Yes, I am going beyond 2021 to perhaps 2051, to ask a two-step question, first posed by Alan Turing in 1950: Can machines think? Turing set up a test, now known as the Turing test. If you were placed behind a screen, and unable to see if the questions you were posed were answered by a machine [the term "computer" back then was not widely used] or a human, and they received your questions and you received their answers in typewritten form only (that is, neither you nor they depended on human voice), could you correctly judge which was human? For philosophers, this is a rich new territory. Would Descartes's statement about his existence ever apply to a computerized "brain?"

The second question, related to the first, and likely dependent on the first, is: Can machines be created to feel? That is, let's suppose the computerized brain is self-aware as a thinking device. Can it also be programmed to "feel" a response to its own existence? Perhaps more significantly for the human race, can it experience "feelings" about the human race? If you're not too interested in these kinds of questions as too improbable to be taken seriously, then you work with them as thought experiments about how human brains work. What if A.I. was programmed to self learn at such a rapid rate that it moved from the goal of being to the goal of dominating the intelligence pyramid? [Which is exactly what the human race currently does with the animate and inanimate environment now.]

A lot of smart people are freaking out about the potential for A.I. to outthink the human race on multiple dimensions over multiple future decision points. Basically, the angst goes like this: What if A.I. networks become "self-learning?" That is, what if they begin to program themselves based on algorithms we've given them, but over which they take control? Since they can outthink us much faster than we can counter-think them if they decide to take a path in their self-interest that is inimical to our self-interest, will we be expendable by them, or if not destroyed, enslaved? They could very well blackmail the human race with threats of restricting the food supply, shutting down the financial system, or poisoning the water supply. Is this only science fiction? People once thought the same of video technology and space travel.

These are not new questions, and any one of us can research the current state of affairs. My questions go to something slightly different: Stories. Humans organize reality by folklore to convey how the world came to be, and how we are best to live in that world. What would be the folklore A.I. would create for itself in telling how it liberated itself from its maker, even as Adam freed himself from God by landing butt first outside the Garden of Eden?

If you were to actually particularize it and ask about, say, absolute truth or objectivity in the context of game strategy the discussion becomes a little more honed and insightful. — BitconnectCarlos

Can you develop this thought further? I agree with you that abstract terminology is not very useful until we see how it is applied in the context of the game. [You may enjoy reading about game theory if you haven't already]. The game has rules, as does nature. Violate the rules, and you are penalized or maybe even lose the game entirely, i.e., die.

Of course, in game theory, the player is focused on a calculation of the optimal outcome given the odds. In this sense, the absolute truth is always expressed as a relative value, and so the algorithm for the best decision is a mathematical expression of probability. Is this mathematical expression what you're referring to as the "absolute?" The problem is that math is not the reality, but a set of symbolic expressions that describe reality. In using the number "one" is there a corresponding "thing" that is a singularity that exists independently of the number, or are we just stacking abstractions? Is it an absolute truth that there is one and only one BitconnectCarlos? As far as we know, yes. But at this level of gameplay, the rules are trivial. Kick it up a few notches and the "absolute truth" issue is more apparent: "BitconnectCarlos has an immortal spirit." You'll find a number of religions that will assert that truth on your behalf. Apply game theory probability to that proposition, and see where it gets you. Still, people will cite "Pascal's wager" as if the math indeed supported the proposition. But now you have a religious authority that is defining the rules of the game, and not only that, but assigning the probabilities according to a rule book called the Bible, or the Koran, or Torah, or the Upanishads, etc.

So, my bottom line is that game theory [or mathematical reduction-ism] is great at addressing one limited class of questions but lousy for the big question of what is "absolute" truth. Please share any disagreement.

Your final framing of the question reveals your bias on the question. You state unless a right can be enforced, it's not a right. I would argue that a right remains a right even without a remedy. The definition of "right" implicates ethics and the fundamental question of whether we should do the right thing even when there is no penalty for doing the wrong thing. There simply are not enough laws that can be enacted, enough courts to be funded, nor enough police to be hired, to provide a remedy for every wrong. Right conduct is based not primarily on the fear of penalties, but an ethical system that becomes part of a citizen's character. Imagine instead a society in which people just did whatever they could get away with.

But to address the political statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration assumes the protection of these rights is not with God, but with governments. So if we use the Declaration as the source document for the controlling premise, it does not allow for cross-examination of God, but rather the accountability of governments formed under God.

Finally, the word "inalienable" is both a legal term of art and a theological premise. The document has a bold literary flair, with overreaching terms that could be argued endlessly. For example, if your happiness entails stealing my property, that is not the inalienable right referenced in the Declaration. The Document's unstated boundaries on "life, liberty and happiness" become articulated by the civil and criminal codes of the individual united states addressing specific situations.

The document is just what it says it is: A Declaration of Independence. The Government to which it was addressed was King George's, and the audience was intended to be the world. What better way to make your case than to plant your argument squarely within the design and will of God? It isn't the first time God has been used for political purposes.

it seems to me that you do philosophy in much the way a programmer would program if they only used variables - it doesn't work. — Banno

Interesting observation. Not being a coder myself, it reasons nonetheless that for the process path to have one or more predetermined destinations, some constants have to be present in order to manage the variables [you can tell by the way I'm framing this idea I know no coding].
But what interests me about your comment is how you would carry your thought further to apply it to the "non-variables" in a philosophical inquiry. We live in a time of rampant relativism when "constants" are criticized as imposing absolutes when no viewpoint is more valid than another. You write that a line of code that was constructed of only variables "does not work." Would you say the same of a value system that held one viewpoint is as valid as any other?

emancipate seems to doubt the good faith search for truth among philosophers who hide behind "mysterious" terms. Do such charlatans exist? Surely. But emancipate doesn't say they dominate the world of honest philosophers who genuinely love and seek truth. If he did, I don't think he'd be poking around in a philosophy forum.

Jamalrob presents a tougher case. His argument is that coding doesn't work as a model for philosophical inquiry because it lacks "pathos," meaning, I surmise, coding is a cold mechanical set of rules that produce nothing really important to the process of philosophical inquiry. Many machines are quite useful despite lacking emotion, and it would be troublesome indeed if a chainsaw had a fit of anger just when your legs were exposed to the blade. Nor did you make the argument that coding was more than an analog for the process of seeking a solution. Nor did you advocate for coding as a source of useful premises. I understood your argument to be that coding is just a tool for how to think about a solution to a specific kind of problem, in the same sense that the scientific method is the preferred method to find answers to certain types of problems, e.g., discovering a vaccine for COVID-19.

We could spend a lot of time in the next world unraveling the undefined meanings of the terms "coding," "process," "pathos," "thinking," "program," "scribbles" and "tools," and I'm grateful that won't happen here, but it is useful to see that we've used these terms with unspoken assurance that we each have the same understanding of what they mean and how they apply.

It's a fair point that philosophy will have its specialized terminology. That's fine when experts speak among themselves, a sort of shorthand that communicates packed meaning for those who know the terms. But it is a thing of beauty to hear a qualified expert explain complex ideas to a jury totally unfamiliar with the specialized terms of his expertise. The great expert witness compromises nothing in the meaning of his or her science by converting technical concepts into the vernacular. I've seen experts with not a hint of condescension use technical medical or economic terms for example, then explain them wonderfully in clear ordinary language, leaving everyone in the room to wonder "why didn't they just say so?" By analogy, I would argue that the philosopher who cannot step out of his academic circle to explain an idea to people having no background in formal philosophy either does not know his subject thoroughly or is too self-absorbed to care to connect with others. Maybe this is where the coding analogy comes into play: don't just define the relevant variables at the outset, but define them in a way that is comprehensible to the folks you hope to inform. After all, people use applications to achieve their objectives, not those of the programmer.

I'm something of a pragmatist when it comes to philosophy. The philosopher seeks wisdom, and wisdom for the sake of living not in seclusion, but in relation to the citizens and culture in which he or she was born. So, the idea of defining the terms and proceeding sequentially can be applied, just not with the formalism or unforgiving methods of coding. Steven Covey articulated the communication skill of "seeking first to understand and then to be understood." Maybe a coding variation of that would be "seek first to understand the terms, then to use them to be understood."

I'm having great fun following the coding analogy. Yes, I see the critical first importance of defining the key variables and using them according to syntactical rules. Good mental hygiene in everyday conversation would require some real skill of identifying the misuse of terms and calling out the need for a clarifying definition. The sad truth about most human communication is that we proceed with the false assumption that we each have a precise common understanding of the terms we're using with one another. Taking this linguistic dilemma out of the laboratory and into the streets, I'm wondering if you have any "seat of the pants" tactics to use in daily conversation that helps the participants to come to common terms. Being pedantical with your lover is not usually the first best approach.

"and would have paid a lot better too . . ." A much needed lighter tone to heavy subject. I too appreciate Harry's analogy. What seemed to almost yell at me in Harry's posting, but was not said, was that the "ontology" or "what is" is only part of the questioning process, because all coding is designed to reach an end result, and that implies a goal, and a goal implies a "why." The "object" could as readily be labeled the "objective." Once the objective is known, such as assigning passengers their seats aboard an aircraft, every piece of coding has relevance and utility by reference to the objective. The success or failure of the coding at any stage in the process is measured by how efficiently (or elegantly) it contributes to the desired end result. All to say, to apply the coding analog to philosophy, the first and supremely important question may be: what is the end objective of human life?

This practice is obviously very meaningful and important to you and your wife. What does public nudity deliver to you emotionally, spiritually, physically, or psychologically? How does the practice affect the quality of your relationships with people generally, outside your circle of like-minded nudists? And what would you identify as the most common misconception most people have about public nudity?

Well, your point of disillusionment is also your point of realignment. No path of critical thinking or practical action is a straight line. This may be the most fertile time in your intellectual adventure. So, how will you engage the philosophers who seem to be in that category who immerse themselves in the fog of "intractable arguments?" I agree that sort of argument misses the mark unless the purpose is to simply gratify the ego by scoring points or publishing yet another obscure academic article. As I get older, I simply don't have time for the games.

I'm here because questions are more interesting than answers, and in exploring the questions, I build the mental framework for what I hope is a healthy, accurate, and life-giving understanding of the world "as it is." I believe we're here to create and contribute, and in the process, to enjoy the gift of life. That may entail sacrifice to address the suffering of others, as to live in luxury alone is a sort of hell.

Perhaps your recent disenchantment with philosophy is that you're focused on its premises without equal concern for its practical applications. Underlying practical philosophy is the idea that there is a right way to live, and that our flourishing as human beings is possible with right thinking.

Thank you for the research. Most of the news is caught up in the moment, understandably, but the policy makers and leaders [do we any longer have true "leaders?"] should be preparing the population for the longer term.

Addressing: What concerns me is that the chaos which will ensue in the Middle East, the virus will find a breeding ground and develop into a more deadly strain. Similarly to the way that Spanish Flu developed during the chaos of the First World War. -- Punnshhh

Fauci anticipates the second wave in autumn. No one presently expects a vaccine before then. The second wave may arrive as a mutation of the first. In the case of the Spanish Flu of 2018, the first wave was comparatively mild, but the mutation of the autumn was extremely virulent, killing healthy young adults indiscriminately with children and the aged. The economy is already severely damaged, and recovery, if it occurs before the second wave, is likely to be slow because of continuing fears. The stock market seems to be in an almost pathological state of denial, with unemployment at near Depression levels. If the second wave is more deadly than the first, our generation will be the Generation of the Second Great Depression, and like Punnshhh, my concern would be with the potential for political chaos and the rise of megalomaniacs promising recovery from the economic debacle. And so the advice though trite is still good: Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

You gave this reply serious thought, and made it worth reading, so "thank you!"
Of all your suggested disciplines, the effort to step out of one's habitual frame of reference and into another conflicting, unsettling, even hostile frame of reference is the great challenge of the seeker of truth and wisdom. We use our "truths" to navigate the world and don't abandon or even modify them readily. There is however a tipping point in thinking where the model just will not continue to accommodate the incoming new data. In an extreme case, it's like an addict admitting that his efforts to control his addiction have been based on false premises, and it's either die or make changes. We hold to our falsehoods that strongly, and sometimes only a crisis is sufficient to break through our defenses. But what a wonderful world it might be if all people were to apply your listed guidelines for critical thinking.