It's always metaphysics time.

Do androids dream of electric sheep, is a question that keeps on bothering me when I see your posts with that avatar. Hehe. — Posty McPostface

That's why PKD's likeness is emblazoned so on TPF; to remind the metaphysically small-minded of their lack! :rofl:

I'd be curious for any thoughts from @Wayfarer as well.

The dichotomy of exoteric vs. esoteric is pretty central to my view on this. Again, it's a mystical view.

Well, we like to identify with leaders or other people or significant others, yet, we can never be them. — Posty McPostface

I don't think I try to identify with Jesus, for instance. You could say that he strived for spiritual nourishment, sure; to the extent that I want to strive for that as well, it's just that I want that thing itself which he proclaimed. That doesn't mean I want to be Jesus, or, per Christian terminology "be like Jesus". Rather, I want the nourishment itself that he offered. I think that nourishment sounds pretty great.

In the context of AI, which I think we're still talking about, my desire is that we be able to relate to it, which you seem to deny on principle (which isn't entirely clear to me or some sharp dichotomy between the two). If we could relate to it, and it relate to us, then confusion and misunderstanding could possibly be avoided, at mostly our detriment. — Posty McPostface

We seem to still not be communicating well, then. I'm saying that there's no reason to want to relate to AI, because AI is something we create; it's a part of the human condition. Ergo, it won't give us anything unique or new. The change we want that we think AI can offer is something that only comes from the inner, the spiritual. Regardless of whether it's peddled by Jesus or Buddha or whoever. So yes I deny AI offering a change in the human condition on the principle that AI is an exoteric means to false change, whereas a spiritual mechanism of change would be esoteric, and thus real, actual change. It's a concept that's ascertained intuitively, not logically. It's essentially a mystical conception.

From what I know of your philosophy, I wasn't expecting us to gel much here. But I'm not sure what your reference to those religious leaders is supposed to mean within the context of what you quoted from me. When I say the shift from spiritual poverty to nourishment is apophatic, I mean I feel the poverty, which suggests the potential nourishment. Are you just saying that I feel that because of the teachings of those spiritual leaders, or? That because of their idealistic teachings I feel that lack? That doesn't seem like a sufficient dismissal of their teachings. That assumes that the idealism which their teachings evokes is completely false. Which then implies nihilism. Which we can get into, if we must.

To each their own? — Posty McPostface

No!!! :sweat:

So, where does your conception of changing human nature come into play as you've already mentioned? — Posty McPostface

My concept of a change in the human condition is hard to properly describe, and I'm conflicted about the concept itself. My view of it is based in a Judeo-Christian conception of morality, admittedly, even though I'm no longer a Christian per se. I try to avoid that aspect, simply because I want to deal with the ideas as objectively as I can without introducing assumptions and baggage, both my own, and your's/the reader's, etc. Making all of this more confusing, I'm on the fence as to whether the human condition is something that we can change ourselves. I see a conflict between the heights that humanity can arrive at, and the depths that we can fall into. And so I have a fundamental tension in my view of whether we can and should strive to change our condition, or whether it's hubris. BUT, one thing that I'm sure of is that our physical striving to change our condition, tech, is utterly inert and unable to change our condition. I think I've already made my points about that. To the contrary, the human condition is an inner condition, in the sense of an esoteric, rather than an exoteric condition; the human condition is not a material condition; it's a spiritual condition. We live in a world of spiritual poverty. The human condition is spiritual poverty. For that to change from spiritual poverty to spiritual nourishment would require a profound shift. I don't know how it can be done. But I refuse nihilism on the shear basis of my own living and breathing existence, and so I have to entertain the possibility of a shift from spiritual poverty to spiritual nourishment. It's apophatic; I know it's possible because I feel it's lack.

I don't know what else to say. Maybe I haven't presented my arguments that well or something. Tech is a neutral tool; we use it for good and ill. The fact that tech has become so much more efficient and productive doesn't change the neutrality of tech's role. So that doesn't look rosy to me at all. It looks neutral. The human condition continues as it has; now doing good and doing ill are both much more efficient and productive. That means there's no positive progression. I don't know how else to put it.

They are merely tools that we either use positively or negatively to our benefit or destruction. — Posty McPostface

I agree, but I haven't seen you taking that view; you seem to be taking a more optimistic view of tech. No?

Why is the middle better? Because it's less brutal?

.

I will assume a quietist attitude here and listen to what you have to say. — Posty McPostface

Hmmm, that's rather disquieting.

The human condition is a condition in which humans do many things; they create fascinating art, they create beautiful music that evokes a wealth of emotions, they help each other when in need. But humans also can lead governments that kill millions of people in short periods of time, traffic minors and slaves in the modern day, and, perhaps most poignantly, profoundly harm the ones they claim to love the most.

Is this a lame, polarizing caricature of the best and worst of humanity? Maybe, but that's what the human condition is; it's grand, beautiful, terrifying, horrible, disgusting, unspeakable.

I don't like "to each his own". It's too soft. The world isn't soft; the human condition isn't soft. I'd rather talk about the human condition first, and then talk about "the good".

I'm both honored, and also a moron. Actually, I tend to be a moron more often than I receive honor. Thanks for both?

Maybe the shoddy wording was incoherent, but the idea is coherent in my mind. "The Good" (I don't really like that phrase) is incompatible with the human condition. So for the good to be attainable, the human condition would have to change. I don't know. It's a hard concept to express, either because it's very subtle, or because I'm crazy.

Not sure if I agree with the ban, but all good in the hood. Apologies for this thread, really; I was in a bad mood last night, slightly tipsy, and was reading some threads, and realized he had been banned. Feel free to close the thread..

I'm watching the good faith of the forum wilt before my eyes as the moronic staff quakes at the word moron.

Once a moronic sheep, always a moronic sheep.

Profoundly, insanely unfortunate.

,

@TimeLine

*grabs popcorn*

Since Bitter and I have recently been released from m0r0nic limbo, I concur. It sounds like a space so safe, not even safeness could replace the space in which the safe space could ever be replaced.

Really? Moron? What is this, kindergarden?

That would probably sufficiently shield us from the unspeakable horror of the viewpoints of the M0r0ns, true. I vote yes.

That's what I'm sayin

I've always been a closet utilitarian. My conception of what is good, is that people suffer less and enjoy life more. — Posty McPostface

I'm not any kind of utilitarian, so I can't agree with this. It's probably a little tangential, but I see "the good" as an objective ideal that isn't attainable within the current state of the human condition. The human condition itself would have to change in a paradigmal way in order for the good to be attainable. So things like "suffering less" and "enjoying life more" are small details in the face of the actual good. What I see as extremely dangerous is the hubristic assumption that technology itself is the causeway which leads to a paradigmal shift in the state of the human condition. It's not so much a spoken philosophical position as it is a general zeitgeist, which is exactly what makes it dangerous. Our petty sweet nothings that we chide on about on this forum pale in comparison to the real, cultural shifts that are happening outside of our own prisonesque philosophies here.

When I said 'to each they're own' earlier in the thread, I meant it in the context of there arriving a day when people will be free to engage in any activity that they desire or think they would do best. — Posty McPostface

The irony here, per what I've been saying all along, is that technology has absolutely nothing to do with this; it has nothing to do with our ability to freely engage in activity which we desire or think is best. The reality is that we already do this, and mostly we do it horribly, because we don't know what we're doing. That's the human condition. Again, technology is just a neutral means to achieve more power and productivity to do whatever it is we do; habits beneficial, destructive, malignant, etc.

Technology will eventually, in terms of having a benevolent AI in the not so distant future, provide for all our needs, and then well... noting much further than that. I guess people will be free from the need to engage in intensive labor. Then what? — Posty McPostface

Why assume AI will be benevolent? Again, this is exceedingly simple, to me: humans are morally problematic; humans make technology; technology as an extension of human problematicness will be problematic; it has been; it continues to be; AI, therefore, will also be problematic. It's stupidly simple.

A Voyage To Arcturus - David Lindsay

Proto-modern-fantasy at it's finest.

Ah, I see. So idiot, m0r0n, loser, good-for-nothing-piece-of-shit, etc., are all kosher because there hasn't been a spate involving those terms yet? It seems pretty obligatory.

Then I guess it just brings up the question of what the telos of it all is. Increased productivity, for instance, is also morally neutral. Increased productivity to do what? Feed the hungry? Bomb the shit out of them?

Is life more or less brutish than it was a hundred or two hundred years ago? Probably less brutish. Why is that? Is it just because of technology in-itself?

Why?

My friend Charlene's new track:

The point I'm trying to make is that "technology" has existed since the wheel. I see no evidence that we've "utilized technology to help save us from doom and gloom", for the past several thousand years.

What happens instead is that, because we have a lot of hubris, we allow ourselves to be seduced by the exponentially-increasing technological chops of an elite few, and then assume that that elite power, held by a few, is some kind of religious balm that will heal the masses. It's fucking ludicrous.

Bespoke automated thought police.

Fair enough; apologies if I assumed too much.

I think I'm more worried about the future than you. That's my understanding. I'm worried that you're not taking the human condition into consideration here.

It's just a thought to contemplate, regardless of my level of selflessness or what have you not. I'm not Jesus; but, nor am I some sick and twisted person that sees the possible amount of suffering and death that we face as a race as something that gives me a kick or whatnot. — Posty McPostface

So what? The tepid water of the middle ground is very palatable. That says nothing of it's nutritiousness.

what quip? Do you mean this?

One scenario that is likely to occur in my opinion is that we all just detach ourselves from this reality and engage in a virtual one, where our minds are uploaded into some mainframe or cloud computer sufficiently complex. I don't think it's a very edifying future; but, one where we can 'survive' nonetheless. — Posty McPostface

____

Millions if not a billion people will die from famine and loss of agriculture. The only good thing is that it's not an asteroid hurtling towards us or some such matter. So, there will be time to adapt if possible. — Posty McPostface

I get very tired of these fake posturings where "the future of the race" is held up like a religious symbol. What content does that symbol have? In order for a future that doesn't include you to have content for you, it has to include you. It doesn't make sense. No one is fooled into thinking that (proverbial) you is so selfless that he only wants the best for the human race, regardless of whether you will actually participate in that future world yourself. That putting-off-of-fulfillment is analogous to a religious sacrifice. It is a literal religious sacrifice, but just not conscious.

Lots can be said. The fact that these issues aren't being discussed highlights their importance; they're elephant-in-the-room questions. Questions that touch on the nature of the human condition, how technology interacts with that, and what technology should be used for are not "to each their own" questions. They're questions with definite answers. Again, what would be the "good" afforded to the human condition by uploading brains to some mainframe situation? Are you assuming that the people in power with control over the "brain uploading scenario" are people with good intentions? I don't see any reason to make that assumption. Bringing the state of the human condition back into the picture, it seems wise to assume no good will; it's wiser to maintain a neutral stance until goodwill can be reasonably demonstrated. What's worse, I think, is that Musk, Zuck, and co aren't particularly of good will or bad; they're moral toddlers playing in a morally doctorate-level game.

Why is survival presumably a good in that scenario?

I'm pretty neutral. The human condition remains a constant. It's an imperfect condition. Technology has always been used for human flourishing and destruction alike. It's hubris to assume that the sheer depth of complexity of tech will bring about a state in which the human condition is improved. Tech that's more and more advanced just means more and more advanced means with which to either further human flourishing, or prevent it. It's the grand ol' enlightenment charade still at work, which is baffling, but really, not that baffling at all. One element of the human condition is that we're all stupid and none of us learn. Which is a harsh way of saying that the new generation doesn't learn from the old generation, ad infinitum.

The future seems to be defined by hubris. Which is not new.

There's so much here.