They should do a study on it. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

:grin: The solution to all our problems: study.

This problem as exposed by Sokal² is probably just peculiar to the subject, whatever that is in postmodernism. I don't think you can pull of such a stunt in the so-called hard sciences (replicating the alleged findings is probably cheaper, faster, and mathematically precise).

If evolution is true, certain ways of thinking e.g. mild paranoia given how nature is red in tooth and claw will be selected for and these will amplified and reinforced through generations that follow.

On the flip side, fixed thinking patterns like suggested above maybe a drawback, evolution preferring flexibility (read free will) in order to tackle the inherent uncertainty in nature; however this doesn't necessarily mean we possess free will.

All evidence is suspect (re Cartesian deus deceptor).

The OP seems to be suggesting that the destruction and catastrophes brought about by humans is adequate justification to let humans go extinct as and when the opportunity arises. We do execute (mass) murderers but the death penalty is slowly but steadily becoming outmoded (Malysia recently abolished capital punishment).

I guess the matter is settled then! :up:

However, in defense of the OP, each monad does offer a different point of view which could be considered as universes unto themselves. A sentence attributed to Sam Harris: In Dr. Craig's universe...(my memory ain't so good any more).

So a human infant, feral human adult or human coma patient, for examples, are not persons because they can't "petition for/demand rights"? — 180 Proof

One word: potential!

"Granted" or not, I think being a person (i.e. having potentials for empathy & creativity and recognizing that others share the same potentials for empathy & creativity) is independent of political/juridical recognition. — 180 Proof

Quite right! A person petitions for/demands rights! Happy the elephant or the Ganges didn't do either!

However, the US constitution guarantess the right to life (Happy the pachyderm is a living organism) and the right to pursue happiness (Happy can feel pain and joy).

Great question!

First, why are people attracted to religion and second, why Christianity?

The answers to these questions may be found in a book on psychology rather than in holy scriptures. If all the options (religions) are lies, truth can't be the reason for making a choice. Maybe we select the religion that, as some say, pull on our heart strings, hits the right buttons in a manner of speaking.

It's intriguing that the laws of physics are not broken by evil but there seems to be at the very least what could be termed as resistance to evil chemically/biologically (homeostasis, pain & death are actively avoided by animals). I guess this could be taken as a sign that evil violates a biological law/drive (horror mortem - life abhors death & horror dolor - life abhors pain).

The laws of physics are unbreachable; the laws of biology can be breached but you'll face stiff resistance when doing so. :chin:

An article about a moral quandry playing out in my old (childhood) neighborhood which calls into question, once again, whether we human animals "have morals" as much as some nonhuman animals do:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61803958 — 180 Proof

It's all hodge podge. I read the Wiki article on environmental personhood and certain natural features like rivers (e.g. the Ganges) and mountains have been granted personhood and that, as per the article, comes with legal protection and also, get this, responsibilities. If a river or a mountain or a patch of woods can be a person why can't Happy the elephant be one too?

Good question! These are the kindsa questions that make me wish I was a biologist. Let's go for the low hanging fruit shall we? I feel there's great symbiotic potential between green plants and animals - I feel if animals could photosynthesize, predation, even on plants, would immediately become pointless!

Nice! So technological correctness is basically an incongruence between truth and people's beliefs. Can you give an example, please?

The chicken-and-egg problem is one that appears to be temporal in character as in before x, y but, sadly, before y, x!

If time can be eliminated from the equation, all bets are off, oui? It's hard for me to conceive of an atemporal universe. Is it just me or is it the same for everybody? I dunno! I would love to analyze this interesting topic but I don't even know where to begin.

:ok:

only not infallibly — Cuthbert

:up:

True. Privacy is not the same as deception. The issue is: does it even make sense to talk about these motivations in the context of simulated behaviour? — Cuthbert

I was just thinking, how do we know if human emotions are genuine anyway? We don't, oui? Someone, it was you perhaps, mentioned in a thread on the Johnny Depp - Amber Heard media circus that neither the jury nor the judge could use the outpouring of emotions in the court from the plaintiff and the defendant as a reliable indicator of authenticity - both were actors!

Crocodile tears? Nervous laughter? Deception vs. Authentic. What's interesting is this: people don't wanna wear their hearts on their sleeves, but that doesn't necessarily imply they want to fool others.

How very parochial and lusterless my point of view is compared to yours.

That said, in my humble opinion, courage & defiance are as impotent as hope - they really don't change the outcome do they now? What do you feel about different strokes for different folks?

Normal/Regular consciousness: {feed}, {f**k}, {fight}, {flee}, {mysticism}, etc.

Mystical consciousness: { } = $\emptyset$

The catch: What's the difference, if any, betwixt thinking about nothing and not thinking at all?

Keep lookin’ for that Boltzmann Brain, Smith. They’re taking applications for astronauts nowadays. — Wayfarer

:rofl:

The LaMDA affair could be just a hoax after all. If people can't tell the difference between genuine and fake research, what else can't we do?

The problem as I see it is that we humans differ from other life-forms not by type (binary/present-absent) but in degrees (spectral/less-more). This makes it nigh impossible to construct a category for humans distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom and sometimes, even from plants.

It could be a big ass hoax! :groan:

When I say "nothing exists" one possible meaning is "everything has ceased to exist". Nothing is a linguistic shortcut. Instead of saying "quarks are the smallest particles" I could say "nothing is smaller than quarks" but nothing doesn't have spatial dimensions whos values could be less than a quark's.

Identity of Indiscernibles is a contoversial topic in philosophy; not so in computer science, Alan Turing's Turing Test proves my point. I believe LaMDA will rekindle and reinvigorate debates on human consciousness, solipsism, p-zombies, and the hard problem of consciousness.

I wonder how this structure would come to be lying in the street screaming with pain? — Wayfarer

:rofl:

Is the OP's argument/pronouncement bases on Nietzsche's übermenschen concept? If it is, I'd say Nietzsche's "defense of slavery" rests on whether übermenschen refer to a certain race/people/tribe/group or to all of humanity. I have a feeling he was making a case for domination by the rich and powerful over the poor and weak. Isn't this how it always was, is, and will be (if we don't do something about it)? That is to say Nietzsche merely restated an already well-known fact. Why all the hullabaloo then? Perhaps where Friedrich Nietzsche differs from his predecessors is that he took a good look at humanity and while others saw illness and maladies he gave a clean bill of health. I dunno!

Volte face: Ethics & Reason maybe connected at a deeper level. Being good and avoiding evil may not be just a reasonable stance to adopt, it could be absolutely necessary on pain of a contradiction (Kantian ethics). Free will, what about it? We havta be good unless we wanna admit to being idiots. Zinloos geweld (random acts of violence as opposed to those that, at some level, make sense).

unquestionably — 180 Proof

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

Negative delusions: inter alia, nothing exists!

hopelessness — baker

Helplessness, Worthlessness :grimace: Ouch!

Amor fati, mon ami, amor fati! :fire:

What is a question? — ucarr

This is a stupid question! :snicker: Falls under @180 Proof's category of Unknown knowns i.e. you know but you don't know that you do...know!

I hope 180 Proof will be gracious enough to provide a link to a post of his which elucidates the points (it involved Donald Rumsfeld in case you forgot 180 Proof).

Did you get hurt or rather did Franz Kafka get burnt...hoping for something that never came to pass?

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst is a rather natural if only illusory (the antecedent) reaction to entropy and (good) luck - a blend of optimism & pessimism, I like it. Do you?

aka courage ↪180 Proof – K.I.S.S. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:ok:

Perhaps technological correctness is not the same thing as political correctness, but my hunch is being technologically correct is related to not offending machines (AI? If and when!) and their creators (computer scientists & engineers). Intriguing that the word "robot" means slave!

You're either delusional or enlightened, but too cryptic to tell. — Tate

@180 Proof $\uparrow$ :snicker:


Depression, not something I'd recommend (even to my arch foes), especially the kind that makes you want the earth to swallow you up and put an end to your misery.

Hope, not to contradict you, seems to be a normal reaction to uncertainty and I'm not sure you'll agree but hope for the best but prepare for the worst. :snicker:

Interesting video!

Danke. I also want to know Athena's take on what "technological correctness" means.

@Hanover@Banno

An essence of a rat are those qualities without which a rat would cease to be a rat.

The essence of a definition (for a word) are the sufficient and necessary qualities that determine the correct application of that word. For example in the definition of a dog as a domesticated wolf, domesticated and wolf are individually necessary and collectively sufficient to identify a dog.

Identity of indiscernibles.

Is "technological correctness" a new concept? This is the first time I've heard of it. Care to explain what it is? Danke.