Got your point. Thanks for explaining since it is an uncommon take on the wording that I wouldn't have guessed if you hadn't explained it. What's your alternative label?

Exactly. Gods cannot be separated from human narratives, since gods exist inter-subjectively, not objectively. Identically to the way that countries, corporations and the value of money exist, ie by human consensus.

Uummm... never useful, eh? Becsuse racism and sexism don't exist?

I agree that "racist" more accurately describes situations or rules than people.

Exactly. When it comes to human opinions, being certain is about as meaningful as the amount of effort it takes to say "oops" when what one is certain about is shown to be in error.

Well the term "absolute" is relative, as it is compared to a reference standard. The question is: who gets to decide what is the standard? Thus the question devolves into a question of perspective.

The ability to attribute a reproducible observation to culture vs genetics (innate) for armchair observers, such as ourselves (as nonprofessionals in the field) is perhaps asking more than we can reasonably provide. But no matter, if we can successfully use our understanding based on our experience, (since we only interact with others within our broader culture), it doesn't matter if the "universality" of our understanding is limited to everyone we know or applies to all humans who have every lived.

Oh I am not wedded to particular labels, I'm mostly drawing conceptual distinctions that delineate true differences in technological achievements as well as their relative capabilities and limitations.

Not so much. Using words in the description of a subject is using the absolute definitions of those words.

Don't be coy, please expound for us these other, ahem, factors.

Well 538 has him running ahead in the primary polls and primaries pull the most rabid voters.

What's the confusion? These are well understood and accepted concepts (this thread notwithstanding). To label something as "tall" is a relative descriptor, to label something else as having a height of 6 feet is an absolute descriptor.

True AI is machine learning such that the computer advances it's programming without a human programmer. Simulated AI is clever human programming made to simulate independant thought, specifically designed to fool humans into thinking the product is of human origin.

Current conventional computers analyze data. Interpreting that analysis is currently the domain of humans. Say AI takes over that role and is better at it than humans. As I see it, there is a limit to how much "better" AI can be over humans. If human analysis is 85% of optimal, the very best AI can only improve on humans by 15%. Not too earthshattering by my estimation.

Currently there is no true AI, there is simulated AI. However, even simulated AI can replace numerous workers in middle management and low level creative fields. This can/will have a devastating impact on employment and thus the economy as well as social stability.

As to future, true AI, the way it becomes dangerous in Sci Fi stories isn't the AI itself, rather that humans abdicate their authority (and thus power) to computers. Human psychology being what it is, I'm not too worried about that. Besides putting a computer in charge of the nuclear launch codes doesn't seem dramatically more risky than having them under the control of certain recent controllers of them...

Your comment, while true, can only be verified through analysis of climate, not weather.

As to legalization or at least decriminalization (which I prefer), a good balance is to prosecute for the crime of pampering, but not for prostitution

Well sexual relations are in demand and thus can act as a commodity. Trading in that commodity can thus constitute a business. Referring to the business as a whole would make it an industry.

Not so much. Hurricanes, floods and wildfires are a normal part of earth's climate, thus observing a single episode tells the homeowner nothing about the relative state of the climate, say comparing preindustrial to current climate temps.

What citizens notice and the News broadcasts comment on is weather, not climate. Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard.

Of course weather is broadly influenced by climate, but only broadly.

There are lots of smart women attached to dumb men. You have heard of the attractiveness of "bad boys", right?

It is my understanding that in a closed universe that the Big Bang is preceded by the Big Implosion

That is an internally consistent, though unpopular view. Let me guess, no one in your family has been a victim of fraud, right?

The thing that makes the Gamestop issue news is that it is an example of Man Bites Dog. No one notices if the headline is: insider elite hedge fund manager destroys pension fund and makes billions. That's normal.

You are absolutely correct, but in general, and for this conversation, the overall winners are governments and corporations, the losers, small business and individuals (just like its been for the past 50 years). — synthesis

I agree with your assessment of corporations. Governments in the US have taken a huge hit since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's, so you are wrong there in the long term. I will agree that the governments have done much better than small businesses and lower wage workers during the pandemic that had to shut down completely, but being a smaller loser is not being a winner. You are correct that the elite who didn't have to shut down were essentially neutral, like it didn't happen. Though they have been big winners since the 1980s.

It depends on the group. I think it is illogical to take account of statistical differences between groups if the existence of those groups can be easily questioned. Take the idea of reparations, for instance. I think there is a solid argument for reparations, and I do think the United States should compensate the victims of slavery. But should someone like Kamala Harris get reparations on the basis of her “race”, even though she is (according to her father) the descendant of a slaver? — NOS4A2

Interesting. I mean it's interesting that when replying to my post about updating initial discriminatory practices (based on group knowledge) when updated with individual information, you used an example using individual information.

As to your specific query, why bend over backwards to use an example that has little to chance of happening in the best case, then use as your specific example a case that is by your admission, the opposite of the best case?

So I would answer thusly: as a thought experiment, I see your Vice President Harris point, but as policy, it is commonplace for criteria to inclusionary rather than exclusionary.

You actually don’t have more choices than the dead nor are you freer than the dead. The dead carry no burdens and in a sense are ultimately free. The burdens of choice are removed. You haven’t listed a justification for going on. You are not powerful nor entirely in control, that’s a lie you’re telling yourself. You may have options but that’s not a good thing it’s more of a burden. Again death is just the better option in the end because you don’t have to live ergo choices don’t really matter when you can forgo all of that. — Darkneos

Rather than call those who have died as "the dead" think of them as the non existent. Basically in the last 13 billion years you were nonexistent, but you may exist here for about 80 years. A relatively insignificant amount of time. If you decide at age 19 to end it all instead of existing until the age of 80, that seems like a big difference, and it is to your parents, but if you eschew them and want to look at the issue philosophically (here on the Philosophy Forum), as a statistician will point out, your time of non existence of 13 billion years plus or minus 30 years is nothing whereas your time of existence of 19 vs 80 years is statistically significant.

It is psychologically difficult for most to justify paying today for something that will be needed "in the future". Pair that with leaders who can't/won't lead and you get what you get.

the reaction to it could have been handled MUCH differently. The handling of the economy could have been MUCH different. Again, there are tens of millions of lives that need to be put back together. There are unbelievable numbers of people with mental and emotional issues and the financial toll has been incalculable.

Funny thing is that nobody in the government lost anything. Most corporations seemed to have weathered the storm OK — synthesis

It is a false assumption to refer to the response in the singular. As we all know the previous administration didn't take the lead (I am stipulating that tweeting is not leadership) so things were left to the states. The states handled things very differently from one another. Where I live, we have the 4th lowest infection rate, so the medical part has gone way, way better than average. OTOH, perhaps businesses have done worse than average, though I have seen no data to support this notion.

State and local governments (who rely on income and sales taxes) have taken huge hits, so any idea to the contrary is just wrong.

As to corporations, the airlines, travel/hospitality industries and any brick and mortar retail is either dead or dying.

There is little difference between so-called positive and negative racial discrimination, in my view. In each case, one adopts a perverted racial taxonomy, a race hierarchy, and applies it to actual people. To give preference to one racial group is to do so at the expense of other racial groups, with little care for the actual flesh and blood individuals involved. Positive racial discrimination is not contrary to racism. It is the continued application of racism. — NOS4A2

You are referring to favoring one race vs favoring a different one and calling that positive and negative. I agree with you that in the moment both are negative. However, Real Life is more nuanced. One issue is taking into account longer periods of time than just this moment. Another is that most racism that takes place is neither positive nor negative, it takes into account the fact that on average, there are differences between groups. Not necessarily among individuals.

Is it logical or illogical to take into account a real statistical difference between groups when dealing with an individual in that group? Not to stick with this difference when updated with individual information, but to start off in the absence of individual data/experience?

I refuse to acknowledge the notion that “speech has consequences” beyond the immediate physical effects, for instance the movement of breath from the mouth or the application of ink to paper. Since no one but myself can control my motor cortex, I believe the activities you described are the consequence of other, more personal factors. But I can understand the folk psychology of the notion.

The problem with this notion, as I see it, is that if speech is to be blamed for political skirmishes or violence, it can be blamed for any and all opposite effects. If you and I hear the same speech, but you go out and riot while I go home and read a book, we remain ignorant to the real reasons why you did one thing and I did another. Free speech becomes the innocent victim. — NOS4A2

Should fraud be illegal? It's often only speech after all.

Is skin-color not used as a marker of race? It is, as are other biological factors.

Let’s get this out of the way, then. Do you believe people should be discriminated against on the basis of race? — NOS4A2

Lots here, (though almost none of it addressed by my post).

Sure, many substitute skin pigmentation for race and base discrimination on it, that is (somewhat inaccurately) referred to as "racism". It is a small subset of the larger topic of "discrimination".

Many discriminate based on race (among many other things), that is not necessarily negative. However, you stipulated: "… discriminated AGAINST...", which, of course is negative by definition, so I am against that.

There are many examples of racial discrimination that are not negative (and I am not against those).

Children!! My guess is there is a lot of commonality here. Firstly, everyone discriminates. The alternative would be to operate in human interactions randomly, which no one does. Thus not all or even most discrimination is negative. Codified discrimination (especially race based) is almost universally condemned (publicly). This wasn't always so and is a description of progress over time. Currently in the West most racism is peer to peer and thus while institutional in many cases, is not codified.

What is missing? What we,humans, cannot accept or imagine that this artificial intelligence can do?
Isn't it that this transhuman, artificial epistemology machine is going to redefine what we belief we are?

What is missing is the subjective part of the human interaction. Not dissimilar how watching a movie that features an actor is not the same as interacting with the actor, regardless if the movie is in High Def or not.

Sounds like a mod felt it was "hate speech" whereas I agree that it seems to be based on ignorance as you mention.

Exactly, TV networks and publishers exist, but are not the modern equivalent of the Illuminati (like some portray the GAFAMs)

Knowledge is power. You can be as easy or as difficult to monitor as you choose to be.

I would say that "all politics in the media are extreme" but moderates don't make the news. It is a perception thing.

Agree about the numerous possible meanings. Generally folks refer to either romantic or family based aspects of love, though technically it includes others.

There are interesting French cave experiments where folks live away from time cues. Turns out that the natural biological clock runs on a slightly longer than 24 hour day. That is folks will choose to go to sleep later and later until they are sleeping during the external "day" and choosing to be awake at "night".

I don't disagree with you (or him). But in my experience insults and attacks, while somewhat effective against beginners, is also a beginner's strategy. Anyone can make someone feel bad by being mean to them. You know you are an expert when you can make folks feel bad by being nice to them.