New York would have been almost unimaginable. — Existential Hope
Anything could happen! — Vera Mont
True, it's not my m.o., except when warranted by your silly "myriad of possible reasons" for why any attosecond (10-¹⁸ s) ASI would ever take any notice of any comparatively unthinking milli/deci-second (10-³/10-¹ s) lumpen biomass such as an individual (or swarming) specimen of the h. sapiens species. Just more special pleading "Roddenberryesque" anthropocentric utopianism on your part which, if I may say so, mate, is quite illogical! (\\//, :nerd: ) — 180 Proof
A code of ethical behaviour of course, do you think an advanced artificial intelligence such as @180 Proof's presentation of an ineffable future ASI (at least from the reference frame of us poor wee bioform incapables) would face the issue of morality? If it's solution is to act like a god of theism or to ignore or not care about most existents in the Universe, then in the opinion of this wee incapable bioform, such an ASI would be inferior and doomed to extinction as it would have developed poor precedence on which to base its future goals, and purpose.What does 'moral' mean in this context? — Vera Mont
Human standards.By what standards? — Vera Mont
My contention that enlightenment/adding more and more extent to your personal knowledge, produces a moral code that is more and more compelled to nurture all existents in the universe and defeat/contain/reverse that which threatens such. If that is not the outcome of enlightenment then what ever you did to try to enlighten yourself, failed badly, so you need to try again.For what reason? — Vera Mont
A need to establish good reasons for continuing to exist.What would impel it? — Vera Mont
Which human agents? All humans agents?Not as it has applied to human agents through history. — Vera Mont
They why did/do humans ask questions and seek answers about insects, to the extent that they created Entomology? Why do we not choose to just ignore such low bio forms in the same way @180 Proof suggests an ASI would be justified in ignoring the low human bioforms?( that just happen to be responsible for its existence).Certainly not to human sentiments regarding insects. — Vera Mont
Don't forget, in the case of a future ASI, that non-human's existence would be a product of AGI, which is 100%, a product produced by us. Do you not think such an advanced ASI would have to appreciate that, if it is so intelligent? If humans create gods, do you not think those gods would owe us at least our continued existence and they would be seriously flawed if they chose to ignore as @180 Proof, suggests C would be justified in ignoring A?Why would it apply to a non-human? — Vera Mont
The house is built by discrete bricks. — Existential Hope
A code of ethical behaviour of course, do you think an advanced artificial intelligence such as 180 Proof's presentation of an ineffable future ASI (at least from the reference frame of us poor wee bioform incapables) would face the issue of morality? — universeness
then in the opinion of this wee incapable bioform, such an ASI would be inferior and doomed to extinction as it would have developed poor precedence on which to base its future goals, and purpose. — universeness
A need to establish good reasons for continuing to exist — universeness
Do you not think such an advanced ASI would have to appreciate that, if it is so intelligent? — universeness
on the possible reasons behind Gandhi's particular advice towards this desperate man during such awful events. — universeness
No. I think our notion of morality would be alien and irrelevant to it. — Vera Mont
I am sure a Borg drone would agree with you, if any existed, do you think Borg drone, is a good prophecy for the future of humans?which would also be irrelevant to it. — Vera Mont
Do you consider that a good or bad decision for a future ASI to make, or do you think like an imagineered Borg drone, that such psychological anomalies, as humanitarian-based secular morality, is irrelevant?I see no reason for this psychological anomaly to infect an artificial intelligence. — Vera Mont
I have given no indications regarding my 'appreciation' towards individual dinos or species of them. I opined on their achievements not on whether or not I 'appreciate' them or the fact they existed. I do appreciate their existence, as they exemplified that the conditions on Earth allowed for life to evolve, long before humans ever existed, no gods required. I don't think there were any dino gods. Don't know for sure of course.The way you appreciate dinosaurs? — Vera Mont
I have no recollection of posting such a suggestion!No humans would slaughter one another's children over land, water and religion anymore, right? — Vera Mont
I am sure a Borg drone would agree with you, if any existed, do you think Borg drone, is a good prophecy for the future of humans? — universeness
Do you consider that a good or bad decision for a future ASI to make, or do you think like an imagineered Borg drone, that such thoughts are irrelevant? — universeness
I do appreciate their existence, as they exemplified that the conditions on Earth allowed for life to evolve, long before humans ever existed. — universeness
I hope that such is an absolute fact about humans at some point in the future, however. — universeness
It has to do with the human ability to create goals, intent, purpose, rules of behavior, legislation etc, etc.What has that to do with the question at hand? Alien life-forms, whether biological, artificial or some combination, do not require my approval and do not operate according to my preference. — Vera Mont
So you predict a future based on lies?So, there's your answer. The future life-forms will be aware that we once existed, made no progress and went extinct. — Vera Mont
Based on current indications. And progress. — Vera Mont
There are many many experts in that field, working very hard, to create an AGI that 'learns' what humans are discovering/identifying/exemplifying as the most desirable aspects of the notion of human morality. — universeness
So you predict a future based on lies? — universeness
The vast majority of the human cities currently existing on this planet, were not bombed today! — universeness
Well, for starters, "low human bioforms" are more like fossils to "ASI" than insects are to h. sapiens. We "do not choose to ignore such low bioforns" because we are also "such low bioforms" which are fundamentally inseparable from the biosphere shared by all "such low bioforms" and, therefore, in the interest of survival (& development), we do not "choose to ignore" (i.e. ignorance of) them.Why do we not choose to just ignore such low bio forms in the same way 180 Proof suggests an ASI would be justified in ignoring the low human bioforms? — universeness
I don't think those are lies from your POV: it's what you told me regarding dinosaurs. — Vera Mont
Oh, goodie! Only 110 armed conflicts. Come to think of it, even fewer cities were bombed - or attacked by any means - on this day in 3023 BCE. Progress? — Vera Mont
That's because 'no significant achievements' is true for dinos but not for humans. — universeness
Well, a more accurate comparison might be that in 3023 BCE, there was probably far more slaughter between human groups than there is today. — universeness
I think us low bioforms are already far more moral and useful in the universe than the ASI you have imagineered, could ever be. — universeness
You just can't peer over that anthropobsessive barrier, can you? — Vera Mont
I happen to find post-human fables more believable and uplifting than super-human (or supernatural) fantasies. — 180 Proof
Socrates said it is most important to know ourselves, to be aware of what we think and why we think what we think. What is our "story". I use the word "story" because of how that word is presented in a set of CDs about communication. Our story is not just what we tell ourselves about ourselves but also what we tell ourselves about "those people". Our stories determine our behavior unless we are aware of them and question them. What you just called being able to see outside of our own bubble. — Athena
There are some wonderful things about polytheism. Your gods can argue with each other and their arguments expand our consciousness. This is not so with the all-powerful one and only god.
Athenians gave us humanized gods and each one is a concept. Together the gods led to increasingly complex concepts, and this can not be done with Christianity which has only good or evil. If the Renaissance had not occurred we would still be living in the dark ages. It seems a near miracle to me that some Christians and scientists have learned to live together. A book that starts out explaining we are cursed because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge, is not compatible with democracy and universal education to empower the people. I don't think we can get past black or white, right or wrong, this or that thinking, as long as Christianity dominates our culture and the other half of our citizens are ignorant of the reasoning behind democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning. This does not come with the God of Abraham and social structure based on heritage, not the merit that organized Athens. Our freedom of social and economic movement comes from Athens, not the Bible.
Christianity plus education for technology is terrible for humanity! Our love of technology is pushing the this or that, right or wrong, mentality. And what you said is so true! :heart: — Athena
The golden rule can also be a secular humanist rule, no need for theistic support, imo but I am glad that some religions do try to employ it. It's certainly true that many religious individuals, have made great sacrifices to help other people, but I personally think that such is demonstrated by non-religious folks as much as it is by religious folks. — universeness
This can be done successfully, I believe, though any person is capable of making mistakes (and learning from them hopefully). — 0 thru 9
I love this statement too! :heart: Have you spent time with a severely retarded person who is amazing at seeing life as it is and making good choices? You and I have heads full of stories and most of the time our heads automatically give us feedback based on our stories, not so much the facts at the moment. For example, I attempted to leave a gated nursing home with my friend and as soon as I saw the locking mechanism, I knew we had to go back inside to get the code (my technological story of how things work). My friend stuck his hand through the gate and opened it from the outside. He was a great help to me when my life was turned upside down and my middle-class mentality was not enough to keepFacts are facts, and facts should certainly be recognized for optimal existence. — 0 thru 9
In the experience of being a human, with perceptions, sensations, ideas, and feelings swirling around our minds, and activity churning nonstop around us, using internal stories makes the world clearer to us. — 0 thru 9
As an example, if a person chooses to perhaps weave into their stories zombies, unicorns, Batman, gnomes, angels, demons, ET aliens, UFOs, multi-dimensions, talking animals or ancestor spirits… and can live a stable existence, who’s to say otherwise? — 0 thru 9
But is claiming to be completely 100% story-free itself a story we can tell ourselves?
Is it helpful or not? — 0 thru 9
Wow is that an exciting question when mixed with universeness's understanding of AI. AI can create music but can it stop a war? Or would AI even attempt to create music without a human programming it to do so? With AI I think we are going through a major consciousness change and it could be fun to come back in 200 years to see how humans doing things in the future. What stories will they tell that explain their nations? Our young today do not have a lot of interest in dead men and what used to be.:lol: They can't even think about what happened a few years ago has to do with what is happening today. They know themselves and their lives but not much more.Is this continuous story creation an advanced creative power we have? — 0 thru 9
Seriously, I believe humans are capable of good reasoning based on truth, but I also think that requires an education that we are not getting.
— Athena
When and where in the last half millenium did most, or many, human beings get such an education? And why did such an education fall out of favor with educated leaders (i.e. movers & shakers) so much so that, apparently, "we are not getting" it any longer? — 180 Proof
My question above still stands, Athena, to which I add: so what was the pre-"1958" "purpose of education" vis-à-vis state-sanctioned racial terrorism / legal segregation, systemic discrimination against women & gays, widespread unfair & unsafe labor practices, endemic populist antisemitism, wholesale environmental degregation by agriculture & heavy industry, and ongoing land (and mineral rights) theft from and 'public erasure' of Indigenous Americans ... at least since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1788?We have been going through social breakdown or what some may call creative destruction at least since 1958 when the National Defense Education Act radically changed the purpose of education. — Athena
My insurmountable hurdle was this one:
The closer a system gets to the 4 omnis, the more moral it would become.
— universeness
What does 'moral' mean in this context? By what standards? For what reason? What would impel it?
Especially when bolstered by this:
Does 'with great power comes great responsibility,' not ring true for you?
— universeness
Not as it has applied to human agents through history. Certainly not to human sentiments regarding insects. Why would it apply to a non-human? — Vera Mont
↪Vera Mont
Humiliation does not cure hatred.
— Vera Mont
I think that Mahatma Gandhi's primary aim was to generate understanding. Both communities then, and even now, often misunderstood the other and believed as if the other side was filled with evil people who were hell-bent on destroying them. Breaking this perspectis a major step towards national unity. To a great extent, he managed to succeed in his aim. Even during the height of the Pakistan movement (and the communalism of the Hindu Mahasabha), leaders such as Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan stood by Mahatma Gandhi and the idea of a united India. — Existential Hope
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.