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.

And I think you have just overstepped my personal demarcation of civil discourse. — Vera Mont

I do not understand your reasoning. Hitler gave us a great gift. He showed us what can happen when some people have too much control and opposition to their control can be totally suppressed. How do you think, the AI people are talking about here, is different from that? I do not take this lightly. I am very serious and I want others to take their faith in AI and their apparent willingness of give control of our lives to a group of people or AI. AI must be programmed by people and their good intentions could be a terrible mistake. I want people to think about this.

I am seeing a willingness to give control to a ruling power and a complete lack of responsibility, just like the Germans who put Hitler in power.

↪Athena
It's more helpful if you just state your point clearly and not obscure it even more behind rhetorical questions. Thanks. — 180 Proof

If you do not want to think and answer my questions, why are you here?

I guess i agree if i had to put it in those terms (culture or authority), but both those terms imply some external force or influence imposed on an individual. If we can get rid of this "externality" of perceiving others as apart from us then new healthier more peaceful forms of social order would emerge not based on silly cultures and external force by arbitrary flawed power hungry psychopathic individuals.

The hive-mind takes care of this problem by taking the collective and transforming it into a "composite individual". If you and I were right now linked to each other in a hive-mind situation, then you would not be able to keep secrets from me and vice versa, you would not want to hurt me because you would feel it too and vice versa. You can call it a new type of culture if you like (hive-mind culture). This is a wholly different situation compared to what we have always been familiar with, which is why traditional governments and laws will become obsolete.

Do you need a law or rule, or someone to tell you not to cut off your left arm? No i don't think you do; The hive mind will feel the same way about itself. — punos

I am so confused! Your first paragraph seems to favor extreme individualism and the second one seems to favor the extreme collective. :gasp: What is good about a hive mind? What you describe sounds absolutely terrible to me. You really think it is a good idea if others know everything we think? No privacy? What you are talking about sure is different from the Constitution the forefathers of the US designed. It is far from the Athena distinction between what is private and what is public. But Sparta the enemy of Athens would approve of no one having privacy and the collective having complete control. How do you justify that?

Do you think individuals should have no boundaries? It might be nice if we could fly but there could be problems with that. If we sit all day, we become weak, and we must exercise to maintain our bodies and minds. Nature puts boundaries on us and I am sure we also want boundaries in our relationships. Becoming virtuous requires as much work and a strong body requires exercise and achieving arete is what gives our lives joy.

If it's that simple, why has it never yet happened in any of the nations ruled by humans? — Vera Mont

It did happen and I don't know why people's attitudes are so bad and they are so willing to destroy everything we have gained. Never before could imagine feeding the world, or ending poverty. We have achieved so much and instead of feeling real good about what we have achieved, everyone here seems to be very negative about our human accomplishments. You all have active imaginations and I am very frightened by the belief that AI can do better and should do it with total control of our needs. I think you all would have voted for Hitler.

Long ago I decided I do not want to go to heaven. I enjoy being a human free to make my own choices and to be politically active to change the things I think need to be changed. I like the challenge of life and do not want to give that up for heaven. I do not think AI can do better than a god but it sure could make things a whole lot worse.

Social media has been used to divide us and to manipulate people and for all forms of evil and I don't think it is the answer for the future.

I think that democracy as we know it is actually a preliminary development that foreshadows the full development and implementation of a global human hive-mind system. Social media and BMIs will be part of this final evolution of a hive-mind, where humanity can finally be as one, united and mature as a global species. People will be able to feel each others pain and suffering thus engendering a mutual compassion among all connected ("One for all and all for one"). Symbiotically Infuse the AI into this hive-mind and the old ways of governing with laws will be no more needed. This can be the ultimate form of democracy if we do it right or the ultimate form of tyranny if we do it wrong (50/50). — punos

The are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. Do you agree or disagree with that?

How is a culture manifested? How is authority over the people manifested? Where does AI fit in?

↪Athena I don't see the point you're making or how your post addresses my post from which you've quoted an excerpt (out of context). — 180 Proof

The point is, who or what, is responsible for your well-being and the well-being of those we share this planet with? What are the boundaries of responsibility?

My main point really is that any government controlled by humans in power positions will always eventually slip into some despotic state. AI i believe may be the only way out of our own corruption, and self-destruction; people should not be able to govern other people, but they do need to be governed by something. — punos

A democracy is rule by reason and making sure that happens is as simple as universal education for good citizenship in a democracy.

What do you think can give AI good judgment and how can it enforce its mandates?

That's from the article; I didn't say it. I heard the music, though: it was rather dull, with none of Beethoven's spirit. Of course, the computer only had fragments to go on. — Vera Mont

Of course computers and not equal to humans and never will be.

More likely to happen if a benign computer is in charge of allocating resources than a random assortment of self-interested humans. — Vera Mont

That is a dreadful idea and I used Tocqueville's explanation of why it is a bad idea. What is the point of even living? Would you be good with your family suffering from malnutrition because global warming and war meant countries on the other side of the world needed more food and that meant everyone around the world would have barely enough to eat? How about a decision to end all meat production or no sugar because those products can lead to health problems, and raising meat is the least efficient way to feed people? What other decisions are you willing to give AI?

How about enforcing a law that only married people can have a child and only one child?

Feeding the world is not just a matter of how much we can produce and spread around the world, but also how much we reproduce. It is vital that we reduce populations to more sustainable levels. And how do we want AI to enforce its mandates?

An unbiased AI with perfect knowledge or information about the social system, that can not be bribed or threatened would be the ideal governing system (as long as it's done correctly). — punos

And what of liberty?

This is from Tocqueville's 1840 Democracy in America............

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest – his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not – he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances – what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch43.htm

We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global governance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. — 180 Proof

We are far beyond the mindset of primates. However, we have not experienced our full potential because never before did we have the resources nor the knowledge that we have today. Only recently has the world had large populations of older people and that is a very exciting change in human reality.
The mindset of a 34-year-old is very different from the mindset of 68 year old. Not that long ago 45 years old would be old and the end of our life expectancy. Today 68 is not that old. Not that long ago it was common for young people to drop out of school by 8th grade and get a job. They did not have the high-tech media we have today. Unless they lived in cities they did not have great sources of the information nor have any reason to learn about the world and evolution and technology.

The world we live in today is very different from the world we have before WWII and expecting us to adjust to this change in before having enough experience with the change, is unrealistic.

"By feeding data about Beethoven, his music, his style and the original scribbles on the 10th symphony into an algorithm, AI has created an entirely new piece of art."

Music is mathematical. Having feelings for a child and figuring out how this child is special and the best way to help the child actualize him or herself is not mathematical.

Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult. — BC

A second thought on what you said here, is what family has to do with democracy and a humane government.

In a way, I feel like what I think is important is drowning in this thread. What if our lives were organized around what is best for the children? Not just what is best for my own children, but for all children and their future in this country. Can males think like that?

What happens when both parents put their careers first? What values are the children learning? How do they experience themselves?

Father, Alpha male that he is, has time to play with the dog but mother doesn't have time to sit and pet puff. Dick, helmet on and balls in hand, is playing too. Little Sally is being trained to be a household drudge just like her mother.

Where is Jane? Mothers for Liberty might well ask where Jane is--certainly not being supervised by here mother and father. She's probably out on the street being tricked into prostitution. She'll be seeing a lot of dick. — BC

I never saw Dick and Jane as you see it, and that may be my err? I can see what you see, but that is not the only way to perceive those pictures. Childhood is preparation for adulthood and I see nothing wrong with Sally imitating her mother. I also see a father playing with his son and I think it is wonderful that a father is engaging his son. Many people believe sports are a very important preparation for life. For sure a father playing with his children is important to their lives. The difference in our perception may be no different from seeing the glass half full or half empty.

My school teacher grandmother preferred Alice and Jerry books. Dick and Jane books were built on the sight reading method and the Alice and Jerry books were based on phonics and independent thinking skills. I have a strong preference for phonics and independent thinking skills, over reliance on memorization that is sight reading. Reliance on memorization and "group think" is a threat to democracy. Defending democracy begins with how we prepare children to read and think.

My err maybe, I am happy with our male and female differences and having different roles in society. I think really good things come out of wanting to be a homemaker and community volunteer. Not just personally but to the whole of society. Democracy is strongest if it is ordered by family order.

A wonderful thing is we live longer and can have both the traditional family that focuses on the benefit to children and society as a whole, and we can have careers if our husbands want us to succeed as much as we want them to succeed. My son is that kind of husband. His father was not so I got the worst consequences of being the traditional woman instead of the happy family I always wanted and then a career. Knowing how my son is different from his father proves my dream of family can be a reality.

So you believe DINO is the best we can do? :chin: — 180 Proof

Hum, you must not read my post.

Your story has been the experience of millions of Americans whose lives have been made miserable by capitalism and the policies of both conservatives and neoliberals. These ill effects cut across the working class, gender, geography, and race. That's it in a nutshell.

Our (working class) experience isn't universal. Another class called the ruling class, or upper class, has a much different experience. The functioning of the economy was designed to deliver, cradle to grave, a steady stream of substantial benefits for the top class, through the labor and at the expense of the working class.

Our loss has been their gain. — BC

I like what you said because it includes both sexes. Our labor history is terrible and at least most women had the protection of home, while men risked their lives for very little money and union people got their heads bashed in by the police and security people paid to suppress the people and protect property rights. The Roosevelts stood against that exploitation but Franklin's New Deal gave government powers it never had before and this is not all good! I wish we understood fascism as an economic order that began in Italy, instead of the horror that it became under Hitler.

:sad: Too many ideas in my head at one time. I am not into bashing men because we have a history of them being treated very badly. We need to work for peace between the sexes and I would love to be free to enjoy being a woman again and not having to compete like men. My knight in shining armor would think I did earn my SS and SSI and that civilizations protect women and children, and protect men with safe working conditions and social justice.

Back to politics, Hoover and Franklin worked together to give us Big Government with more power than it ever had before and that is economic fascism. At the time, before the horrors of WWII, fascism was thought to be the answer to devastating economic swings and economic injustice.

I think it would be helpful to use the terms autocratic and democratic. The US modeled its industry after Britain's autocratic model. What Franklin did was make the government a stronger autocratic force to have power over autocratic industry. At the same time, Deming was trying to get industry to accept his democratic model. The US refused the democratic model for industry, so following WWII when the US was Americanizing Japan, Deming went to Japan and taught them the democratic model. Japan raised to out-compete us for world markets. We say we defend democracy but I don't think we know what it is and why it is a good idea to defend it. Shouldn't we use the democratic model of Industry instead of the autocratic one? For darn sure, workers would not have approved of their jobs being sent overseas, ruining not only their lives but the economies of their communities. Everyone here has mentioned bad values, but what we must understand is what organization has to do with our social, economic, and political order.

That said, what does everyone think will happen to education and our medical care with teachers and nurses demanding more pay? Would the democratic model improve the situation? The fight is not just about wages, it is also about working conditions, and that leads straight to concern about how much a worker is valued, verses exploited. Is medical care for profit a good idea? How is that democratic?

↪Athena You have my admiration, Athena. Thank I am probably a bit older than you, but I witnessed and became involved in that transition from housewife (perhaps with a degree in home economics) to professional (perhaps with a degree in CS). My first wife grew into that transition while we were married, and left and made a career for herself. At first, painful for me, but, nevertheless, the right move for us both. — jgill

I think we are the same cohort. I think I got whiplash looking back on all the very rapid transitions we have been through. I was already into the 1950 Dick and Jane social order when Hippies came on the scene and I was glad to join them. I lived in a rural area so this was not the San Francisco or LA hippie thing, but home-baked bread, chopping firewood, and making clothes, gardening and canning. For me, this morphed into a connection with Mother Nature and Goddess. Then bam! We were "just housewives". Things got pretty insane. From Goddess to "just a housewife" was quite a fall.

Next thing we knew, we were in a recession, our husbands left us with teenagers to support and we had no work history to compete for jobs when it took at least 5 years "professional experience" to get a referral to a shoe shining job. We had to hide our educations and use our domestic experience to get jobs and then our resumes labeled us with jobs that had nothing to do with our educations. :lol: Thank goodness I can laugh at the comedy of errs. But I am not going to be passive about the opinion that we did not earn a decent life.

Neither I am going to accept our changed values, as though the traditional woman did have great social value. The USSR "liberated" women before the US. Immediately their economy benefitted from the surge of women workers, but then women and children began sliding into poverty. The divorce and abortion rates began to increase. In the US we can add to that, women and children have increasingly been involved in crime, both as victims and perpetrators. In the 1970's we announced a national youth crisis and now we have a 6-year-old taking a gun to school and shooting a teacher. It seems every week we learn of a new mass shooting. DOES ANYONE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANT ROLE TRADITIONAL WOMEN SERVED IN SOCIETY?

She worked hard all her life as a hospital cleaner. — universeness

Bingo! However, it is the whole human value system as you keep saying. My understanding of welfare is the result of exploiting the poor for wealth. When England had to go to war, too few of its military-aged males were fit for service. Industry was asked to increase its wages and Industry argued they could not increase wages and remain competitive in world markets. So the government began supplementing Industry with welfare for the poor.

I do not want to blame anyone for this economic disparity because I can not think of how things could have been done better. I want to focus on the human value factor.

The Bible was used to get workers to work hard and accept low wages. This is so easy to do with all its talk of the poor always being with us, and the rich not getting into heaven. The Bible also makes some comments about women that justify male authority over them and this is not conducive to justice and living happily ever after. The Greeks were very patriarchal. I think are better models of civilization but I can not remember their names. I think Aristotle had a strong influence on our social organization with men as heads of the house and justifying slavery.

The Iroquois social organization and ancient civilizations I can not remember appear to have had more equal relationships with women, and it seems where there is more equality between men and women there is more equality in general. The burr that is in my side is valuing money and not humans. And if we were to value our good citizens, what benefits of society should they expect?

Social Security is based on a notion of human dignity. It came about during the Great Depression and it was based on age, not need, to protect the dignity of older Americans, when people would rather die than accept welfare. At that time, the idea was if older people would retire, the young could have their jobs. But this covered primarily male jobs, not domestic workers and farm laborers.

Free high quality education for all from cradle to grave. Is it only the human invention of money that is stopping that from happening? Is it not possible to explain to billionaires and multi-millionaires that we are going to take some of their ridiculous surplus and use it to providing free education for everyone in your country of the USA and if they don't like it, they can f*** off and live somewhere else but they must leave their ill-gotten gains in the country? Am I being too 'radical?' — universeness

Okay love, I started this thread because I was a traditional woman as my father and husband wanted me to be. I was the perfect 1950 woman as she was portrayed in Dick and Jane readers and TV shows. The down side of that is it left me in poverty to raise two teenagers by myself. Then as a result of low wages, when I was disabled, My Social Security was so low it is supplemented with SSI. People with SSI loose their payment if they have over 2 thousand dollars in the bank. It cost more than $2000 to move, and car repairs can be thousands of dollars. The limit on how much money we can have in a savings account, keeps us in constant insecurity. When I complained about that in another forum, a gentleman said SSI is welfare and I am getting more than I earned. Excuse me, I did everything society asked of me and more. I have volunteered most my life because it is important to me to be a valuable citizens.

Like many women in my cohort, I wanted to raise my children, then complete my college education when they were old enough to leave alone, then have a career , pay off our home and help our children go to college. Unfortunately, I did not marry as well as my family thought, and I could not fulfill my life plan. To add to that was a very long recession that hit at a critical time. Recessions can destroy people's lives and if we follow Aristotle, we think when a force of life prevents a person from doing the right thing, it is not that person's fault. Hey, I didn't get the career I wanted but I do volunteer 5 days a week. Telling me I have earned my social benefits really pisses me off.

It is a human value issue.

Well, if there is a problem with paying women more, we need a mathematician. But my concern is not a material one as much as a value one. This is not just about women getting paid more, but the reason for them working has changed. I think women have always played a vital part of all communities and if they stop doing that because they feel valued for fulfilling their traditional role, how will that change how we value ourselves and others?

I want to see economic considerations, social considerations, and political considerations.

For example, government is doing much for children than it did before women were allowed to represent us in state and federal legislatures and the stronger the push for welfare programs gets, the stronger the conservative resistance gets. The stronger the push for accepting our differences gets, the stronger the push back gets and that culture war is flaring up as a battle to control education.

Okay, now how much government control do we want? Social programs are not free so how much more do we want to pay in taxes?

I have heard children with only one parent are at risk. How can government resolve that problem?

Wobbly, sure, with no solid foundation. But not entirely arbitrary, surely? You have the vehicle's service history? — bongo fury

If we do perhaps experience amnesia the people who think they know us will tell us who we are and who is important to who we are and not important to who we are. If we look like a male and chose to look like a female, surely there will be people to tell us about who we are. If our skin is dark, the White people in the neighborhood may wonder what we are doing there. Or if we are a Whitey in the wrong neighborhood someone will tell us we should not be there. Our sense of self is a little complex and some of us avoid our families because their opinion of who we are may not be to our liking. Who we are, depends to some degree, on those who are judging us.

Our sense of self is not all in our brains, but in every cell in our body. How we feel about ourselves and our lives is in our bodies. Our judgment of right and wrong is in our body and notions of right and wrong are recorded in our cells from the beginning of our existence. In general, it would be more correct to say, "I feel you are right", or "I feel you are wrong", because rarely are we actually weighing the facts and using logic to judge what is so. We are reacting and how we react is pretty automatic.

You don't believe me? Say to yourself "I am really sexy" and notice how your body reacts. Is your body giving you an "Oh, Yeah I am hot!" or a cynical "You are too fat or too old to be sexy." Want to invest $5000 in a hot new stock? What does your gut say about that? :chin:

My question is, without our material bodies, what can we experience? If we do not experience ourselves, reacting to other beings, can we have a sense of self? We do not just think who we are, we feel who we are in relation to others. How we feel about ourselves and our lives may have very little to do with our thinking. We may even realize our thoughts based on our feelings are not rational.

What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere?
— Athena
'Political democracy' without effective economic democracy is democracy-in-name-only (DINO). In the last few centuries, however, "the Enlightenment" hasn't been radical enough for that much 'democracy' ...

An alternative that might minimize constraints on optimal 'liberty, equality and security' would be a post-scarcity economy which probably can only be developed and maintained by AGI automation of global supply chains, manufacturing and information services.

... we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses?
— Athena
:100:
I agree we are in very grave trouble!
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
— Albert Einstein — 180 Proof

At least ten millennia of grinding out of lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest in civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy". — 180 Proof

What good talking points you presented. Have you heard about the democratic model for industry? Years ago I had the privilege of attending a seminar for the democratic model and I am sure that is our way out of the mess we are in, along with education for democracy.

I am confident that up to this point, Christianity has been the worst hindrance to democracy. A healthy democracy requires literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Only the elite could afford that education, so our thinking did not change as much as it needs to change if we are to have democracy. Perhaps Einstein did not have the necessary education if he stopped with the quote you used. He was educated in Germany, right, the nation that became the enemy of our democracy. Public education in the US did attempt to prepare us for responsible citizenship, but in the effort, it Americanized the past lessons and in so doing separated US from the past wisdom, and our Christian history made this a very serious problem of consciousness. We have the mindset that leads to your belief we must depend on a god or AI because we can not figure things out for ourselves.

The US adopted Britain's autocratic model for industry and Christianity supports that. It is what Einstien said is the wrong mindset for democracy. During the great depression Deming developed the autocratic model of industry. The autocratic model lead to not only terrible exploitation of humans and a terrible economic problem, especially when our industry was sent overseas, but it also manifested White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, male privilege that held females in slavery until just recently. The slave-master relationship of marriage is as bad as slavery is bad.

Hopefully, we are having meaningful discussions here that will recorrect the problems, including the problem of miserable families. For darn sure the correction will not be a god nor AI ruling over us.