The reasons are the degradation of moral values — lepriçok
the danger of technological disasters, adverse effects to life of artificial fields and materials — lepriçok
What is the highest possible level of scientific achivement, before things going south to us? Is it possible to avoid this fate? — lepriçok
@EcharmionWhat would this follow from?
@EcharmionAssuming there are no inevitable suicide pact technologies...
By moral values I mean ethics in scientific research, the lack of which causes disrespect to life. Also, political, economic, and social power that technologies allow to accumulate and the following inequality, based on the ideology of technological supremacy, or technofascism. — lepriçok
What is the highest possible level of scientific achivement, before things going south to us — lepriçok
You just clarified a definition. You didn't at all address what it would follow from. — Terrapin Station
Since we know very little about the structure of reality, we can hardly fathom the full effect we make on the world and ourselves. — lepriçok
Even given that, he asked what it would follow from. You just clarified a definition. You didn't at all address what it would follow from. — Terrapin Station
I think Lepechaun uses his definition as an axiomatic truth. — god must be atheist
If we can't fathom that, then we also can't fathom how little effect we make on the world and ourselves. Some measure should be available before making such a statement. — god must be atheist
What do you mean by 'truth' referring to future events? — lepriçok
I bet this is more like a bad foreboding. — lepriçok
By moral values I mean ethics in scientific research, the lack of which causes disrespect to life. Also, political, economic, and social power that technologies allow to accumulate and the following inequality, based on the ideology of technological supremacy, or technofascism. — lepriçok
There's no single scenario, I see a lot of possible dangers. Mass suicide would mean stupidity, bigger problem would be mass murder, downfall of civilization and extinction, as in mutual destruction deterrent technologies.
Also, the mentioned disrespect to life would open gates to technologies that do not value human beings, introduce technological slavery into society and create techno-fascist dictatorship. As in genetics, neuroscience, eugenics etc. — lepriçok
The reasons are the degradation of moral values, the danger of technological disasters, adverse effects to life of artificial fields and materials, etc. — lepriçok
To me the relation is obvious, it depends what morality and ethics are founded on. It may be sentiment, reason, 'reality', ideology, society, some .org, brainwashing etc. The more we know, the more shaky these foundations are. Also, there is a psychological factor - power perverts character, and technology is power. Also, we have here the dichotomy faith vs knowledge. Morals has a divine source in its origins - first we have human gods, then heavenly gods, finally GOD. Knowledge promotes logical destruction of these, along with all other arguments. Then we have only left the self preservation instinct, which is erased by mass media in the contemporary society. The result is the dumbing down of an average consumer and arrogance of our masters.But how are the ethics of scientific research related to the amount of knowledge? It seems to me the ethics would be the same regardless of the level of technology, all else being equal. — Echarmion
Our reality has three main realms: mind, external matter and the process of their cognition. — lepriçok
When cognition connects mind and matter ... — lepriçok
... reality is converted into information, having a form of scientific notation. — lepriçok
The product of cognition process is knowledge which has a quantitative characteristic. — lepriçok
If the entire reality is 100% ... — lepriçok
On the other hand, I do not think this is possible, and before reaching the goal, humanity would self-destroy. — lepriçok
The reasons are the degradation of moral values — lepriçok
What is the highest possible level of scientific achivement, before things going south to us? Is it possible to avoid this fate? — lepriçok
To me the relation is obvious, it depends what morality and ethics are founded on. It may be sentiment, reason, 'reality', ideology, society, some .org, brainwashing etc. The more we know, the more shaky these foundations are. — lepriçok
Also, there is a psychological factor - power perverts character, and technology is power. — lepriçok
Also, we have here the dichotomy faith vs knowledge. Morals has a divine source in its origins - first we have human gods, then heavenly gods, finally GOD. Knowledge promotes logical destruction of these, along with all other arguments. Then we have only left the self preservation instinct, which is erased by mass media in the contemporary society. The result is the dumbing down of an average consumer and arrogance of our masters. — lepriçok
This doesn't really make any sense to me. In my opinion, only a false morality could be shaken by knowledge. — Echarmion
This saying is based on some truth on a personal level, but there is no evidence our modern, technological societies are, as a whole, more perverted than past societies. — Echarmion
Not everyone agrees morality has, or needs, a divine source. — Echarmion
By moral values I mean ethics in scientific research, — lepriçok
Cognition does not connect mind and matter. Cognition is a function of the mind. — Fooloso4
This is a difficult cookie. Ethics are not defined anywhere in its literature, or wherever the word pops up. — god must be atheist
Science has become the new religion, and since it hasn't given us any basis for objective morality, many have come to the conclusion that it must not exist. — Tzeentch
I understand ethics only as a consideration in ones action not to do gratuitous harm to anyone/anything. — lepriçok
So to you there is no difference between good and ethical. If I read your sentence right. — god must be atheist
Cognition is both a function and an action. The function emerges from the mind, but acts on and of reality, by doing something to it, perceiving how it changes, observing the laws, relating to it, connecting onto it an so on. There is much more in cognition than a function, concealed in a mind-box. Mind is connection, intention, relation and so on. There is an object, the subject and some process bridging them. Now, I hope, I have expressed the thought more clearly. Everything else follows from this. Misunderstanding occurred only because our boundaries of perception and concepts are different. However, sense and absurdity is not polarized by mere difference in individual perception. — lepriçok
You have missed the point. It is not a question of whether cognition is a function or an action or both. You claimed that reality has three main realms, mind, external matter and the process of their cognition. The process of cognition is a mental process, not something separate and distinct from mind. — Fooloso4
mind is brain — lepriçok
So, we have micro-realms and cosmic realms that are connected this way: cosmic realm (conscious matter) - mind micro-realm (personal substance) - cosmic realm (unconscious matter). — lepriçok
What is the highest possible level of scientific achivement, before things going south to us? Is it possible to avoid this fate?
If, for example, you claim that the brain is conscious matter it does not follow that there are two kinds of matter. It may be, that the difference is the organization of matter, that when matter is organized in one way we get unconscious things like rocks and when organized in another way we get brains. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.