To sidestep the AI aspect of the OP for now, as well as the (possible) ticking time bomb of climate change and overpopulation...

Whenever I think of The Future, all i can see is The Present, but in different clothing, holding different tech devices, driving (or not driving) different vehicles. Almost like the very concept of a radically different future doesn’t compute with me somehow. Likewise, I don’t know what the word “community” means or is supposed to mean anymore. To me, it is one of those words that have become almost neutralized, bland, drained of meaning and blood (as have the words “love”, “progress”, “immorality”, etc.). This is despite the apparent importance of the concept itself. But words losing their meaning or their bite is another topic.

So let’s, for this example, replace the word “community” with the word “team”. I think that the team concept is very clear, especially in sports. Individuals comprise the team and are measured by statistics, but there is some tempering of individual desires to maintain a team spirit, a camaraderie. This is done of course in quest of victories on the field or court. A player can be a great athlete, a great team player, or both, or neither.

What I’m getting at with this overextended metaphor is this: right now the best case present scenario is that we are bunch of All-Star caliber talents with little training in how to act as a team. This training and knowledge has been consistently under-appreciated for as long as the oldest citizens can remember. Team spirit in our daily life of course exists here and there through the efforts of people, and perhaps some sort of grace. But we are suspicious of it. What if i give my best for the team, as someone else gets the money or credit? (I don’t exclude myself from this suspicion or failure).

We are the Beatles circa 1969. Full of talent and experience, but also exhaustion, bitterness and quarrels. The earlier Beatles were almost certainly never as jolly and equal as advertised, and were maybe partially formed as a musical street gang. But there was some sort of intense cohesion.

Are we the personification of this line by Monte Burns from the television show The Simpsons?:

“Oh, I'm afraid I've had one of my trademark changes of heart. You see, teamwork will only take you so far. Then the truly evolved person makes that extra grab for personal glory. Now I must discard my teammates, much like the boxer must shed roll after roll of sweaty, useless, disgusting flab before he can win the title. Ta!”

(The rich Mr. Burns had forced his way onto Homer’s bowling team, and despite his incompetence, they won the trophy).

If we are like this, is there a way to change it? Is it some fixable fault? Or is it a fatal flaw etched in our DNA? Have we met the enemy, and they are us? Are a relatively small group of criminals at fault, misleading others and obscuring the facts? Or is this example off the mark? If it is, prior to further technology salves and salvations, what then is the central glitch in the human heart and/or civilization that is causing such angst? Where are the bugs in the software?

The human condition itself would have to change in a paradigmal way in order for the good to be attainable. — Noble Dust

Is it me or does that sound incoherent to you? How, why, and to what end?

So it's just Posty. OK. All is well. — Bitter Crank

It's just Posty? How dare you deny my inherent self-loathing nature manifest in imitating Schoppy1?

is it a fatal flaw etched in our DNA? — 0 thru 9

Pretty much.

We are inventive and adaptable, so we make new stuff and then we get used to it; then we begin to look for a new frontier of invention. Round and round it goes.

The modern market economy is based on our interest in and enthusiasm for novelty, and our rapidly developing boredom with what all we've got.

Tired of boring old on-line porn? Buy the all new and exciting Sony Orgasmitron Porn Viewer RIGHT NOW. Plug it in and turn it on. Feel every thrust and spasm of the star's 1000 orgasms. The durable probes are dishwasher and washing machine safe.

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.

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. — Noble Dust

Maybe we're all crazy? I think there's some utility in expressing 'the good'. We all seem to have our own conception of it. One of its forms is manifest in the golden rule and so on. To each his own?

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".

The human condition... Hmm, go ahead and share your opinion about it if you want. I will assume a quietist attitude here and listen to what you have to say.

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.

is it a fatal flaw etched in our DNA?
— 0 thru 9

Pretty much. — Bitter Crank

Uh oh... i was ascared you’d say that! :smile: I agree that human nature has many weakness. Or to put it optimistically: opportunities for growth. So all we can do is some type of damage control? We seem to lack a sense of priority, perspective, and balance often. When I was a kid, I knew that eating some candy made me feel good. I reasoned/assumed that having 10x the amount of candy would make me feel 10x as good. Of course, it didn’t work that way. Just felt sick. To this day, still trying to learn balance.

Tired of boring old on-line porn? Buy the all new and exciting Sony Orgasmitron Porn Viewer RIGHT NOW. Plug it in and turn it on. Feel every thrust and spasm of the star's 1000 orgasms. The durable probes are dishwasher and washing machine safe. — Bitter Crank

OMG! Link? Where can one get such a wonderful device? (whispers to self: balance... balance...) :blush:

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. — Noble Dust

It is, perhaps, better to view the human condition at a middle distance, rather than up close. Animal existence (alligators, otters, wildebeests) viewed up close is a chaotic, chattering, bloody mess. In the middle distance Nature is benevolent, graceful, and lovely. Our private first person view is always up close; then we are the star in our inept little farces. Get into a Silent Night mood where all is calm, all is bright, and view the world from a middle distance. The stupid farce becomes a drama in 5 acts.

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

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. — Noble Dust

So, yet again I ask. What's the issue with technology and science here? They are merely tools that we either use positively or negatively to our benefit or destruction.

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?

Well, the proof is in the pudding if you will. We're still here even though we came pretty close to MAD. It's just that the rate of progress over the past 100 years in terms of efficiency gains and productivity have been mind boggling. I don't know how the future exactly looks like; but, in my view we have and will continue to make progress to the point where 'work' will be taken over by AI.

It's a rosy POV; but, I don't see exactly how you can deny it by any argument.

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.

So, we can agree that there's a dichotomy here between human kind or nature and technology that you are trying to outline here. One is stagnant or unchanging since a good while and the other is progressing at breathtaking speeds. So, where does your conception of changing human nature come into play as you've already mentioned? My opinion is that technology has already changed the human condition to a significant extent. I don't believe we are able to keep up with the pace of technological development anymore, and quite possibly we're going to have to converge with technology in some manner or form.

Some people think it will be a dystopian future; but, the dichotomy will eventually cease to exist if our desire to continue living keeps up.

That's not even wrong. It's plain nonsense. — Πετροκότσυφας

What makes you say that? Don't you use a telephone or smartphone nowadays? You posting this here instead of meeting at a public forum in person already proves my point more or less so.

Yes, how else do you explain increases in economic output, productivity gains, and efficiency improvements in the process of production?

I put it in that fallacious wording, seemingly, because we have not yet erased the dichotomy between technology and human nature. But, the way things are shaping up, we might just become in some manner or form a Borg-like entity in the not too distant future. As it stands, though, humans still operate slow and timidly comparatively to computers and a potentially vastly superior coming of age, AI.

To adapt, if one so wants to, we will have to converge with that coming reality of superintelligence and all that jazz that we hear about what computers can do better than us.

Obviously, not everyone is interested in converging with AI...

What do you mean by that?

EDIT: So, AI is just a term denoting the ultimate creation of humanity. What's not to romanticise about it?

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.

You don't really give me much to reply to here; but, I'll give it a shot. AI, comparatively makes no sense to us. Nor will it ever really make sense to us, because of the fundamental nature that it will have, which I don't even have any idea what it might look like.

My take on the matter is that we ought to create AI in our image, as God did us comparatively to Him. Namely, the only form of AI that I would acknowledge as 'true' is one equipped with a brain in silicone or whatever substrate that AI will exist in. To be more precise, if we can replicate our brain, with all the human emotions that we have in silicone, then that will be as close to our image as possible. It might even 'relate' to us or feel empathy or reciprocate kindness with good deeds also.

There are some real issues with this conception of AI though. Maybe it would be too dangerous to have AI also possess human emotions also, like anger, psychopathy, and rage, greed, malice, and so on.

It's apophatic; I know it's possible because I feel it's lack. — Noble Dust

Yeah, there was one Jesus, one Buddha, and one Mohammed. They can't be replicated or even imitated. We do strive towards their image though, in our own way.

To each their own?

OK, now I sound nihilistic or solipsistic. :roll:

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:

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

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.

If a lion could speak we would not understand it.

Will do!

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.

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