humans. It can not be so for AI because AI can not have emotional responses to life. I think we are being truly philosophical now, reminiscent of some ancient Greek arguments. I hate being controlled by emotions, but I am also thankful that because of emotions I am motivated to make things better for myself and other human beings. I think it would be dreadful if I just didn't care about others, and AI will not have the emotional experience of life that makes us caring people. A human can program the computer to process thoughts that a human gives the computer but that is a human creation, not an AI self-generated creation based on experiencing life.

Hum, that did not address your condolences well. I remember my mother crying whenever something was meaningful to her and she would say it was ALS that caused her to cry. She had much work to do to come to peace with her life and the end of it.

I am listening to a series of lectures about spirituality and meditation and I think this is an important part of the process of preparing for death. My mother was resistant to what was happening to her and did not make good choices compared to a man who was diagnosed with ALS when he was only 28. He took advantage of everything that could make his life better and that made being part of his life easier for me because we were working for the positive, rather than bracing against the negative and rejecting a lift chair or an electric wheeler chair and accepting my help. I am very thankful for the CDs that could improve how I manage my life and death.

Put the gun down Athena! Remove yourself from the room or suggest the person leaves until you both calm down, of is this situation not as bad as I suggest? — universeness

I am back. I really wish such darn emotions did not hijack my sanity! I have logic in my brain and what I just went through was not logical! It was emotional and intensely physical and this is why I keep arguing with you about where our emotions are. My head wants me to be a better person but our bodies! and insane emotions, can consume us. Now I will probably have to take a nap and I will probably lack energy for the rest of the day.

I knew better than ask him to help me by getting the box down from above the shelves. He could not understand " the box above the shelves". Not even when I pointed to it could he understand the request. He would not be in home if he were more capable. I really want to talk about this but not in this thread. However, here, perhaps we can speak of who rules, our brain or our body because that has been our argument for a long time. I want to be different from how I am and heaven knows I have put a lot of effort into being a better person. :lol: I look forward to being reincarnated in a totally different body with the hope of having a different life experience. AI will not have this problem because it does not have a body and hormones and therefore the ability to experience life. But it also won't be capable of the good either.

It is called a local anesthetic here, not a regional anesthetic. — universeness

If you want us to believe you know it all, you should read the links before making your arguments.

Local anesthesia. This is the type of anesthesia least likely to cause side effects, and any side effects that do occur are usually minor. Also called local anesthetic, this is usually a one-time injection of a medication that numbs just a small part of your body where you’re having a procedure such as a skin biopsy.

Regional anesthesia is a type of pain management for surgery that numbs a large part of the body, such as from the waist down. The medication is delivered through an injection or small tube called a catheter and is used when a simple injection of local anesthetic is not enough, and when it’s better for the patient to be awake. — American Society of Anesthesia

All physiological responses are controlled, enacted and terminated via the brain, imo. — universeness

That may be so but the feeling is still in the body and without one there are no feelings. The brain can not terminate a feeling like a switch being turned off. The hormones must be metabolized in their own time and as we age this process slows down. Music is good for producing desired feelings and calming us down when we are in fight or flight mode, as I am now because of a communication problem with someone in the room with me. :lol: My intense anger may be the result of hormones started in my head but I assure you they are in my body, not my head and I should probably go for a walk to metabolize these fight of flight hormones faster. Yipes he is not shutting up- I am going for a walk.

Not sure what you are referring to here Athena, a particular sci-fi movie perhaps? — universeness

I can not find a decent link with all the clutter like this one. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-shuts-down-ai-chatbot-after-it-turned-into-racist-nazi/

I want to add to what I said, I watched a video explanation that used a human as AI and she insisted she has feelings. That is to say, things are being misrepresented. If our brains were in a vat and could think and communicate, there would be no feeling body. Going on stored information, the brain could think losing a child is sad, but it could not feel the sadness. AI can not have an emotionally feeling body.

Anesthetic, can remove all feeling from your body and you can remain awake. How is this possible if any aspect of consciousness or mind, exists outside of the brain? My brother-in-law, had a triple bypass operation, and he was awake all the way through the operation and asked to see his opened body and exposed heart, during the operation, this request was fulfilled. Why did Stephen Hawking continue with his life considering the lack of function/feeling he had in his body? Do you think he was less conscious or had less access to 'mind' due to the reduced state of his body? Why do people paralised from the neck down, still want to live? Christopher Reeves of superman fame for example? — universeness

If your brother-in-law was awake during surgery he had a regional anesthetic, not a general anesthesia
that makes a person unconscious. His brain was still working, right?

https://www.asahq.org/madeforthismoment/anesthesia-101/effects-of-anesthesia/

Stephen Hawking had ALS and so did my mother. ALS destroys the muscles but does not interfere with emotional feelings that are a different nerve pathway. If you are interested in the body's relationship to emotions you might find this link interesting.

Emotions are how individuals deal with matters or situations they find personally significant. Emotional experiences have three components: a subjective experience, a physiological response and a behavioral or expressive response.
https://online.uwa.edu/news/emotional-psychology/#:~:text=Physiological%20Responses,-We%20all%20know&text=This%20physiological%20response%20is%20the,fight%2Dor%2Dflight%20response. — Psychology and Counseling News

The song wrote by chatGBT, about the topic of this thread IS original. ChatGBT IS the author. I see little difference, in the way chatGBT consults the information it has stored, to produce such a song on such a topic, compared to the way a human writer of such a song, on such a topic would do it. — universeness

If there is no organic body to feel and give feedback to thoughts generated as chatGBT generates thoughts, it is not equal to what happens in the human mind. It can become very dark with no feelings to inhabit the dark side. ChatGBT can not have empathy, shame or regret, or motivation to do good, because it does not have feelings.

Sorry I am out of time for reading and responding but hope to get to you soon.

What if they could replace the bit that was being destroyed? What if you got a new brain, same memories? Would that be OK. The dementia seems to destroy memory, so what if they replaced only the memory part, but it was somebody else’s memories. The thinking part is still all original equipment. I bring this up because that’s pretty much where I might draw the line. For one, I don’t think anyone would choose this because by the time you might want this, you’re too far gone to make an informed decision. — noAxioms

This is the most interesting question. A man-made joint or pig value in my heart would not change who I am. Messing with my brain in a way that changes whatever it is that is a consciousness of me, is a death to my ego that might as well be a death to my body as well. What if Socrates and his peers could argue such a question that is a result of technological advancement? I think the body is as important as the brain in experiencing who we are. Now I will entered the scientific taboo line of questioning...

Personality changes following heart transplantation, which have been reported for decades, include accounts of recipients acquiring the personality characteristics of their donor. Four categories of personality changes are discussed in this article: (1) changes in preferences, (2) alterations in emotions/temperament, (3) modifications of identity, and (4) memories from the donor's life. The acquisition of donor personality characteristics by recipients following heart transplantation is hypothesized to occur via the transfer of cellular memory, and four types of cellular memory are presented: (1) epigenetic memory, (2) DNA memory, (3) RNA memory, and (4) protein memory. Other possibilities, such as the transfer of memory via intracardiac neurological memory and energetic memory, are discussed as well. — Mitchell B Liester

I am strongly in favor of ideas about cellular memory. This includes Rolfing....

Holistic Massage Called Rolfing Helps Release Emotions ...

Maui Rolfing
https://olanaturalhealing.com › uncategorized › holisti...
Aug 19, 2014 — Holistic Massage Called Rolfing Helps Release Emotions Hiding in Your Tissue — Lu Parker Reports · Rolfing experts say our bodies can trap ... — Lu Parker

I don't know if anyone wants to pick up on this, but I have spent a lifetime on self-improvement and I assume we all like some of ourselves but would like to improve ourselves as well. Now the ego comes into play and may be willing to make some changes but reacts to changing as though it is a threat and must be resisted. Perhaps we all have different levels of tolerating change? Anyway with cellar memory being an important part of how we experience ourselves, it makes the idea of physical changes more complex.

I wonder--- Stem cells are flexible and I believe they are what forms our brain, They may be able to share information, but if that information is already lost because of damage to the limbic system there is nothing left to transfer the necessary information, so technology could not help.

The point is, they are not 'thoughts,' the song was produced by chatGBT, an AI system, yet it was able to invoke an emotive response from you. Not bad, for an AI system with zero self-awareness. — universeness

If those are not thoughts, how did they become part of AI and why have you asked us to think about those words?

That same AI had to be shut down because it crossed into the dark side and it had no feelings to make aware of the need to stop the direction in which it was going.

I am asking you for what convinces you most that 'mind' and consciousness are not the same thing. — universeness

You didn't ask this of me but it is in line with the questions you did ask me. Our feelings are in our body and I don't think I like life without a feeling body. "I think I am enjoying life" requires a body that can feel joy. How could consciousness without a feeling body be valuable?

Hum not such an easy question. I can imagine life after death. I am okay with life after death, provided I get a new body and a new physical reality. I have a sense the "I" is not limited to the body I live in now, but my "I' could be reincarnated into different bodies and different life experiences. Oh my, there is so much I do not know and can not think through without more information.

I don't choose to live my life based on the fate of others, even those I love. My life is certainly diminished by loss but it is also reinforced by new friendships/relationships/experiences. But you are correct in your suggestion that our personal 'hell' is something that we create from our own personal psyche. — universeness

That reply is fascinating to me. Have you experienced grief? I have heard that men change in a positive way when they experience grief. The Greek gods are built around what they do and the goddesses are built around their associations. Men are programmed to reproduce but not so much to stick around and care for the children, while women are programmed, hormonally, to nurture the child. Some women do not have that programming. One of my granddaughters gave away her daughter because she did not want to be a mother. She gave her daughter to a nurturing man who lost his own daughter, and who is now devoted to enriching my great-granddaughter's life. That is to say, there are variations. But I think in general the Greeks got things right. The male identity is built on what he does, and the female identity is more about her relationships. My life does not hold much value to me without my relationships. If like the people in Turkey I lost my whole family in an earthquake I would not want to live. I don't feel so good with the idea of a man not having that same sense of meaning but I do accept that as fact.

How much of your current body would you accept 'just as good or better,' replacements for, if they could keep you alive and healthy and embarking on new adventures, for as long as you liked, (barring fatal accidents). — universeness

What a delicious question! That deserves a lot of pondering because it is so rich in values. I would NOT like to wake up in the morning with someone else's face as is true for at least one man. He attempted suicide with a gun and destroyed half his face and was given the face of another young man who was killed in an accident. I think it would be very distressing to look into a mirror and see a different face. That may not be logical but that is my gut feeling, however, an attractive and functional face would be better than living without that. Having my joints replaced with artificial ones is okay.
I am okay with having someone else's kidney or heart and I am an organ donor. Let's see, I will accept whatever keeps me alive and functioning as long as my life has purpose and I can make a contribution, but if I am the only surviving member of my family please let me die. Or if dementia is destroying my mind, please help me die. Or if I could become immortal with my brain in a jar and no body, please, I rather be brain dead. Not even a completely artificial body would please me because I do not want to be a brain without a feeling body. I am not sure I would want immortality either. The gods envied us because we know death.

Thanks for the question. It was fun thinking about my answer. I am sure more thoughts are possible.

I started out liberal and I think I'm just as liberal now. I would say my liberality is more nuanced. I'm also less likely to see political decision making as something that has to have winners and losers. I guess I'd say I'm liberal in outlook, but moderate in attitude. There are ideas I believe are the right thing to do, but I don't insist that I always get my way. — T Clark

I like all your statements and this one pushes my buttons and puts me on my soup box to lecture about the value of democracy! Many ancient people, not just the Greeks, realized if we don't get it right, things will go wrong. Ideally democracy is about getting it right. I was hoping to complete a book about democracy before I die but that ain't going to happen. My brain has become like a large lake, instead of a river moving fast from here to there. My thinking never was strongly linear and now it is even less so.
Perhaps we all have a dream of leaving something valuable before we cross over.

I take heart knowing so many, many people are also trying to get things right, but I see the Christian notion of what is right as more autocratic than democratic. Both are necessary, but how do we balance the autocracy with the democracy? How do we get things right so, if like some Greeks believed, we come back, we come back to a life we want to live. Don't we all want the future to be a life we would like to live? Do we want to turn the decision over to a God that is unbelievable, or technological society that has lost its humanity?

I think our experience with reasoning and our maturity is so vital to the future. When I was young I counted on God and a lucky rabbits foot. I advanced to witchcraft and herbs. :lol: I finally found philosophy but I have more questions than answers.

Most older people become more conservative -- not necessarily in the political sense of the term. Aging bodies have to be more careful, lest they fall and break bones. Perception isn't quite as sharp. Our productive years are over, so we are operating on stored resources. We can't afford (figuratively and literally) to take big risks.

Because old people have been around for a few decades they have seen some bright ideas that did not pan out, while some tried and true methods did work (and visa versa). The result is more caution. — BC

Very nicely said. I have wondered if what is happening to my brain, the increased awareness of perspective, and things that work and things that lead to trouble, and a sense of enlightenment, be happening if I didn't think my life is behind me? I would love to go roller skating but the risk of breaking is too great. I would love to travel but if I broke down in a mountain pass would I have the physical ability to get to safety? :lol: My body just is not user friendly despite my many hours of daily exercise in a pool and a weight room. That makes me very cautious! And it goes with thinking my life is behind me because I am so physically vulnerable and limited. I can't do this or do that so I have lots of time to think. I am not going to achieve any great goals, but maybe I can discover in books, lectures, this forum, and my own inner self, a peace with joy. Will I die with a smile on face, being pleased with the life I have had? Will I gain an understanding of life that my those I leave behind will value?

Jung saw the second half of life as more about inner growth, but if people have not been encouraged to think about their inner lives in the first place, this will not happen necessarily. — Jack Cummins

I am comforted by that thought. However, the second one about technology leading to people being more concerned about what is external to them than knowing one's self, distresses me. Might that diminish our humanity and heavens forbid lead to wars? Liberal education would promote more self awareness than educating our young to be products for industry.

Your words are interesting considering I have left my home for a couple of hours because the person in it is watching the 700 Club. A Christian program that raises my passionate dislike of the religion because of the likes of the Evangelical Christians and their politics in the US. The person in my home, takes great comfort in the 700 Club explanation of God and reality, and with your words, I see his lack of self awareness. He has a traumatic brain injury that damaged his ability to reason and function. It serves him well to have the 700 Club reality instead of dealing with his own reality. That is saying the failure to know ourselves and clinging to another reality is not just the effect of technology. I see religion and technology as both worshiping a God capable of bringing us to perfection. Whereas, I come to death with no defenses or other-defined reality. I have to search more or less on my own to determine my values and why I have those values and come to be peace with my life and the end of it.

Physical, yes.
I'm not sure though what do you mean by "emotional feelings". Emotion is itself a state of feeling.
But a "feeling" can mean different things. When you say "I feel fear" you refer to a mental reaction. When you say "I feel a pain" you refer to a physical reaction. And "I feel guilty", is still another example, referring to conscience.

Mental states can produce changes in the body. E.g. when you are very anxious/stressed, you can feel one or more of various things: adrenaline running in your body, irritability or pain in your stomach, tightness in your chest, increased heart beats, etc. There are also positive emotions which you can "feel", but are very little physical: E.g. When you feel joy a cheerful you feel your body "lighter" and a sense of wellness. The more positive an emotion is, the lighter body feels. And the opposite, the more negativean emotion is, the heavier the body feels.

All these states are produced by the mind. The brain receives automatically signals (stimuli) from these states and sends in its turn signals to different parts of the body (organs, organism) via the nervous system, which in turn react to these signals according to their nature and f\unction. The brain can also get signals from these parts of the body as a feedback. It's a wondrous system! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Well, your last line explains the feedback system. The feelings are in the body. However, more explanation of that may be helpful, since I already replied before reading your last line.

I will argue the body feels and the brain does its best to determine what the feeling is and its cause. :lol: I am a female. I think most of us learn about crazy for a few days of the month. I have days when mentally I am totally miserable and I know I am not being logical. Our bodies are reacting to hormones.
This hormonal control can lead to men and women having relationships that go against their better judgment. The Buddhist talk about us being controlled by our emotions, being like a puppy that is shaken. It is not the brain in control but the feeling body.

I had to use tranquilizers to get through a very hard time in my life, and the tranquilizers did not change my thinking but did change how I felt and the change in my feeling improve my ability to react in a more positive way. Or, years later after doing a lot of daily walking, I noticed I was not as depressed as I had been. Exercise is very important to how feel mentally and physically.

Here is another one. We should not get botox injections that prevent us from smiling, because if we can not smile we can become depressed, or if we force ourselves to smile despite being miserable, we can ease feelings of depression.

I should not have mentioned the economic problem because that is a different subject. My point is I see such matters differently than when I was young. I started this thread because I am curious about what I perceive as a change in thinking and the possibility that we tend to become more conservative with age?

However, I love economics and could start a thread to explore economists Thomas Robert Malthus' and David Ricardo's differences of opinion which would get into what is good or wrong with government giveaways. Despite their differences, they remained good friends for life and used their arguments to develop their own thinking.

In this thread, I am wanting to understand why I see life so differently today! Has this happened to anyone else? I read that as we age we gain a sense of meaning to all those facts we learned. The young absorb the facts but don't have a sense of meaning until they experience what the facts mean. Like a young person volunteering for military service and knowing nothing of the meaning of being in war. The old warrior may answer the call to duty but will do so with a very different sense of what he is getting himself into.

The way I see philosophy it is a tool because philosophers have asked questions I never thought of asking and in that way it teaches us to ask questions and to see with a much broader perspective. This is far different from a youthful diet of Dick and Jane readers, fairy tales, and Bible lessons.

But I think it is also about how our brains change as we age. I live in housing for older people and I know getting older in itself does not make us better thinkers. We may gain some wisdom with life experience, but most of the older people in my life are not thinkers! However, those who do turn to philosophy or intentionally engage in debates, do develop better thinking skills and are less apt to be caught up in the popular mindset of the moment. Stopping to think, instead of just reacting, is a learned habit, and those of us who actively nurtured the habit become better thinkers because of the accumulation of thoughts and experiences over a lifetime. We just have more information to work with and hopefully, the time to ponder what is important in life and how might that be achieved. It is with that experience we see what is wrong with Utopian ideas. We realize a lot of good ideas do not get good results because it is not compatible with our nature.

The huge money giveaway we have just been through resulting in inflation and talk of doing more of the same, looks like a bad idea to me today, but I when I was younger I would have thought it is a good idea. I have gotten more conservative.

Verse 1:
We are more than just the sum of our parts
Our minds and bodies, intertwined works of art
There's something deeper, something that we can't explain
A quality within us, that we can't contain — universeness

Those are very nice thoughts but also dangerous because they ignore our dark side. They ignore our gun culture and parents buying their sons guns and the sons taking the guns to school and killing people. We must get those silly notions of our divine nature out of our heads and deal with our reality that we can be hateful and hurtful and even killers. We need to understand how that happens and how to prevent it. Only when we understand reality can we make the decisions necessary for good results.

Would you accept the free pinky upgrade and become one of the advanced pinky people, or would you stay as one of the current mundane pinky humans? — universeness

:lol: When the dinosaurs walked the earth and I was in high school, I wrote a story about a woman who wanted to die because everyone she cared about was dead. She could not die because she volunteered to have every organ replaced when her own stopped working. To me, that is a kind of hell and I would not choose it.

I was very glad to get my artificial hip. It gave me a new start in life and I hope it will last for the rest of my life. Before I knew more about the artificial hip, I thought how great it would be to be better than nature made me. In reality, nature made us better than artificial parts, unless something goes wrong and we do not develop normally or something has damaged our parts. I was born without a left hip socket and was in a body cast for a year to help nature develop my left hip socket. That hip lasted a little over 40 years before it had to be replaced with an artificial one in. Yes, if I need a new part, I will accept one, but not for something silly and not with the expectation of it not being without problems.

Just en passant, the body cannot process feelings (emotions). It can only feel their effects and suffer its consequences. The mind is the "place" where feelings are created --i.e they come from-- and processed.

(I just fell on that because you were referred to in a message I received from universeness.) — Alkis Piskas

The light of the light bulb is the result of electricity. Without electricity, there would be no light. Without the light bulb, there would be no light. There must be a body to have both emotional and physical feelings.

A future ASI maybe as comparable with the intellect of Anne Sullivan as you or I are comparable with the intellect of a chimpanzee. — universeness

Of what use will ASI be? It has nothing that will ever qualify it for good human judgment. No human experience and no feelings. To have feelings, there must be a body that can feel. Chimpanzees would not exist if they did not care for each other. They are social animals and regulated by hormones that give the body feelings that determine behaviors. Social animals can teach us more about being humans, than ASI will ever know. ASI can have information but without experience, information is not knowledge.

You are attempting to compare human intellect with current AI. Current AI is advancing in functionality and capability. Systems like chatGPT are very advanced compared to an early system such as ELIZA.
ELIZA was considered a significant advance on historical AI.
How close are we to creating AGI? — universeness

I thinks humans maybe the only animal that treats a fantasy as a reality.

AGI would have a learning capacity, which would grow much faster than the human ability to become enlightened. — universeness

Not without a body that can feel and is aware of pain and and love and death.

Again I don't understand your line of questioning here. — universeness

I ask question so people think about the answers. The Greeks asked about the impossible and dared to answer the questions. How does this make Anne Sullivan different from a future ASI that can teach humans sign language?

I don't understand why you would ask such a question? — universeness

To establish what makes human thinking different from AI.

How does this make Anne Sullivan different from a future ASI that can teach humans sign language? T — universeness

Anne Sullivan was motivated to learn and teach for human reasons. AI does not have that motivation. There is no caring or feeling for AI. AI can destroy thousands of lives because it has no emotions that would stop it from doing what is programmed to do. It also would not create something new and needed to resolve a human problem for the same no motive reason. Your computer will not wake up one morning and attempt to teach you valuable lessons. It does not care about you or any human. It has no human experience or feelings for determining what is just and what is humane.

In fact, a future ASI could probably develop a much better sign system, that could communicate with Helen, compared to finger spelling. — universeness

I think that is an unrealistic expectation of what AI can do and my reasoning for thinking that is given above. Now if you said AI could be used to develop a better communication system, I would agree that might be possible. A motivated human could create something better with AI, but it is the human, not AI, that directs the fulfillment of a need because it is the feeling human who cares and is motivated.

Again, I find your line of questioning bizarre, here Athena. — universeness

When we begin arguing we close our minds and block out the opposing reasoning that threatens our sanity by putting our reasoning in doubt. Ego starts screaming, I have to be right so the other person has to be wrong or is crazy to disagree with what I know is right. Or we can ask, what is your reasoning considering the possibility that the other knows something we do not.

Can you help the blind without becoming blind yourself Athena? — universeness

What would motivate anyone to help the blind? How is it possible to know how to help a blind person?

Hellen Keller could not see or hear, and a woman who could see and hear, taught her language and made it possible for her to have the language necessary for thinking and communicating with others.
Her parents did not do this. Why didn't her parents teach her? What made the woman who did teach Hellen Keller language different from her parents? The answer will define what makes a human different from AI and from there we can have an interesting discussion.

Do you think people should go back you using the abacus to gain a better understanding of the usefulness of a calculator? Or perhaps use of a horse for a year would make you appreciate your car or local bus service more. Starvation, would make ANYONE appreciate food production more, but I don't think 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' is the only way or even a useful way, to educate people. — universeness

I think you have knowing facts confused with knowledge. A prisoner I corresponded with captured the difference between knowing facts and knowledge. "You may think shit taste bad, but until you eat it, you do not know how bad."

Experience is essential to knowledge. You may think all your ideas are right, but until you experience them, you can not be sure of that. Reading history is a big help and the history of Germany is very important to understanding what is wrong[ with depending on government for too much.
Our liberty is dear. Our rights come with responsibility, not authority over us taking care of us a parent cares for a child.

Learn to grow your own food and rely on yourself before you conclude the solution to human problems is a strong bureaucracy over us. Also if you knew as much history as you know science fiction, that would give you a more realistic perspective.

quote="universeness;783492"]No government or bureaucracy is omnipotent. ALL GOVERNANCE MUST BE of, for and by the people, or else such authority MUST be replaced. That is the system of governance, we must continue to fight for, FOREVER!!! Even when we achieve it, we must forever fight to maintain it.[/quote]

Here is a fiction that might increase your understanding of the danger of believing good intentions can give us the kind of utopia you keep talking about.



Also learning what happened when Hitler took over could increase your awareness of what can go very wrong. The worst thing that can happen is a bureaucracy knowing more about us and our business than our families and the US governments privacy rights act did just that. It blocks family from knowing about each other and opened the door for government to know everything. Government policy also prevents people engaging normally with each other if they employed but the government. I am to visit with people but we can not give each other anything, even if the item will be thrown out. I am take them shopping but I can not do the shopping for them even they are sick. I am talking about a program that did not have these controls in the beginning but gradually became more and more controlling. We did not always have to show our ID and decisions made since 9/11 are not the liberty we defended in two world wars but try to stop things from going in this direction. We adopted German models of bureaucracy and education and we are manifested what we defended our democracy against. We used to laugh at the communist who couldn't get anything done because of government control and red tape. Now our systems are breaking down because of government control and red tape.

Athena BUT, I go to Steven Pinker again, 'we can make things better, because we have demonstrated in the past that we already have.' You help people whenever you can, despite any 'shortfalls,' you are experiencing yourself, so, QED. — universeness

Under what conditions is this true? I grew up in L.A. California and took people being killed for granted, like people in Oregon take rain for granted. I thought it is was very important to be tough. My idea of what it means to be tough changed with old age. :lol: The point is, we are reactionary, and how we feel, think, and behave depends on our environment and circumstance. We can be as angles or completely numb to the suffering of others.

Personally, I think a very evil mind set has emerged and I have deep concerns about our growing dependency on bureaucratic control of our lives. I have concerns about people putting their faith in technology and ignoring our humanness. Given the news today, I see the rise of Nazi Germany coming out of leaving moral training to the church instead of understanding education for good moral judgment is essential to democracy and so is self reliance essential to our liberty.

I hate the modern selling phrase, "get what you deserve", as though mother nature and/or God will take care of us as long as we please the god or our choice. Today, that God, being the government and bureaucracy and thinking rational is all important, failing to appreciate emotional reality and how destructive dependency on authority above us, can be.

Starvation is common today, never mind in history. How does that change the fact that there is enough food, currently existent on the planet to feed everyone currently existing on the planet? — universeness

I do not believe that is enough food to feed everyone, nor is it practical to send produce to poor nations that can not pay for the labor and transportation cost to feed huge populations in poor countries the variety of foods necessary for good health. I wish everyone experienced at least two years of having to live on the food they produce themselves before entering a discussion about feeding the world. The experience would give them a necessary perspective. Tell me, what are the circumstances essential to feeding a family of 7? If we were in the pioneer days and the families diet depended on hurting and gardening what are the challenges and how are they met.

I think your opinions are based on facts, but not knowledge and enough facts for good judgment. Even those in important places may lack the necessary knowledge because their focus is too narrow. If you notice, they are saying we could feed more people by farming where cattle are being raised. Not all ground is good for farming. It can be hard to get enough protein without meat and dairy products.

Modern farming practices that made it possible to feed most the world, come with social, environmental and economic cost. What do people eat when the locus come in and destroy the crops, or weather prevents people from having a good crop? What farming practices improved the yield and gave those who farm an excess that they could sell? And what did improved farming methods have to do with freeing human labor for industry? How has trade changed our potential to have more food? How about what discovering spices, tomatoes and potatoes did to our ability to have plenty of food? How about what discovering how to prevent bacteria did to our food supply? You live in a world that is totally changed and it has not been that long since people everywhere died because of a poor diet. Today the problem is changed, they gtet enough calories but eat the wrong foods and people are destroying their lives and their children's lives with harmful foods.

There is a huge, huge difference between the over abundance and serious health problems today and starvation in the past. You can imagine feeding the world because you have a full belly and didn't put much effort to getting that food. If you lived in a village where every winter neighbors starved to death, and you feared not having enough to eat, you would not be thinking of feeding the world. History gives us perspective and that perspective is necessary for good judgment.

There as always been enough food to feed everyone on the planet, every day. It's the distribution system that's flawed. — universeness

That is not at all what we learn from history. Starvation was common and it brought civilizations down.

Globally, it has been estimated that 26,082 tonnes of food, goes to waste every single day. — universeness

This would not be so without modern farming practices and that is not sustainable and goes with poluting rivers and the ocean. Not all countries can meet their population's needs because they do not have enough agricultural land and water everywhere is becoming a serious problem.

I think eliminating dairy and meat from our diets would increase malnutrition. I think the United Nations' statement is distorted by its mission. Getting enough protein in our diets can be a problem. Researchers are trying to increase the protein in rice however we should know rice is a significantly large methane gas problem and scientists are working on this problem as well. Soy is a good source of protein and problems too.

Like many other intensive farms, soy farms not only harm the environment but also have numerous social impacts, especially on rural communities. While soybean production can boost economic growth, it can also increase income inequality and affect human health via water pollution and occupational hazards.Jan 25, 2022

Soy Farms: Is Soy Farming Bad for the Environment? | FFAC — FFAC

About that economic and social problem, many farmers in India have killed themselves when they lost their plots to the intensive farmers. We can see in the US how corporate farmers have taken out small farmers. We can see the income disparity and the Native American fight for their environment with big corporations that threaten their land and water. We are not respecting limits and that is not a good thing but a path to destruction.

How does 'our abundance' balance with 'hard to feed the world?' — universeness

Overpopulation. We have created enough abundance to imagine feeding the whole world and we have ignored limits. The terrible reality is the more we feed people the more they reproduce, making the problems worse. We absolutely must recognize limits and adjust to living within those limits.

Sounds to me, like the solution IS ideas like the Venus project, which have never been enacted. — universeness

The Venus Project is only one idea. We have planned communities all over the US and some are doing very well. The Japanese have also created planned communities making protecting the children a top priority. The Chinese are working on a building that is like an entire city. People can spend their lives in that building and never have to have to leave as their homes, jobs, and stores are all in the building. China has a 50-lane highway. In the US we are accustomed to fewer people and more space. We need to understand what we are dealing with before we assume the only problem with the Venus Project is we have not followed through on the plans and I do not think we would like the control that comes with the Venus Project.

Now Buckminster Fuller had some wonderful ideas. You might google him and expand your knowledge of what people are working on so you can share that knowledge. If we want to change the world, we have to plant seeds (thoughts) and hope others will pick them up and work on them. Just saying things are terrible and talking as though humans are basically awful creatures will not bring about the good.

Which 'laws of nature' are you referring to that we should fear violating? — universeness

How about the law of survival of the fittest? We can bring out the best in each other or the worst. I think if it were possible to meet all of a person's needs without requiring something of that person, we would get the worst. Nature has its way of killing off the weak. :lol: That is wide open for attack and I hope it is attacked because it may be worth thinking about.

Money is a human invented means of exchange, which has proven to be, and has even been labelled as, 'the root of all evil.' — universeness

Really? That is a false cliche. Around the world, people are living in abject poverty and ignorance and when humans live that far down the ladder of human achievements life is harsh and cruel. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and natural disasters are teaching us just how hard it is to feed the world and we do care. We care very much. In our abundance we imagine things like the Venus Project, but exactly what has the Venus Project contributed to the world?

2. A new layered authority system which is democratically elected but has a political structure at the top and layered structures of elected citizen representative stakeholders, alongside, to moderate and scrutinise governmental policy. No second 'house of aristocrats, or plutocrats or house of political party representatives — universeness

I think replacing the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model and having education for democracy would get us closer to a more equitable social/economic order.

If full information is unavailable, no matter what time you have at your disposal, then I will seek to have a predominance of supporting evidence, before I take action. We do not want to repeat any historical errors, especially those made by theists. — universeness

Always full information is not available. We have increased our knowledge and our technology for dealing with information but we should never believe we know all there is to know. The universe is too complex for us to believe we know everything about anything. There is a saying, when we think we know God, we know not God and any knowledge is like that. Those who believe they can know the absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous. It is like refusing to believe it is bacteria and viruses that make us ill because we can not see them and the Bible says if we have a problem it begins with our heart and it mentions demons. It took the medical profession over a hundred years from when someone with a microscope saw the bacteria and viruses the acceptance of sanitation being essential to preventing infections. The change happened when those in the medical profession thought, what if that is so? First, only a few experimented with sanitation and finally, there was enough evidence for the truth to be universally accepted. It is by knowing we do not know that makes it possible for us to know.

I will check it out. Thank you.

It's the structure that makes us cattle. But it's a double-bind, as the structure creates the goods and services you so love (like electricity, plastics, medicine, various materials, mining, food production, electronics, furniture, fixtures, goods of all varieties, heating, buildings, infrastructure, transportation, roads, ANYTHING). So unless you forgo that, back to the cattle pens we go as we monger minutia in the cattle feed. — schopenhauer1

Your comment sent me looking for more information and I am thrilled with this site https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.12.59/

The author of the review of the book Susan A. Curry, quotes Pierre Bourdieu’ “‘a system of internalized schemes that have the capacity to generate all thoughts, perceptions, and actions characteristic of a culture’”

Back in the day, the technological advancements you mention did not exist and to my surprise, the ownership of cattle and a sacred economy went together, and their internalized schemes came out of herding cattle, not living as we live today. I am thrilled by how this information can increase our awareness of our own internalized and economy.

How might things be different if we had a sacred economy? Do we have any examples of a sacred economy today? How about the Mormons maintaining a supply of food, or futher back, Puritan business and fincial practices? What is lurking our subconscious as we speak of the reality we experience today?

Ancient Greeks had a sacred economy based on the gods and herding cattle even after they became city dwellers and raised cattle on communal land, making the cattle commonwealth, not just an individual's wealth. Oh, oh the Jews dealt with this transition from herding to being settled and having private property.

Yipes I got a little off topic so I will tie back into the topic. What is in our subconscious that gives form to our speculations? What happens to our liberty when we are trapped by our desires?

Well, yes. What's the point of being a powerful authority if you can't decide what is true? "We'll decide what the Truth is, thank you, and perhaps we will provide you with an abbreviated, sanitized version at some point in the future, depending on our estimate of what you need to know. People don't like being burdened with disturbing information. In any case, don't call us, we'll call you." — BC

:lol: Yes I remember something about Athenians believing their heroes are chosen by the gods, and not all of the chosen have the arete to live up to the calling but remain as the herd dependent on the Shepard. A concern about democracy is the masses being as cattle because they avoid thinking as you say but can be easily lead in the wrong direction. Interestingly, although Greek philosophers discussed education they did not take the education of children seriously.

'Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. — Wayfarer

Wow, I really enjoyed that and bookmarked it so I can return to it. I have a lot of thinking to do with that information. Thank you.

Isn't this kind of thinking essentially postulating a golden era when people were closer to truth? Do you think this is an accurate assessment? — Tom Storm

When were people closer to truth? What truth?

What if our culture blinds us to truth because our culture does do not give us the perspective we need to know truth and the authorities are the only legitimate truth sayers?

Oh darn, I was hoping for a different discussion. But I suspect it is unrealistic to hope for the discussion I want.

The basic means of survival must become free, as a human right, from cradle to grave, alongside free high quality medical care, and free, efficient police, military and political protection with all necessary, very robust, checks and balances in place, which are made as reliable as is possible. — universeness

Nature provides oxygen, water, and some food but it takes human effort to get that water and food. Just meeting all of the people's needs violates the law of nature and when we violate the laws of nature we get bad results. I do not think that is a good thing.

Second, where is the money to come from for all the free things? And should everyone get the same amount of free things?

What do you mean by robust checks and balances?

The utter rejection of all posits that the supernatural exists, until there is irrefutable evidence, that it does. — universeness

I must argue the universe is not supernatural and that being sure of ourselves when we do not have all the information is foolish. I repeat, wisdom starts with "I do not know". An open mind and ability to speculate is very important to progress. We do not want to repeat the mistake of the Church, do we?
We have made so many mistakes. Because in our ignorance we held false beliefs. For example, native Americans were concerned about protecting nature and thought of the whole earth as a living organism
Not until we did severe damage to the earth did we realize they were right. People are still denying their behavior is damaging the earth while they pray to God to be a good father who takes good care of them. I am not one of those people, but seeing the earth and perhaps the universe as a living organism we do not fully understand is important to me. What I do not know is important and I am slamming the door shut knowing of my ignorance.

Deism does not have an intervening God. That is why it is separate from Protestants and Catholics.

To be fair, in many places, no education is taking place. But fair enough- in upper-middle class areas, this may be true enough about emphasis on tech over liberal education. As far as bombs and such, you can replace that with any X products. You make boring things, you perhaps make boring people. — schopenhauer1

I think I do not know enough of your thought to understand it.
Why is anything made?

There are two ways to have social control, culture or authority over the people. The US stopped transmitting its culture when it began educating for a technological society with unknown values. Now we are scrabbling to have social order with authority over the people.

When the bottom line is the dollar, and ethics go out the window, what happens to how we feel about ourselves and others?