Can alienated people in an alienating culture overcome their alienation? I don't know if they can or not. — BC

If they do not they will manifest Armageddon. "The term Armageddon has often been used by Protestant fundamentalists to refer to an impending cataclysmic struggle between the forces of good and evil." Robert E. Lerner.

Germany was the Holy Roman Empire and also our world war enemy. It was not lack of Christianity that caused evil to erupt, but that horror was possibly the result of Germany's model of education for technology and Christianity. That same education the US has had since the 1958 National Defense Education Act created another nation that believes God favors them and wills them to go to war in places like Iraq where the US waged war against evil. Bringing us to a new reality of having more national enemies than ever before. This really matters when the world starts dividing and those who hate us start uniting forces. Perhaps replacing our liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purposes has a downside. Kind of like Athens becoming a military power and the nation to take out.

The US is not the united nation it once was but it has been uniting nations against the US and a man who made us feel good about putting the US first became our president and thugs fought to keep him in power and 6 year old takes a gun to school and intentionally shots his teacher. Something has gone very wrong.

I am very hesitant to go over my rant about replacing liberal education with education for technology but I think many of our problems are directly related to the change in education. Binary human thinking is no better than AI binary thinking. Young men who learn how to use weapons and how to make bombs, but do not learn how to have a pleasant life, are more than a workplace problem.

but Gnomon stops short of claiming it is God.
— Agent Smith

Not any more, he types that he is a deist:
If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism
— Gnomon — universeness

Wisdom starts with "I do not know." Deism could be right. There may be a universal god. The religious problem is not the notion of a universal god, but the divisive God of Abraham and the ridiculous Bible stories religious people interpret literally instead of abstractly. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same beginning and prophets, and with Christianity and Islam comes increased superstition. According to the God of Abraham religions there is a God and angels and a Satan and demons. And paradoxically religion is supposed to oppose superstition.

How about this- we do not have all the facts so can we separate the notion of God from the Bible stories? The Bible stories suck, but that does not prove there is no universal god. The best we can do is be okay with not being too sure of ourselves.

But don't underplay the significance of that event. That is approximately when the universe was called the universe. What's in a name? HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. The universe then became 'knowable,' and that is very very significant imo. Especially when you understand that there is no god required. — universeness

That is a big responsibility. How might we act on it and manifest a desirable reality?

If you are simply suggesting that humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, then I fully agree with you. — universeness

There is nothing simple about that. Many ancients thought we were created to help our planet. The Sumerian creation story is specific that we are here to help the river stay in its banks so it does not flood and eat the goddess's plants. But plenty of people around the world made the connection between human activity and their environments and food supply. I am really excited by @Gnoman's idea of blending the past with the present. I think we are in the Resurrection, with geologists and anthropologists, and historians resurrecting our past, so our species has more complete information for making better decisions.

Again I broadly agree, apart from your suggestion that the human experience cannot be massively enhanced by AI. — universeness

Oh, my love, you do know how to move a conversation forward. This is so important to the human miracle of intelligence. I believe computers are essential tools and the internet is essential to the New Age. However, we must keep our focus on the importance of humans, and this forum along with Gnoman's replacement of religion may be a part of the New Age. A time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny.

Yes, things are happening that look bad, but that may be the dark before the dawn. What is essential is how do we react to the bad things that are happening. It is when things become intolerable that we are motivated to create change. I am talking about something AI can not do. Only humans can imagine a better reality and act to manifest it.

We must not depend too much on AI nor depend too much on government. We must build civic associations and voluntarily manifest the New Age. Instead of passively sliding into Armageddon.

And when it comes to AI spell check reminds me constantly of why I do not believe we should rely on AI.
:grimace: Spell check obviously does not know the meaning of what I am saying and it really frightens me that humans will become overly dependent on this technology as we have become overly dependent on government, and people may give up their own power of thinking and acting.

Part of the problem is the technological change to bureaucracy, which is now so impersonal it crushes individual liberty and power. This is the despot of which Tocqueville warned us.

the broadly applicable Enformationism worldview could be converted into a religion — Gnomon

I am very interested in what you have said. Obviously, reality is more than matter. It might be hormones and brain cells that manifest my feelings, but my feelings are not matter. An idea is not mattered yet an idea can change the world. For years I have had a very difficult time with Western materialism.

I think the possible replacement for religion of which you speak, could benefit from Eastern and Mayan concepts of energy forces. Have you read Jose Arguelles by "The Mayan Factor"? I have tried to read it many times but get so turned off by the far-fetched things the author speaks of, that I put the book down and do not return to it until something in a forum reminds me of the book. Do you know of the Psycho Solar pulsation Matrix?

The end of the book explains a Harmonic Convergence, that depends upon self-empowered individuals creating rituals, celebrations, and joyful events expressing their feelings of peace and harmony with the Earth and with each other. Then there is the Jewish Qabalah and the explanation of the importance of rituals.

So what if we took you seriously and formed a civic association to manifest a new belief?

Fair enough, but is this not an argument from ignorance? I — universeness

Absolutely! There is no way I know enough to not be ignorant. I think Socrates' sentiment about ignorance is quite wise.

Its like "I don't know the answers, so, it just is what it is and that's all that it is!' I don't understand why you say 'its mechanical,' and suggest that mechanical is not connected to 'intellectual?' — universeness

I am so glad you got what I meant to say. Physics and intelligence are separate things. Glue is going to stick, drop something off the roof and it will fall down, salted water is less likely to freeze than unsalted water. That just is the way things are and no intelligence is required. If oxygen could not bond with hydrogen, we would not have water. What is is because it can be and what is not is not because of what can not be. Only later when humans come on the stage is there any thinking about all this. Unless of course there are creatures like ourselves on other planets. I think the whole universe is one big experiment, not something planned. I mean for goodness' sake if we were planned our backs would be a whole lot stronger. We could be made to be monogamous as some birds are. We are not designed well for our reality.

Chardin (never heard of him/her/gender variant) sounds like a panpsychist. — universeness

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French: [pjɛʁ tɛjaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃] ( listen (help·info)); 1 May 1881 – 10 April 1955) was a French Jesuit priest, scientist, paleontologist, theologian, philosopher and teacher. He was Darwinian in outlook and the author of several influential theological and philosophical books. — Wikipedia

What do you mean? Animals are conscious, yes? Or are you going down the solipsistic path? — universeness

May be I could have worded myself differently but of what are animals conscious and might there be an important difference when we come to human consciousness? I don't think there are any other animals that could contribute enlightening thoughts to the forum.

Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc? — universeness

I don't think so and I don't AI can give us a better reality either. What makes humans awesome is not the few geniuses but what our ability to communicate has done to our reality. If apes could communicate as we do, then possibly they would be just as awesome. However, if we find isolated primitive people, they are nothing like modern-day humans. I think our communication abilities are what makes us awesome. Some industries are learning this, such as those that promised to go green. They had no clue how they were going improve their operations to meet the goals they promised they would meet. Instead of knowing how to achieve their goals, they announced they were interested in knowing what others thought would be helpful. It was the thoughts of many people that lead to improvements. Apes aren't up to that, despite the movie Planet of the Apes.

So, don't worry about any 'science' you don't know or understand. I think we should celebrate the fact that as Newton famously said: — universeness

Now that idea is totally backward! We are naturally curious and that, along with our capacity for communication, has led to our awesome progress. Horses run, fish swim, and humans think. It is for us to explore all sciences and learn all we can about the universe. Especially at this time in our lives, it is our duty to learn all we can from geologists and anthropologists and related sciences and HISTORY so that we can make better decisions than we have ever made. If we don't we could become extinct and if we are the only creature that gives the universe consciousness, that would be a tragedy.

I enjoy the debate and I am grateful for those who take the time to contribute. I learn from all of you in many different ways. I improve my knowledge of where the stumbling blocks are, where the complexities lie. How to probe the robustness of an argument. I also improve 'details' and tighten up shortfalls in my approach to debate with others. It's all very useful stuff. I have exchanged with some TPF members in the past that I would consider an actual enemy of everything that I value but not on this thread ..... so far. — universeness

We have total agreement on that! I love what happens when we engage with each other. The philosophy forum has the best-thinking people don't you think? The political forums and be an extreme failure to be rational. Politics is another game. It is supposed to be less emotional and more rational but unfortunately, the political forums are not and neither is the news media focused on being rational as it once was when Walter Cronkite was reporting the news.

Perhaps Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING. — universeness

I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being. I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. How do I say? A triangle is not a triangle unless it is a triangle. Helium goes up because it is lighter than air. H20 is water, not ciritic acid. This is mechanical than intellectual.

Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man. What if there is no consciousness without human consciousness? We can discover the reasons and we can be inventive with the reasoning. How can we be less? We are pretty awesome! Or perhaps I should say potentially we are awesome. I do not think all humans are awesome but rank along with the other primates because they do not use their full human potential.

It seems much more valuable to me to see your wondement and your awe, as a fantastic emergence, that belongs to YOU, not gods or platonic notions of external perfect forms.
I think I assign more value to you Athena, and Gnomon and every human on this planet than any god posit ever has or ever will. — universeness

We agree. I suppose because I use the reason to define logos, you and everyone else, jump to the conclusion that I am talking about something that can be all-knowing. That is not what my intended meaning. The reason it is cold today is the artic wind is moving down and across our region. That does not require a god. It is the reason it is cold. The reason the arctic wind has come is the movement of low and high pressure. I don't think there is anything else that can be aware of the reason except humans. :chin: AI might organize the data better than we can, but that is not equal to our consciousness.

I remain interested in those like yourself (please correct me if I am wrong here), who are interested in building bridges between science and religion. I would say Athena also thinks it's important to find ways to do that. I would be interested in her opinion of your 'enformationism.' — universeness

You tapped on my passion. I love the Greek understanding of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and all the religions that were founded on math. :love: I am not a mathematician. Far from it, but oh my goodness, what the Egyptians and Mayans accomplished is totally awesome and I wish I could find better books on those worldviews. It was the job of great leaders to keep us in harmony with the universe. If we seek to know the self-organizing forces of the universe, as some read the bible and seek the word of God, we ourselves might come to greater harmony with that universe. If we saw the universe as greater than ourselves, might we have some humility and peace? Rather than rule the universe we might seek our place in it.

True. But you've scooted from "Christianity makes people passive" to "it's a two edged sword."

What is happening in the world today that can give the young a sense of purpose? I feel like we are free falling into chaos and desperately need to restore order and social purpose.
— Athena

Climate change should do it. — frank

Oh yes, religions can bring out the best or the worst in people. Actually, I think the God of Abraham religions are worse when it comes to being divisive and wars. The basic mythology of a God having favorites is just wrong. And we can't get much more paradoxical that a superstitious religion that opposes superstition. :lol:

It could be a truly wonderful thing if climate change brought the world together and we used our intelligence for creating paradise. As I see that, it would be much more organic than high-tech. If we loved our planet as much as we love our technology, I think that would be a good thing. Imagine creating the most beautiful habitats instead of the most deadly weapons and fearing our own mistakes more than the will of a God or other humans. Our reality just does not make sense for intelligent beings. Blowing up millions of dollars and having nothing but destruction to show for all that money, instead of creating paradise. That is really dumb!

Christianity is a platform for a multitude of outlooks. One of my favorites is the kind that Abraham Lincoln grew up with. It dictated that every person is born for some reason. It's up to the individual to discern what that purpose is by listening for the voice of God in the events that unfold around one. Lincoln was apparently sustained by this belief, I'd say in a way an atheist couldn't be. — frank

The idea that we are born for a reason can echo back to Aristotle. Birds fly, horses run, man reasons. But what you said is also true about having a great benefit if one believes Jesus answers our prayers and takes care of us, unless we anger Him and then He punishes us. Both sides of the Civil War in the US believed God was on their side. The bible can be used to justify slavery or argue against it, and when people believe they are doing the will of God and God is on their side, the commitment to the colony, the war, the move west, will be intense.

What is happening in the world today that can give the young a sense of purpose? I feel like we are free falling into chaos and desperately need to restore order and social purpose.

I do wonder about this sometimes. I have been struck by the number of Christians on this board who have expressed similar sentiments, and it was foreign to me as a non-Christian to hear. That is, the virtue of humility rooted in the idea of being born into failure and requiring self-abandoment to a savior to pull you from damnation I would think could engender a feeling a meekness and helplessness.

Counter this with a view of being born into perfection and holiness with a charge to seek justice and I think you end up with a very different psychology.

My background is the latter, and the things people say in the religion threads regarding religious fear and whatever else isn't something I was used to hearing. — Hanover

Wow, that first paragraph was strong and well stated. Our democracy comes for Athens and the notion that we can be noble, and should strive for arete (excellence). It is not compatible with the Christian understanding of being born in sin and needing to be saved.

But Christianity is not the same for everyone. Starting with Calvinism, is the notion that God has a chosen few who will entered the after life and nothing they do will change that, nor will a the masses have a shot at the after life. Everything being God's decision, not our human effort, but not knowing who is a chosen person and who is not, everyone competed to appear as a chosen person, and this branch of Christianity befitted our economic growth. However, in the colonies they lived in tightly controlled small communities and I don't think a young person would have dared to be slovenly or rebellious. Some of the beliefs are very paradoxical. :roll:

I grew up with the Christian teachings and began pulling away when I was 8 and a Sunday School teacher could not give me a good explanation of why Christians and Catholics are divided. I made a complete and total break from Christianity when fear of being possessed by Satan tormented me. I had to chose either I was going to be superstitious or I was not. I strongly believe it was the Greek gods and philosophy that saved me. They taught how to be my own hero.

Yet, that's the main problem of my generation. Most of them do not seem to be motivated in learning something and they waste a lot of valuable time in wacky acts. The line of understanding what is worthy or not has become more and more blur. Paradoxically, our generation which has more opportunities for learning than the previous, are at the same time the most vague or ignorant. — javi2541997

I am not sure about your generation being so different from mine even though I argue a lot about how the 1958 National Defense Education Act ruined education. Maybe you would like to know, before the Act we educated for good moral judgment and good citizenship. That education had its faults, but I think the complete change following the Act was a big mistake and set everyone up for being dependent on the "experts" and obeying rather than being one's own authority and leading. We have experienced a cultural change, but youth are youth, the same as they have been since a Sumerian father lamented on how he gave his son everything and instead of his son building on the benefits his father gave, he was irresponsible and wasted his time. Athenians thought it was pointless trying to teach the young how to think because they would not be capable of understanding until they were 30 years of age.

To "win" is to cultivate virtue and self-mastery, though one doesn't triumph over anybody else except perhaps one's lesser self, thus this type of winning does not imply the existence of a loser.

Anyone can do this, and one may very well argue that virtue and self-mastery are cultivated more frequently by those who have less than those who have more. — Tzeentch

I think you may be right about adversity being a good motivator. I am concerned that Christianity has hindered us in the need to learn of virtues and intentionally act on them until doing so becomes a habit, because Christianity is about being saved by the Savior, instead of being saved by our will to develop virtual habits.

Your English is very good. At least I don't think I could have done better and English is my native language.

I desperately wish I knew how to awaken children to their own talents and interest and help them find a path to their self actualization. But in my old age I regret the young do not want to know what I think and they are making very bad decisions, such as smoking pot and refusing to go to school. As they know very little of life, they are sure they know all they really need to know. I think everyone creates their own drama about what life is and who they are and from there they are busy proving themselves right.

Well, they certainly figure into bad decision-making. On the whole, I think we make better decisions with reason than with emotion. — Vera Mont

Can test that? Seeing someone is in trouble, you do what and why?

The way generals do when planning a campaign? — Vera Mont

What motivates a general when planning a campaign?

I didn't. The capitalists, prelates, generals and heads of state did. — Vera Mont

You do realize we would not have this progress without capitalism right? Can you imagine how things would be it we went back to the barter system? There would be no funding for all the research that has brought us to a point of a very high living standard and believing we can end starvation around the world.
No way would this be so without capitalism.

None of the measures I suggested would prevent educating for democracy, or teaching people to think better than they're currently doing. What they would assure is each individual's access to the necessities of life, safety and education. Is that really so terrible? — Vera Mont

I am not sure. I know a computer would not care and would not imagine a better life. I am glad you are supportive of democracy and education. When trying to understand the good life I turn to family values and Aristotle's ethics. While I believe the good life rests on family values, many do not. Up until this point I thought you were putting your faith in technology instead of humans. We have argued because we both care. I think we share more agreements than we disagree.

Would you like to do a thread about the right and wrong of capitalism? Trust is vital to capitalism and our trust has gone to hell? That could be a delicious topic.

So, what's the difference between having non-empathic men in charge of the arsenals of the world, and having an unemotional (unvengeful, unhating, unenvious, unjealous, unlustful, incapable of cruelty) computer in charge? — Vera Mont

The political organization is different. Turning decision-making over to AI is like sending our best technologically advanced equipment to be produced overseas and losing the ability to produce it ourselves. We don't want to lose the ability to govern ourselves. And we should not have stopped education for democracy, because the most important decisions are how we prepare the young for the future. We prepared our young to obey, not to think for themselves. The US replaced its education with the German model and is now what it defended its democracy against. We can do better with better education.

The decision to kill hundreds of people can be simply a mathematical equation, without any of the negative emotions you mentioned. Our emotions are necessary for good decision-making.

Predicting the outcomes of different proposed courses of action is what chess is about. So, why should predicting the outcomes of proposed real-world decisions be any different? You can inject emotionalism, but that's never had the best outcomes so far, as it tends to end in bloodshed.[/quote

Not all decisions are mathematical decisions. What is good and justice is not mathematical decisions and creating can involve math but it is about more than math. It is also being passionate about resolving problems such as disease, and safety issues, and how to create a reality that is not dependent on fossil fuels. The human mind can do things computers can not do. — Vera Mont

And that is why we now have the greatest disparity in standard of living that we have ever had and the greatest number of humans suffering pain, disease, privation and fear - because humans make decisions based on their own feeeelings, instead of reason. — Vera Mont

No, we have that disparity because we have been amazingly successful. Back in the day, everyone had outhouses because no one had indoor plumbing, and no one had electricity or cars, or airplanes. The life expectancy was 45, until modern medicine almost doubled that. Today it is common for people to live into their nineties while in the past there was a time when children were not named until they passed 3 years of age because the likelihood of them dying was very high. How can you take our great success and turn it into something so awful? If the world was as bad as you see it, humans would not have survived. We have done far more good than bad.

Are you kidding? What do you suppose the Pentagon uses to figure out the outcomes of various scenarios and decisions they're contemplating? Any hand-held computer can predict consequences better than most humans, because it's not hampered by wishful thinking, hubris, faith, false association or selection bias. The only factor that limits this capacity is the quantity and accuracy of the information it is given. — Vera Mont

How do you think that is different from a game of chess? What you call "hampered by wishful thinking" is also knowing the pain of losing loved ones, or knowing the good feeling of having a father who is a good coach and always encouraging, Life experiences come with feeling and those feelings are an important part of decision making for humans.

You made a great argument for the importance of emotions.

Has no values, has no values, has no values. Neither do Donald Trump, Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, yet they have been the most powerful men in the world, causing lots and lots of other people to suffer and die. Why are they preferable to the UN - with the aid of state-of-the-art computers? They haven't bled at all. — Vera Mont

Those men and AI lack empathy. Empathy is essential to the survival of primates and humans. We had education for empathy and in 1958 replaced that education with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose and we have become what we defended our democracy against. The popularity of Trump proves that. This is not just about being prepared for technology but also being prepared for competition and making winning the priority. It has been totally amoral since 1958. I think we finally had enough pain to start swinging back to preparing our young to be more empathetic and inclusive. We can fault our past education for not being inclusive because the US was definitely not inclusive but otherwise it was education for good moral judgment. However, your arguments are based on empathy and wishful thinking.

AI is a tool and will most likely always be a tool as it will be able to provide the most optimal solution, but it won't be able to weigh the consequences of the actions that are to be carried out. Humans, additionally, will always question AI's decisions and selectively enact those which are deemed as the most beneficial to the world, while disregarding the solutions that cause suffering - namely AI's proposals that go against what humans believe is right. Humans might argue that AI cannot be programmed to have morals, and therefore it's solutions will never be right for people. — sugarr

I am not sure AI can not have morals because we used to read our children moral stories and to know the moral is as simple as as knowing this, causes that. For example, The Little Red Hen, and the The Little Engine That Could, and Fox and the Grapes are all moral stories. After reading the story to a child we would ask a question and the children would answer. The Little Red Hen didn't share her bread because no one helped her make it. The Little Engine that Could made it over the hill because he didn't give up. The Fox did not get the grapes because he gave up and made himself feel better by thinking they were probably sour anyway. Like chess, this moves require that move.

However, I don't think AI will not have a sense of meaning so what you said about its decision making is correct. If the decision is not equal to a chess game, AI will not have sufficient information to make a good decisions for humans. That vital part of a sense of meaning comes from experience and feelings. A child may feel the unfairness of doing all the work and others getting something for nothing, but AI will not.

"When human beings think clearly they think the same way machines think" - George Dyson (Darwin Among The Machines) — punos

That is so not true. Humans get emotional information computers can not get. When values are being weighted that is important.

Our bleeding would be of no instructive value to the computer. It has the information about hemorrhage, its various cause and effects, its risks and treatment, but it cannot directly intercede when made aware that someone is bleeding. People make people bleed - and sometimes stop bleeding. Computers don't. — Vera Mont

A computer understands living and dying as well as the 6-year-old child who took his mother's gun to school and intentionally shot the teacher. Now, how much power do we want AI to have and how do we maintain control of it?

Twitter pulled the plug on its bot when it started parroting sexist and racist posts. It was designed to learn and it did learn and it taught us something about how sexism and racism is spread. We have not worked out how to have freedom of speech and prevent social and economic problems that result from spoken words, and we are playing with AI. You don't see a potential problem?

I agree that your proposed system might increase efficiency and cooperation in addressing global issues such as poverty, climate change, and war. However I believe that a single government will eventually infringe upon individual rights and cultural diversity. It's omniscience, combined with the nature of the humans that run it, will eventually lead the system to instability. — sugarr

One of the biggest problems in the world today is our drive to reproduce and the poorest areas with the most children, believing the US wants to rule the world by eliminating them. Population control is vital to their children having better lives, but they do not believe that. Ignorance and fear are our worst enemies and what can we do about that? I don't think computers can resolve that problem and I fear if we give computers too much power, they might resolve problems arbitrarily without our permission.

But nature sort of does that too. Poverty and large populations are great for the spread of deadly diseases. Where people have exhausted the soil, there will be a decline in food and starvation. Where water is scarce a lack of water will lead to death as disease spreads and kidneys shut down. Where life is hard, people will turn on each other and governments kill their own people, or make war on their neighbors. Perhaps AI could not do more harm to humans than nature does. And if we don't see the need for balance as we double our life expectancy by keeping most children alive, we become part of the problem. And because AI has no values, it can only be a tool, not the cure.

Why does it matter that we bleed? — punos

What an absolutely delicious question. I am afraid I can not do the question justice. I think every species sees its kind as the most important. Success is living long enough to reproduce one's own kind.
Without thinking, we live a mandate to reproduce and if we long enough, we become interested in our own avoidance of death but some will sacrifice their own lives to save the life of another. That indicates on a primitive level we recognize a value in the survival of our own kind and this is beyond self-interest. If we did not bleed, none of that would matter, and if none of that matters then life really sucks.

What is it about being "human" that is so important that it must be preserved at all costs; preserved to the point of our extinction? — punos

As I said that is common to all species. What separates us from the rest is we can be aware of what we are doing to the planet. Animals can be just as destructive to the environment as humans and nature was wise to create a balance between herbivores and predators. When the predators do not exist because a species is taken to a place without predators, or humans wipe all the predators, the balance is thrown off and damage is done. Deer that were isolated on a plateau without predators began starving to death because there were too many of them and eventually not enough grass to feed all of them. Balance is essential, and unfortunately, we can be as unaware as any other animal. The solution is education. And it is not enough to teach our young how bad everything is, because knowing things are bad, is not equal to knowing how to resolve the problem. We can do so much better than we have done.

It doesn't benefit from prevailing economic systems. It doesn't share our superstitions. It is a-political. It does not desire power, adulation or wealth. It has no illusions. It is impartial. — Vera Mont

In other words, it has no values and that makes computers valueless without humans. Without values it would know no problems nor seek any solutions. That is why it matters that we bleed.

It will continue to measure what it already measures - all the statistics in those links I gave you, plus a whole lot more. How measurements are always made by unbiased entities: through the collection of data. — Vera Mont

I will repeat, computers are good for anything to do with math. What is a virtue and how are virtues developed is not something a computer can determine. What are ethics and how can we develop an ethical social order, is not something computers are good at figuring out.

I was using a jocular tone. I am, in fact, absolutely convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, by everything I know and all of those many statistics I have cited for you to ignore, that the distribution of worldly goods could be equitably done by a computer that had such information as how many people there are and what the basic needs of a human being are, while the humans who have been in possession of this same information for thousands of years have been fucking it up for thousands of years.
And you think nobody in the 19th century, or the 16th century or the 8th century noticed these injustices? Do you really believe all of humanity slumbered in ignorance until you cam along to open our eyes? You may not believe it, but I have a modicum of awareness myself. — Vera Mont

I must argue with you because we live on a finite planet and our resources are finite but not our use of the resources. Helium is one Magnetic resonance imagingof the resources that is becoming frighteningly scarce. It is essential to doing Magnetic resonance imaging and without it doctors may have to return to cutting open to determine the cause of health problems. Maybe we should not be filling balloons with it? My point is not even with AI can around the world have everything they need. Today a lack of water is huge problem and behind some wars especially in the area of Israel where control of water is vitally important. Computers can not change that reality.

We could calculate all the different eco systems and how many people can live in each region with the limited resources in each region, and then exterminate the excess people, so that those living in each area can have sustainable lives. I am in favor of that, except I do not want to give AI the decision of who lives and who dies. I rather humans get serious about education, reality, and birth control. Instead of adapt to extinction, we might adept to our finite reality.

It may seem to you or most people that there is a clear dividing line, but my point is that this dividing line is somewhat arbitrary. Natural things can also create a lot of toxicity. Consider the great oxigination event where bacteria after developing photosynthesis for the first time literally caused an extinction event. A similar thing is happening now in several ways. One interesting way is how human made plastics have contaminated every ecosystem on the planet. Micro-plastics also are estrogenic compounds which means they mimic or behave like female hormones disrupting fertility rates in men. I believe this is a self-regulating system in nature to reduce the human population as the new non-biological substrata for life emerges. I know it's scary from a personal perspective but from the big picture perspective it's probably what should happen. In any case it seems inevitable and we might as well adapt. — punos

What does the fact that nature can be extremely toxic have to do with the fact we will not find indoor plumbing and electricity in a birds nest? We do not want to play with mercury or uranium or inhale too much helium. Come on, give me a break, our planet has many deadly substances. That does not change the fact that our homes are not natural. Using a whale rib cage to make a shelter is using nature as a bird uses nature. I think archeologist distinguish between a natural rock and one that has been turned into a cutting tool. :chin: Some animals also make tools and now that I am thinking about it, I must admit we are not the only creature that changes nature. A beaver changes nature when it makes a dam or a chimp changes nature when it makes a tool for pulling termites out of a hole. Is it fair to say we are not the only creature that changes nature? That said, is it fair to say there is a dividing line between nature and things that were modified by a creature to meet its survival needs?

We might as well adapt to extinction? Well if scientist are correct, even our sun will die, but not today. I think preparing for extinction now is a little premature. And what if the Catholic Priest Chardin is correct? What if God is sleeping in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man? We can not be absolutely sure of such things, so doesn't it make sense that we do our best to make things as good as we can? The Sumerian story of creation tells we were put on earth to help the river stay in its banks. The Egyptians thought the pharaoh's job was to keep everything in order and the Mayans took that even further with an amazing math system and imagination about creation on earth and beyond. Around the world people have thought we are here to help the planet and many people enjoy doing that today. Don't be a party pooper. Look for the good instead of the bad. :grin:
.

Yes, I would always object to them. — Vera Mont

No, you would not because you would not have the consciousness you have today. now we need to shift to a thread about consciousness. Some of our qualities are determined by genes and then by things that turn our genes on and off. Then comes life experiences and if you did not experience the life you had, you would not have the consciousness you have. Today you can expand your consciousness by traveling and also the processing of aging will change your consciousness. Who you are today is not exactly the same person you are becoming. How different your consciousness becomes depends on the decisions you make.

I have a gut feeling the problem could have been faster solved by a computer, which would have noticed this: — Vera Mont

And what causes your gut feeling? Does it follow the required education and life experience? Or were you born with everything you need to know? This is not something I want to know, but I hope my questions lead to some self-awareness.

The computer is only as good as humans can make it. What does your gut feeling tell you about what this superior computer is going to measure and how will those measurements be made? Once it has all those measurements, what will motivate it to make value judgments and plans for the future? It would be great if a computer made it possible for us to know how we are going to get the billions of dollars we need for all the wonderful plans we have. Where will the money come from? Where will the land be available for this housing? Exactly what are the features of this housing, how big, how many bedrooms, what is the neighborhood like, where are the stores and schools? Real life is not like Sim City, you can not just put everything where you want it and win the game.

Do you think government should just rob the wealthy people? How is that justified and might that have bad consequences? I am in favor of leveling the playing field with anti-monopoly laws but our system has generated great wealth and it has greatly benefited us with technology. I think we want to be careful about what we change to make things better. For darn sure a computer can not instantly resolve all our problems without our understanding and cooperation. Perhaps you can explain how a computer can do better than we can?

If buildings and houses for example are considered artificial and separate from nature then so is a birds nest, a bee hive, and a coral reef; — punos

A house made with natural things can be considered as natural as a bird's nest or a bee hive but our homes today are made of man-made materials and they are very toxic when they burn. I think there is a clear dividing line between nature substances and man-made ones.

Besides that i'm not sure i understand why you claim my ideas lack human qualities. — punos

A house is not loyal nor does it suffer grief or care about its child. I think there is a clear dividing line between matter and all the feelings that make humans distinctly different. But I am not sure how self-aware we are. I was reading "Passages" by Gail Sheehy this morning and she wrote about people she met who were at different stages of life. The middle-aged men were totally self-absorbed and totally clueless of what their children needed from them and she seemed approving of this. Such humans could be replaced with robots.

If we can somehow change everybody's belief system then sure that would go a long way in improving things, but how would we get everyone on the same page. The usual channels wont work effectively and never have. As long as people feel separate and threatened by each other they will never agree to any significant degree on most things. I'm open to suggestions. — punos

Ah that is a very complex subject that might be worthy of its own thread. Not that long ago people were beating the devil out of their children. Some people still think like that but they could get their children taken away by a society that sees that as ignorance. We now associate beating children with child abuse and the cause of them growing up badly. We have made progress. We have also made progress regarding poverty but this progress swings with political parties and media stirred understanding of those who vote them into office. We made progress largely because of education, but in 1958 we radically changed the purpose of education and there are social, economic, and political ramifications to that change. Before we make any final decisions we need to see how things develop from here.

You couldn't tell the difference if you were talking in person or in simulation, and you should also remember that all your perceptions and experiences are just neural patterns; essentially simulations in your brain-mind. Everything is already presented to you in your mind as a simulation of what is happening outside in the environment. A hug will feel just as real in a virtual simulation than in your own neural simulation, and if you were not told it was a virtual simulation it would have the same emotional effect on you than if it were happening in the real world. What really matters then, what really counts? The brain would receive the exact same stimulation in either case. — punos

Oh my goodness, your children are just neural patterns? In a caring world, we are just neural patterns? Hum, I have to take a deep breath and calm how I feel about humans being just neural patterns and no different from simulations of humans. You really excited my neural programming with that train of thinking. :lol: Let's see, does a simulation of a human bleed red blood? What really matters is being human.

I sure wish we could watch movies together and talk about them. In the past, we all agreed to defend ourselves from zombies and aliens from outer space, but now we are going to turn everything over to AI because there is no difference between being human or just simulations of them?

or dashed a baby's brains out on a doorpost because the baby was a child of the enemy.
You trust men to do justice?
Good luck with that! — Vera Mont

You would not object to those wrongs if we had come a long ways. I am blown away by how much things have changed in my life time. When I became politically active to get shelter for homeless people, I never thought anyone would campaign to a mayor of a city of the governor of a state by promising to house the homeless but that is what is happening in Oregon. Reagan was in office when I started raising awareness of the homeless problem and we used police to drive the homeless away. My work included feeding people and since then we have a huge food bank and anyone who has a low income or no income gets card for buying groceries, plus food from the food bank. I see a huge improvement.

I raised my family when few people had medical insurance and today many low income people get medical insurance. When I was first married we could get government commodities but we didn't have food stamps or the cards we have now. The more people get, the less responsible they seem to feel and wow is the attitude negative! :gasp: Back in the day people went hungry and ate out of trash cans, and were unsheltered, and if they saw a doctor they got a bill. That is if they could see a doctor. Private offices turned people away if they could not pay for the medical care. This is a whole new reality in a short time and from my life experience there is no support for your argument.

That's what it is. So are most humans. It's okay to believe a man will forgive a child for breaking something when a computer would send that child to jail. But no computer has ever hanged a child for theft .
Women and children were hanged for petty theft. In 1801, for example, Andrew Brenning, 13, was hanged for breaking into a house and stealing a spoon. https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,894775,00.html
or dashed a baby's brains out on a doorpost because the baby was a child of the enemy. You trust men to do justice?
Good luck with that! — Vera Mont

If humans can not be just, there never will be AI that can be just.

We have come a long ways from our barbaric past and everyone with good social skills in a modern civilization would agree with your moral position of right and wrong, so your parting statement is not about luck but the reality of our progress. This is not to say today such horrible acts will never happen, but our society would not tolerate them.

I think Athena doesn't understand governance with an uncorruptibe, non-ambitious, impartial, hate- and grudge-free, literally selfless infinitely knowledgeable ruler. The hive-mind concept is a couple of steps beyond even that. — Vera Mont

Nothing could be more dehumanizing than a controlling AI. Knowledge depends on experience and AI can nothave the human experience. AI is binary thinking, either/or, right or wrong, yes or no. That is not adequate for making laws for humans and judging them.

How do you imagine AI to be good for humans as anything but a tool for humans to use?

How about this, AI designed to destroy and kill can do that very well because there are no human components to AI to hinder its obedience to its programming.

I noticed your interest in Greek mythology from your profile, and i like mythology too. I think the story of Cronus eating his children is relevant to our discussion to a degree. The reason Cronus ate his children was because he feared them, thinking they would take over his position of power and authority. We should take lessons from that story in connection to our fear of AI. What if Cronus didn't try to eat his children, what do you think would have happened? — punos

I think that is a different subject and it could be a really good subject.

Akhenaton was a very different Egyptian pharaoh/king. He is pictured as a loving father with his wife and children. I have a huge preference for the ideal man/god being an ideal father and an ideal female being an ideal mother.

Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) - eHISTORYhttps://ehistory.osu.edu › biographies › amenhotep-iv-a...
Reign: 1350 - 1334 BC Dynasty: 18 Religious Revolution. Amenhotep IV changed his name to Akhenaton, meaning "the Servant of Aten" early in his reign. — Ohio State University

I will bank on humans being the answer but we don't have a good track record when it comes to human relationships and caring for our children. And as you pointed out, our male role models were never that good as family men. I like the story of Demeter who stops everything to rescue her daughter from Hades. Zeus did nothing to help her until things were desperate because nothing would grow when Demeter was trying to rescue her daughter. Goddesses were about relationships and Gods were about specific activities. Goddesses are often associated with wisdom. I think goddesses have always been important to civilization, while men were the drivers of technology and war. The Christian God was associated with sacrificing a son to prove loyalty to God. What an awful father role model that is.

The only higher power i believe in are the laws of physics (or the habits of physics), logic, and mathematics. We are gods on this Earth, and any sufficiently advanced entity can be considered a god. AI will not be a god all on its own although it can, it will be the hybrid union of man and machine. — punos

:cheer: We are getting closer to agreement. I am so glad you said we are gods on Earth. It is not easy being human and we have some pretty big problems to deal with, but we have done amazing things and life is so much better than it was and I have a lot of hope for our future.

Your explanation of what you believe in is interesting because it lacks important human qualities. Not only is your post lacking in human qualities but also nature's qualities. This is common today as we have separated ourselves from nature. We are focused on technology and left the problem of being human to the church and that is a mistake. If you added Aristotle and a study of ethics and virtues to what is important for us to know, we would have a stronger agreement.

God doesn't start at the top he starts at the bottom and builds himself up. We are his builders, and he grows and develops here on this planet by the hand of man. — punos

That is in agreement with how I see things. Except I would say our perception of god grows and develops, not an actual god. The Christian God was not a loving God until our bellies were full and we enjoyed a degree of security. Before we improved life, God was jealous, revengeful, fearsome, and punishing. Our God was a war god when everyone had different gods and they believed the people with the strongest god won wars. I suppose that could fit in a discussion of one world government. How is AI going to get us all to agree on one world order?

Would you ever shoot another person again after feeling what it feels like to be shot, and not only that but the thoughts that would run through your mind from the other person as they die. What if you were also connected to that person's family, and you had to literally feel what they feel about their loss. There is no law in the world that can have the effect that a hive-mind can have. — punos

Wouldn't a person who does not relate to another person and the person's family, be suffering from psychosis? We are not all psychotic killers. I am watching the news about tornados, and excessive rain and remembering other recent disasters and I am thinking a God who manifests this reality, is not a very likable God. If people believe a God does what is happening, how do they understand good and what a good person does? I am saying, before judging humans we might take a look at what they believe and consider if changing that belief would lead to improvements. Not AI but humans using their intelligence.

I can imagine a virtual environment that every single person will inhabit (like their home or house). People will interact with each other within virtual environments indistinguishable from the real world. Safety can be maintained in this way since no one will have direct physical contact with each other although you wouldn't be able to tell. If i were to manifest a gun and try to kill you, it just wouldn't work. It would be like trying to kill someone over the phone. I also wouldn't be able to steal anything from you, even if i wanted to which i don't think anyone would want to since they would have everything they may want or need (post scarcity). — punos

We have a disagreement on this point. When I deal with a person, I want to do so eyeball to eyeball. I am good with internet forums, but when it is something that deals with my real life, I want reality. Thank you.

Here is what a hive mind can do to a person: — punos

Um, how old are you? Primates and humans are biologically empathetic. Some people do seem to have an energy that makes them capable of healing with touch. However, touching a dying deer and transferring its feelings to a man, is going beyond believable.

A belief in a spirit world is tied to our need to kill and eat and it is a false notion that humans kill without feeling empathy. Some humans kill for the pleasure of hunting and killing, but we should not assume this covers everyone. Are you vegetarian? If you eat meat, don't feel some remorse? Most of us rationalize the good reasons for doing what we do and it could be a lot of fun to discuss this and what life would be like if AI made it impossible for us to do anything that could be harmful to other creatures and the planet.

You indeed are seeing some similarities between what i think and Christianity, but it's not the same, it's actually very different, and no self-respecting Christian would agree with what i think. I will say i used to be a Christian a long long time ago, so i know what the Christian mind set is like.

We can't save ourselves in our current condition.


AI controlling our lives is not democracy. When we give up independent thinking and responsibility we are no longer a democracy. How do you think relying on AI can be democracy? AI can not feel and can not think as a human. Where is the love and caring of AI?
— Athena

AI will simply manage our life support systems, and the hive-mind will manage themselves. Don't conflate the two.

I think i've heard of that series "Humans". I'll check it out sounds interesting. Thank You. — punos

You know your past Christian thinking. Not all Christians think alike. They share with you a belief that humans are not doing amazingly well and therefore they must depend on a higher power. Only the notion of that higher power is different for you today than when you were younger. You gave your idea of God a material body. However, you seem to have discounted the fact that God gave us free will. Why would a God do that?

Can we consider the difference between being a child and being an adult? John Locke said something about it being fine for kings to be fathers if like fathers, their goal was to prepare their young for life and then release them to live as they decide to live. I think our liberty is vitally important to being human.

A friend who knows a lot about computers suggested I use a story to explain what is wrong with reliance on AI. We will begin with AI is great for creating music and for developing industries, but its binary thinking is not good for ruling over humans. Here is the story to make that clear.

A young boy goes to the store to buy his mother a gift. He picks out a flower and while looking at the vases he accidentally drops and breaks one. Humans respond to this with all our human knowledge. He was out to do good and did not intentionally break the vase. He is just a child and such a sweet child to be buying a gift for his mother. That is not how AI responds. An AI response is human-caused damage and is not able to pay for it, so the human must go to jail. A plus B equals jail. There are no maternal feelings or knowledge of the human experience to do any better than a math equation. AI will not give us heaven on earth.

Our condition is so much better than it was 500 years ago, your are missing the obvious. We have done amazingly well and we can expect to continue doing well if we educate for that.

I believe there will be essentially two types of people in relation to this AI hive-mind issue. Those that are for it and those that are against it (the biblical goats and sheep of Revelations). Christians will consider AI to be the Beast his image or the Antichrist, while others will consider it the only way to save ourselves. People will develop religious connotations about all of this, even the atheists. You should already know where i stand on that issue. — punos

I see no significant difference between your thinking and Christian thinking. Democracy requires citizens to take responsibility. That is different from depending on God or AI to save us.

Democracy as we know it is a pre-development of what will become the hive-mind. The hive is the perfection of democracy, and until democracy evolves into the hive-mind it will continue to fail because a system divided is not a good system (yet). — punos

AI controlling our lives is not democracy. When we give up independent thinking and responsibility we are no longer a democracy. How do you think relying on AI can be democracy? AI can not feel and can not think as a human. Where is the love and caring of AI?

Hey the British have done a great TV series called "Humans".

Humans is a science fiction television series that debuted on Channel 4. Written by Sam Vincent and Jonathan Brackley, based on the Swedish science fiction drama Real Humans, the series explores the themes of artificial intelligence and robotics, focusing on the social, cultural, and psychological impact of the invention 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.

Eight episodes were produced for the first series which aired between 14 June and 2 August 2015. The second eight-episode series was broadcast in the UK between 30 October and 18 December 2016. A third series was commissioned in March 2017 and aired eight episodes between 17 May and 5 July 2018. In May 2019, Channel 4 announced that the series had been cancelled.[1] — Wikipedia

We can only explore our imaginations because the reality of your idea of the future is not a reality today.

There are no enemies inside a hive-mind, you are the hive-mind and the hive-mind is you. If it scares you to have your private thoughts shared among others who also share their thoughts and feelings with you then there is something wrong with you. You may not want to be an honest person, and you want to preserve your ability to take advantage of others (whether you know this or not). This is the primitive impulse of mankind that AI and the hive-mind will remedy. The individual ego is public enemy #1. — punos

Are you a Christian or do you think your belief system is better than being a Christian? Both you and Christians hold a very low opinion of humans and both of you are needing a savior, instead of stepping up to the plate and being responsible instead of dependent.

learning of the virtues and making the effort to be virtuous will never be outdated. However, it can be made near impossible by keeping the people ignorant. Humans capable to discussing ethics can also be near impossible by keeping the people ignorant and dependent on a savior that is not real but can be made real by people who do not know any better.

We said our German enemy was a mechanical society and we defended our democracy from that in two world wars. Unfortunately after winning the wars, the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education for technology for industrial and military purposes. Now we are what we defended our democracy against. And there are people who want to make this even worse with AI even though humans are not machines and what is good for developing machines is not good for developing a social order for humans.

Please stay on topic and avoid making our communication personal. I am here to learn from the reasoning people post and share my reasoning with them so they make good choices for our nation.

I have been thinking about your post and it dawned on me that feeling other people's pain any more than I already do, would be hell for everyone. I would absolutely have to stop you from doing anything that may be harmful. You might not like that.

Have you raised children? Have you heard about overly protective parents? It is very hard on parents when a child's poor judgment leads to the child being hurt and some parents do everything they can to prevent that. A child between the ages of 14 to 30 does not want their parents interfering with what they want to do. What do you think about that?

There was a time when the Roman Catholic Church had a lot of power, and Protestants did not like what the Church was doing. The Church attempted to control what people thought about talked about, and it killed the first people who translated the Bible from Latin to people's native language. Protestants encouraged people to learn how to read so they could read the Bible for themselves. This was the beginning of people being their own authority and being our own authority on the word of God, which evolved into a democracy. Individuals having authority and equality. I do not believe AI can improve on that.

When we began to manifest democracy, we created a division of powers and a system to checks and to assure authority and power stays with individuals. However, back in the day, it was understood what education has to do with that, and that is not education for technology.