When considering the aristocratic bent of the ante-bellum South, Kevin Phillips' The Cousins' Wars makes a strong argument that the dividing lines of previous generations re-emerged in the American Civil War. It is interesting but does not really engage the problem of slavery and how people responded to it. — Paine

Are you sure it doesn't include the problem of slavery? I am really curious because I have learned the South argued that slavery is an important part of social order. This one line from AI says, " the institution (slavery) was a benevolent, familial, or "paternalistic" arrangement rather than a harsh, profit-driven system."

I had no idea how anyone could think that, but as this thread unfolds, I see that is the same way landowners saw their role in relationship to the people who lived on the land, the serfs, who were later thrown off the land during the "enclosure". The landlord had a paternalistic relationship with the people living on the land, which traces back to Rome and the importance of the Father, and is related to our Father in heaven.

To just throw the people off the land was unconscionable. It was the wrong thing to do during the enclosure, and I am sure it would have been the equally wrong thing to do to slaves. I am not defending slavery, but saying I get it. I finally understand how Jefferson could want to end slavery, but could not just throw everyone off the land. Slavery should have never begun, but once it was established, how was it made right? How does this connect with the British landlords and the "enclosure"? What are the religious truths from a book about slaves and kings that some people claim is the word of God?

Oh boy, I googled for a book and got my favorite online used book store and a few different offers included the one in your post. As much as I want one, I think I'd better hold off until I read the books I already have. On the other hand, if my goal is a united the United States, that information looks pretty important.

:nerd:
There is so much to learn! I think if we lived 300 years, there would still be things we need to learn.

I don't know how many supporters White Christian Nationalists have, but I'm willing to bet that their leaders have more political clout than you would expect from those numbers. — Ludwig V

That is certainly so for Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham. Eisenhower and Billy Graham sat together planning how they would expand the the power of the Church and the government. It was like the story of Satan tempting Jesus, only this time, Eisenhower saw the Cold War offer as a good deal, and we were united against those godless communists. Making our relationship with Israel more important. Oy voy.

We certainly think we are the heirs of Greece in the matter of democracy. Rome's democracy is, I would think, less influential, given that it was an autocracy for so long. The Bible is certainly not a democratic document. But, in the history of European institutions, there was an ancient German tradition that was very influential. — Ludwig V

Yes, I have read that the Celts got along with the Greeks with no problem, but they clashed badly with the Romans. From the Celtic point of view, Rome even made slaves of their own people. I assume that speaks of a Roman hierarchy of power and authority, and many Celts died in wars against the Romans. I have read the Celts had a much higher moral code than the Romans. More in keeping with German-Scandinavian tradition.

I believe this difference involved a spiritual perspective. The Celts and Greeks shared a similar spiritual notion. I appreciate this because the wondering talk comes to Rome's conversion to Christianity, which gave the Romans greater power to conquer the world, until they came up against the Muslims. Another branch of the God of Abraham religions that, for a while, was winning the wars.

Whatever, Evangelical Franklin Graham supports Trump, and leads prayer at the Capitol, he is more politically motivated than his father was. Franklin is using nightly commercials to expand his $25 million holy empire, and I am sure his spot, following a popular news show, cost a pretty penny. We sure are not talking about the average preacher who is pleased to fill one church.

And in contrast, a state like Mississippi which has performed abysmally for at least a century and a half, is currently experiencing an education revitalization that is quite remarkable, so I've heard. I still don't want to live there. — BC

Thank you so much for that information. I googled it and for me the important part is they turned to phonics and gave children extra help if they needed it. There is no excuse for every state not having phonics. For years, we have known that the site-and-say method of learning to read does not work for many children.

The same goes for math! Insisting children learn new math is like insisting every learn to read with the site-and-say method. Teachers wanting parents to help their children with math need teach the parents new math, before the parents can help. Not like the old math that was solidly tried to everyday life and learning how to reason word problems.

The push for technology education and the expectation that every child goes on to college cheats millions of children out of the education they need to discover their talents and interests, and to see how those talents and interests can lead to satisfying careers.

To get this back on track, Learning to read so everyone can read the Bible helped us develop an education system, but believing it is the Church's job to provide moral education is very much our education problem!!! It is an incomplete understanding of the importance of moral training that matches a liberal democratic nation.

Right now, it is popular to blame Industry for our educational failures, and I do not believe that is the industry's fault. I think religion is the problem, and a more Puritanical opinion that we should not expect our schools to give the children a moral education. Every civilization has had the equivalent of the 10 commandments. Good values are part of every religion and philosophy. It goes with being civilized and when we used public education to teach morality, we used literature from all civilizations. But the Military Industrial Complex and Evangelicals controlling education decisions have been very harmful.

I think that religious lobbying tends to punch above its weight. In spite of the various scandals, religion still tends to command the high moral ground. — Ludwig V

I have to argue this point. Again a flash back to the past when we read children moral stories and would ask, "What is the moral of that story". The expected answer would be cause and effect. The Little Hen didn't share her bread because no one would share in the work. The little boy who cried out, " The king has no clothes when no one would say so because they were afraid of being stupid, teaches us speak out when something is wrong.

These stories carry our culture and prepare us for good moral judgment. The Greeks, with a concept of logos, saw morals as a matter of understanding the universal laws of cause and effect. Democracy ideally is rule by reason, and good moral judgment is understanding logos, the reasoning. The gods argued with each other until they had a consensus on the best reasoning, and democracy is an imitation of the gods, which replaces the animalistic law of nature that was brute force.

I am telling the reality of school books and beliefs that made the US a world leader. And we defended the democracy that began in Athens in two world wars. The "White Christian Nationalism" we have today empowered fascism, and that is what we are dealing with today. WHN is a mythology of a god who chooses strong men who intend to be in authority over us. Some fear what Islam will do to our democracy; well, it can not be worse than what WCN is doing to our country. Democracy depends on the philosophy of Hellenism and Rome. Not the Bible and German philosophers.

I am frantic about the United States being united. Education in the US was based on the Athenian model of education for individual development and good citizenship. We did not have education for technology until the first World War. However, the education for good citizenship remained the priority because we believed our national defense depended mostly on patriotic citizens who understand why our democracy must be defended.

We were far behind Germany when it came to military technology, because Germany was run by Prussia, and Prussia centralized education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purposes. The urgency of the national defense need, focused us on education for technolgy and this was a huge economic benefit that changed our reality. Parents became more interested in sending their children to school when that education could mean better jobs and better lives. The change came with a growing middle class and those who think I am just opposed to technology aren't seeing all the facts. I am very much in favor of technology but when we it goes so far as living civics and culture out of education.

In 1958, the National Defense Education Act created a national disaster and here is where the religious issue comes in! There are two ways to have social control: authority over the people or culture. We had education in good moral judgment and good citizenship until that act, which left moral training to the church and dropped civics. That leaves only one way to maintain social order: authority over the people.
Depending on how people interpret the Bible and their understanding of mythology, this change can be disastrous. German Evangicals supported the rise of Hitler with the belief that he was a strong man because God had chosen him to lead Germany. Today, the Evangelicals believe Trump is strong because he is the man God has chosen to lead us.

The White Christian Nation that was Fascist Germany is now the US. That makes it pretty important we take steps to reclaim the understanding of democracy that we once had, and keep the Christian mythology out of our politics. Keep the church and government separate to avoid the horrors of fascism and to maintain our liberty and justice.

Very interesting. I knew nothing about the spread of Puritans across the Northern states. Is there a book explaining that division and why the South is different? We can not relate to each other if we do not understand where the divide is and why. Just what I need, one more book. :lol: But really, how can I live without knowing more about the differences?

Desirable as it is, it seems to me asking a lot to ask people to keep their religious beliefs as a private matter. — Ludwig V

I wonder how old you are because I remember when things were different. My grandmother never talked about religion, and neither did I until Bush junior was reelected after putting us in a war with Iraq. That was the last straw for me.

In Dale Carnegie's day, our private lives were private. He was among the first experts on self-improvement and effective salesmanship. Back in the day, our lives were built on trust, and that meant good customer service and products made to last. It was such a different world. No religion had 25-million-dollar organizations, but Billy Graham was working with President Eisenhower in the 50tys to use religion to mobilize the capitalist US against the "godless" communists in Soviet Russia. On that day, both Graham and Eisenhower increased their power by quantum leaps when they agreed to work together.

In today's world, privacy, tolerance, and respect are soooo different. I went into shock when the news thought it needed to tell us that doctors found polyps in President Reagan's ass.:grimace: Franklin Roosevelt was crippled by polio, and the media kept that secret. I am quite sure Kennedy was a womanizer, and the press kept that secret. It was a different world. Religion was not marketed as it is today and I was not so aware of our government using Christian mythology to justify wars. That has to end.

It was adopted to avoid the religious dynamic that drove the English Civil Wars.

WCN would like to bring that dynamic back — Paine

Ah, how delicious. I love history. But it can be ironic. The Puritans in their North American colony did not practice religious freedom. They drove people out if they didn't conform. But the Quakers were respectful to everyone, even native Americans. They follow Jesus and ignore the Old Testament. It is my understanding that Quakers played a strong role in establishing American values and in ending slavery.

Hmm, what all do we have in this stew? I am going to have to think a little harder about the fact that Christianity is not one thing! Evangelists have become very popular, and they are using the latest technology to reach every life and convert every person, and they seem fine with blending with the government. They are following the path the Evangelicals followed in Germany, believing that God is in charge and works through strong men like Hitler and Trump. It is a myth that can have bad consequences. However, several of the demonstrations strongly oppose the blending of church and government.

I do not have enough information to untangle this. I do not know the reasoning of denominations that want the separation of church and state.

That is a very interesting explanation. I am going to have to think on that for a while, because it is so far beyond anything I have experienced. I love the way you explain the change
"This meant a change in the administration of your citizenship and place of birth." Registration of my birth was secular, and a state-authorized copy of my birth certificate is essential to having a driver's license. When I was given custody of my grandchildren, copies of their birth certificates were essential to getting assistance.

Thank you so much. My head is working on the relationships. We have so many churches that it would be insane if the church were still the main administrative authority. In my head, that looks like a pile of tangled yarn.

We still are not at peace with the meaning of "human rights". Both the North and the South thought God was on their side, making the war worse than it would have been if God had nothing to do with the war.

I checked AI to be sure I have remembered correctly. "In the antebellum South, pro-slavery advocates argued that slavery was a "positive good" and an essential part of the social and family order."

White Christian Nationalism (WCN) may or may not be the harbinger of a future fascist United States, but if such a thing should happen, WCN will definitely be on the reviewing stand as the Männerbund stomps past singing — BC

Where did you get your information about the White Christian Nationalism? I have a couple of books on the subject, and I was shocked when I first learned about it. "American Theocracy- The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" by Kevin Phillips is frightening. We have "In God we trust" stamped on our money. :worry: I thought it was harmless, but not anymore.

That book brings up the rift between the North and South and the US Civil War. To pull this into a philosophical point of view, Socrates questioned the belief in the gods and was executed for this. That doesn't fully address my question: just how dangerous is this clash of religious perspectives, and how dangerous is the South's determination to win the Civil War?

Texas Republicans stood against schools teaching the Higher Order Thinking Skills. These are the skills needed for independent thinking, and the TR argued against children learning them because the children will question their parents' judgment. Understand, TR is favoring authority over the people, and uses Christianity for this purpose. Teachers had to take Texas to court to end teaching Creationism in science textbooks and classes. In the oil-controlled states, the science for understanding global warming is not taught.

Did Sweden have anything like this? Is there anything we can do about it? Might we at least get back to the original Pledge of Allegiance?

What forces separated Sweden's Church and State? Billy Graham established a relationship with Eisenhower during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The US was intentionally united against the Soviet Union with constant media bombardment of those ungodly people. At this time, the word "God" was added to our Pledge of Allegiance. We did not always say "one nation under God".

This is how the US Pledge of Allegiance was written..
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all".

I would love it if we could get back to the Pledge of Allegiance. We sure need that Pledge of Allegiance today.

PS I remember when our day at school started with the original pledge.

Why did the British laborer run to the industrialists for jobs in the first place? Because of the “enclosure acts”; the government dispossessed the people from their traditional lands, so these people had to go work for subsistence wages in the towns and factories. It was either that or starve to death, after all. Had the industrialists not had a ready-made force of starving and sickly laborers to choose from they would have had to provide decent wages so as to entice the workers to work for them. All of this was occurring while the disastrous Poor Laws were already in place.

For every Josiah Bounderby there is bureaucrat behind him. — NOS4A2

What were the lives of people living off the land, like before they were kicked off the land? How much responsibility should the landowners have had for the people living on the land? How could the landowners get the money to meet the needs of people living on their land?

How did that change affect the nation?

Where did the industrialist money come from?

1) Am I right that the US mass media like CNN and Fox News supported Disantis instead of Trump, stating that Disantis is “a young and smart Trump”, “let it be the Trumpism without Trump”, “the approval rating of Disantis is increasing while the rating of Trump is decreasing”? — Linkey

According to AI Fox News heavily favored Donald Trump and the Republican party during the 2020 and 2024 election cycles. https://www.google.com/search?q=who+did+fox+news+support+in+last+campaign&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=who+did+fox+news+support+in+last+campaign&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigATIHCAYQIRifBTIHCAcQIRifBdIBCjIyMzQ1ajBqMTWoAgywAgHxBRc5dEh5ldiV8QUXOXRIeZXYlQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
[/quote]

Not only did Fox News support Trump, but Evangelical ministers told their flocks that Trump is the man God has chosen to lead us.

Rather, we are no more than serfs exploited for our resources. Some countries have such high tax burdens that such a livelihood is tantamount to forced labor, and I think many people are starting to realize that their governments are violating any and all contractual obligations to the people they lord over. — NOS4A2

Now wait a minute. If nurses and hospital staff were as willing to work for low wages as they were not so long ago, medical care would be more affordable, if teachers also did so for less as they did when my grandmother was a teacher, we would have more affordable schools.

I am not so sure the US will avoid an economic collapse. If it does, it will mean people dying to maintain the present status quo.

:lol: Demanding higher wages and then complaining about inflation is a little nuts. If the labor costs more, the product/service will cost more. We cannot compete in the global market with the highest production costs. Long ago, when Britain realized how malnourished and sickly their military-aged laborers were, industrialists were asked to pay more for labor, and the industrialist explained they could not increase costs and compete in the world markets. The solution was government assistance to the poor, which can be seen as a subsidy for Industry. US workers have had to compete with lower-wage laborers in other countries without government assistance. I would not beat my chest and be proud of being the best.

"Borlaug is often called "the father of the Green Revolution",[6][7] and is credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#:~:text=Norman%20Ernest%20Borlaug%20(%2F%CB%88b%C9%94%CB%90rl%C9%94%CB%90%C9%A1%2F%3B%20March&text=was%20an%20American%20agronomist%20who,production%20termed%20the%20Green%20Revolution.

That is why governments support the big guys. They can produce more food and may even have enough to sell on the world market, improving the nation's economy. Unfortunately, this fact of life hurts the little guy.

And when we do give over our thinking to AI, yes, thinking atrophies in us — Questioner

:lol: :rofl: Not nearly as much as the brains of most of the people I know who make no effort to learn anything, and evidently have zero curiosity. The only thing they can talk about is themselves because they don't know anything else and don't care. If you all are surrounded by intellectual people, I would like to know where you find them.

"What makes many applications of artificial intelligence so disturbing is that they don’t expand our mind’s capacity to think, but outsource it…" — Questioner

What are those applications that are disturbing? I look around me and see a lot of ignorance. With AI there is no excuse for ignorance because it is so easy to get information. This is not the same world we had a few hundred years ago. Where should stop developing the sources of information? Should we stop with papers tacked on a church door? Stop with newspapers, or radios or television. This thread is about AI, so should we put the brakes on by limiting what our personal computers can do?

For me, ignorance is the source of evil. What are the problems you see?

:lol: I have to laugh at myself because I know better than to post things when I am tired, and yet I do it. Why is it sometimes so hard to go with our better judgment? I need an AI screener that shuts down my computer before I make a fool of myself.

The explanation of a serious AI problem that I watched last night is that people are charging an extreme amount of money for computer programs that do not work. This is destroying trust, and when there is no trust, there is no business. On the good side, there was a medical discovery done with AI that will save lives. So maybe we should recognize some limits to what AI can do well and what AI does not do so well.

The US has made many enemies, and perhaps it would help if the world understood we are spending far more than our income. We are running on credit, and that is not sustainable. And our whole house of cards would collapse if the world stopped trading oil in dollars. We have a very serious problem with the increasing cost of housing and increasing homelessness. And we do not have a good support system for elders who are not personally wealthy. As someone on the inside, I would say we are dealing with a lot of fear, and that is fertile ground for wars such as our war on immigrants, who are our current whipping boy. "a person who is blamed or punished for the faults or incompetence of others". People who are aware of this and have joined in the protest against ICE are being killed. Evangelists are celebrating what appears to prove the Bible is right about the last days.

With all that bad, we have AI that is totally awesome because it makes so much information available, and as I see things, that gives us hope. In the past, we were ignorant, superstitious, dirty, and germ-ridden. We were often mean and violent and went to witch burnings as a form of entertainment. I want to argue that human beings are not by nature horrible, but when the conditions of life are bad, humans are not refined, and like the angels. Understanding what our conditions have to do with our humanness could be an improvement over believing it is just our nature to be bad. When humans' bellies are full, and they feel secure, they can be a force for good. Making AI taboo holds us back in ignorance and there is no hope.

Do you have answers within your approach?

And the most remarkable thing will happen next. Criticism from within the US is pointless, because the critics themselves thrive on this approach. Workers are paid a decent wage, scientists are paid a decent wage, and the elderly are supported. This prosperity is possible, in part, because it was previously taken away by the empire from those same poor souls drilling oil wells somewhere in Asia, and their children. — Astorre

I have just deleted my reply because I am listening to an explanation of a computer problem, and it has nothing to do with what I think is important, making me realize how pointless my thoughts are. Maybe in the morning I feel differently about this, but this evening I am very discouraged.

This approach requires numerous supports and begins to look like a building without a foundation. But the problem is that an inquisitive (scientific) mind will peer into these holes and ask something like this: "Since, according to the theory of evolution, the fittest wins, then why should I spare the unfit?" Let's try a thought experiment and look at the United States in this paradigm, further developing your critique. The United States asks: "Since we've managed to create a perfect (currently) legal, banking, and government system, why shouldn't the rest of the world work for us?" "What moral justification does Iran have for owning oil, for example, if we're stronger than them?" Or: "Denmark has turned Greenland into a miserable place, why not take it away and make it a paradise using science and technology?" — Astorre

I want it clear that I build my foundation on science.

Who in blazes says the US has created a perfect legal, banking, and government system? :brow: I don't know anyone who believes that. It was not that long ago that we had a banking crisis that spread to all the Industrial countries. We are presently on the edge of panic as our national debt spins more and more out of control. Sooo many things are going wrong who thinks we have a perfect system?

I don't know about everyone else, but I believe the US has exploited our mineral wealth and spent it all, and we are not a treadmill that can't stop, so we have taken on extreme debt. We are the military industrial complex that we defended democracy from.

There is no justification for what we did in Vetnaum, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Cuba, Venezuela, and Greenland.

That is the military industrial complex we fought against, but we are good evangelical
Christians and God wants us to fight those evil people, and He blesses us, so what is your problem with what the US is doing? That is sarcastic! I have a huge problem with what is happening.

"Since, according to the theory of evolution, the fittest wins, then why should I spare the unfit?" — Astorre

That is not the theory of evolution that is supported by the study of DNA. Here is a science that had to wait until we had the technology, and it goes with everything I have already said. Studying DNA has greatly helped us understand our evolution since the last ice age, and that information is linked to information from geology and archaeology. We are very fortunate to have this flood of information, made possible by new technologies. Life is so much better than it was and it may even get better.

But I have one important question for you on this matter: What if "science" is the same faith, with only a new idol? — Astorre

What can be the idol of correct information? Science is a process, not a being of any kind. There is no god to please, only right or wrong decisions, based on what we believe to be true, and Cicero is one of many who believed our survival depends on making the right decisions.

I agree that even scientists can hold the wrong understanding, and it has become common to completely change what we believe when we make new discoveries. This is definitely so when it comes to archeology and geology, and the understanding of our planet and human evolution. If the Bible had been written during the ice age, we would not have gotten the story of Eden, and the belief that the earth was made by a god, especially for us. That understanding of reality just does not go with living in an ice age. Genghis Khan and the mongols who lived in a harsh climate, thought the Christians were nuts to believe in a god who takes care of people. From the harsh climate of the Mongols, a god just assume kill pathetic human beings. And morals were based on the fact that leaving someone out in the cold could be a death sentence- a way of thinking that led Khan to think city people are very immoral.

What we are learning is the result of new and exciting technology. And the way we think about animals and humanity is changing. We now know all religions have the equivalent of the Ten Commandments, because civilizations demand we live by rules of decency. Joseph Campbell said God spoke to everyone, but our stories are different because our environments were different.

Today, with technology giving us better information, we can know that all civilizations have the same values. There is no evidence of a God with favorite people who are blessed, in a world of evil people who must be destroyed. The conflict of good and evil was well known to the Persians and Zoroastrianism. Many believe that several Bible stories are plagiarized from Sumerian stories. The mythological stories are so similar that thinking only one set of stories is God's truth is incomprehensible.
I believe the knowledge we are gaining from technology is leading us into a New Age, when people actually know the truth and live with it rather than false beliefs.

That was way too many words, but it is everything together that gives me hope for a New Age. Technology is important to the development of Consciousness. God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man.

I'd like to discuss this part of your message separately. You say you don't share Christian values, but you believe in science, future development, and the "New Age." — Astorre

I am running off to bed and look forward to this discussion and cup of coffee in the morning, but I want to correct something right away. I NEVER SAID I AM OPPOSED TO CHRISTIAN VALUES. I am opposed to the mythology. The mythology comes with so many false beliefs, such as me saying I am opposed to Christian values. Some Christians have insisted I am Christian but I just don't know it because I strive to live up to the values. Others are shocked that a non-Christian person cares about morals. Those false beliefs about me come with the mythology of Christianity and it is hurtful to have people think badly about me because in their way of seeing things, I can not be good and can not be moral. My biggest hope for the future is getting rid of some of those mythological beliefs. I think without the mythology, we might have a chance of ending wars, and the false belief that we are doing the will of God when we kill all those evil people.

The Protestants thought that with science, they would make a better world. Unfortunately, they had a problem because to reform the church meant interpreting the Bible literally. Which, as all know, prevents them from accepting some science as the truth. I am sure we are evolved from the animal kingdom, and justice requires us to understand that. I think science and the Enlightenment can give us a better reality, but that requires understanding that Christian mythology does not give us the correct explanation of why we are as we are. I am living in a nation that wrongfully took land from the people who were there long before the Europeans, and terrible things were done. Today the US is a very strong military industrial complex that continues to kill and take what it wants and justifying this by saying the people are evil.

I am sorry. The US made a terrible mistake by using Christianity to justify its acts of war. We are all animals but we should not behave as the lesser animals. Nor should you treat others like animals.

If we proceed from the confirmation of being through participation, then a logical question arises: should correspondence with an AI be considered an "I-You" interaction, and does such an interaction confirm the authenticity of your being? — Astorre

Oh my goodness, is the I important? Why would it be?

I do not want to misdirect others with thoughts that do not serve this thread, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. But these other lenses cause me to be unconcerned about my ego as something that can be an immortal I.

I am not sure, but the importance of our egos may change with age if we know there are other ways of thinking of ourselves. For me, a return to God requires egolessness, because it is our egos that hold us separate from God. This God being consciousness. I do not want to be entangled with the people who have walked through my life, and I really like what you said about AI and the mirror. To be a part of this consciousness is a wonderful thing. To be separate from it is lonely.

There is a discussion of "The Crooked Mirror" that will be a perfect way to end my day.

AI is not just a way to relieve loneliness; it also fulfills our need for intellectual stimulation. I am not sure everyone has this need for intellectual stimulation, but it is the most important part of my life and always has been.

More than one man told me that if I want a man in my life, I have to give up my books. :scream: Why would I want to do that? I have slept with the best men in history. Men who do not like women who read can not compete with men who are much more interesting.

What practical value does all this have? — Astorre

First, I want to say I enjoy how you express your thoughts and speak of seeing with a different lens.

Now on to the practical value, I do not have a Christian lens for seeing life. I like to believe in the New Age, a time of high tech, peace, and the end of tyranny. I believe that is our purpose. I believe we are supposed to learn all we can from geologists, archaeologists, and related sciences and then rethink everything. Our purpose is to create an ideal reality. If we are not capable of that, then how could we have a heaven?

Then how would you make that a balanced reciprocal relationship? — magritte

Some of us love our cars. We put a lot into our object of love. Some of us love our homes and put a lot into them. I love coming home and calling out "I am home". It is not so different from loving a cat or a dog, and not wanting to live with someone.

I don't know if I am different from others, but I am aware of a feeling that I think is love. I can walk along the river and feel it. Even though I am not Christian I do not worry about being rejected by God, because I feel the love. And just about everything we have requires our attention. We have to oil it, clean it, and repair it. That is being reciprocal, isn't it?

What would be the point of having the perfect robotic companion if we did not love it?

At the same time, AI is very dexterous. It has taken away much of our mechanical thinking. It copes better with logical problems. We are left only to solve illogical problems or accumulate empirical data for it. This is a great challenge for the future. And yes, we can overcome it. But at what cost? — Astorre

Oh my, I have to steal one line from AI to respond to what you said.

While not truly feeling emotions, this technology simulates empathy to improve engagement.

I read that explanation and immediately wish there were a man in my life who could understand me as well as AI. :hearts: I like to fantasize about having a robotic male companion who can read me and respond better than anyone I have been with. The British show "Humans" brings up the problems we may have if we could make robots that look and feel just like humans. Sharing this TV series and talking about it would be wonderful.

I want to make a point. Compared to an empathetic machine, humans are not doing that well. We misunderstand each other and react to how we feel, not how the other feels. We come with expectations, and we don't always handle things well when our expectations are not met. I am old and I am realizing we can know family for a lifetime, but don't really know them. I am not seeing the cost to having an AI buddy who always knows what to say and what to do.

And an algorithm has no basis for existence. — Astorre

Ouch, AI disagrees with you, and so do I because of my understanding of existence. I believe existence is a matter of math and form. I wish we could use AI because it says things better than I can. This guy says everything is an algorithm

Perhaps engineers could solve this problem if they created a self-contemplating AI, but how can we instill in it the will to do so? — Astorre

That is an interesting question. Why would a computer act as though it has a will? Or I asked AI, do computers talk to each other only when instructed to do so? The answer is no. Because they are programmed to talk with each other, they can do this automatically without a human controlling what is happening at that moment. There are programming limits, but I guess it is convenient to link several computers to work on a task and then go home and have dinner with the family. The whole point is to get it done without being the one who does the work or hiring someone to do it. It is left to AI. Kind of like God created humans and then left them to run things on their own.

AI has changed the power structure worldwide, and our politics have not kept up with our reality. According to Alvin Toffler, the author of Future Shock. In his next book, Power Shift, he says...

Twenty years ago IBM had only the feeblest competition and the United States probably had more computers than the rest of the world combined. Today computer power has spread rapidly around the world, the U.S. share has sagged, and IBM faces stiff competition from companies like NEC. Hitachi and Fujitsu in Japan; Groupe Bull in France; ICL in Britain, and many others. Industry analysts speculate about the post-IBM era.

Shock waves have swept through the media industries, and our medical system has been completely reorganized. Alvin Toffler wrote of this in 1990, so my information is embarrassingly outdated. To refuse to use AI in the fantasy that we can control it by our personal decisions, it is like thinking we can ignore global warming and continue to make our economy strong by burning fossil fuels. Globally, computers are talking with each other, and I don't think they care about what we think.

Here is an update https://www.google.com/search?q=post+IBM&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=post+IBM&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB4yCAgIEAAYFhgeMggICRAAGBYYHtIBCTYwMzNqMGoxNagCCLACAfEFMvAe4ga2OdY&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 It might as well be written in Greek because I don't understand anything it says. Makes me want to garden and forget the rest of the world. There is no way I can keep up, and compared to the people I know, I am the most informed. :scream:

Education. It's already clear that the classic school and university format of education doesn't meet modern needs. First, it's too long, second, too traditional, and third, it produces far more specialists than is needed. A large supply of specialists, combined with their rapid replacement by robots and AI, lowers the cost of their labor. — Astorre

As a retired teacher, I'm going to speak to this point. I think we learned with the Covid homeschooling that a computer cannot replace a living, breathing teacher. The face-to-face connection between students and teachers is fundamental to effective learning.

What sources do you cite that the modern educational system does not meet current needs?

Another point I want to make is that computers/AI cannot ever supplant the artists in our society - the painters, the sculptors, and the writers. — Questioner

What a thing for me to wake up to. :grin: Education is not too long, but it is a lifelong pursuit of happiness that makes our lives rich, even if we don't have money. Really, back in ancient days, Socrates was a working-class man, not a rich one, but he was welcomed at their gatherings for drinking, dining, and arguing about what the best reasoning is. You all have to know this is not my thinking. It is the thinking of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Enlightenment that followed the Renaissance. This ancient thinking was the foundation of our democracy. Only when we are literate in the Greek and Roman classics are we prepared to defend democracy.

The Greek pursuit of happiness centers on Eudaimonia, a concept beyond fleeting pleasure, meaning "flourishing," "living well," or "a life well-lived" through virtue, reason, and fulfilling one's potential, as taught by Aristotle, who saw it as the highest good achieved by acting excellently

Please reread that quote and ask whether that's what education has always been about, or has education radically changed since 1958? Our past education was education for everyone. Our past education focused on becoming good citizens and developing good moral judgment. Our past education made us generalists, not specialists. We replaced that past education model with education for technology, and now we face a cultural crisis that may destroy democracy in the US. Since 1958, all those who are not going to college have been cheated out of the education that would benefit them, not the military-industrial complex.

Some retired teachers know what I am talking about when I hold up a sign for a return to liberal education. Teachers who do not know that history of education become defensive and think I am attacking them. :groan: My grandmother was a teacher, and she had the authority in her classroom, not the government wanting paperwork. After the National Defense Education Act, when her disciplinary methods were interfered with, she found a different school where her authority in the classroom was respected. It hurts me a lot when teachers think I am attacking them instead of them understanding I am fighting for them. Not many teachers would choose to prepare the young for the military-industrial complex and being at the bottom of a chain of authority.

Not only are teachers at the bottom of a chain of authority, but office managers have approached my doctors and dentists while I am receiving care. They have scalded my doctor or dentist for taking too long with my appointment, as though a doctor or nurse is no more respected than an assembly line worker.

If we want a better future, we must have a liberal education. We must get the Miliray Industrial Complex out of our lives! That is not the organization for democracy. We can use this technology for a better future. But we need to agree on a few things and work together because AI can replace us, and all our social, economic, and political decisions depend on the education we choose to have.

That's why I support "industrial democracy" and socialism. I'm not optimistic about the working class (90% of the population) self-organizing in the near or intermediate future. Provided that we did self-organize, the new order would replace fake democracy and autocratic control with democratic ownership and management of the economy. Don't ask! Nobody has worked out the details of how that would work. I believe it can work, will work; but 300 years of the capitalist management since the Industrial Revolution hasn't paved the way. Ursula Le Guin proposed a radical anarchism in The Dispossessed (a great sci-fi novel). — BC

A Democratic Model for industry has been used since the end of the Second World War. Deming tried to get the US Industry to adopt Deming's 14 points of quality management, and the US rejected it; however, Japan's Industry had been destroyed in the war, and when the US was Americanizing Japan, Deming was able to convince them to adopt his model. From there, Japan kicked our butts in competition for world markets.

I had the wonderful opportunity to have training for supervisors using the Deming model. Besides being excellent for Industry, it is also excellent for families because workers learn how to be nicer people, and an autocratic Industry is very mean and harmful.

I think it is important to keep threads on track with the OP, so to get closer to the subject... Today, we can go online and find the information we want, and we can find people who share our interests and concerns, and this was not possible in the past. Workers can use this technology to organize and form unions intended to give them power.

Information is power, and we can get it and share it. Today is nothing like the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and hopefully more people are giving up religion for science and do so to have a better future. You know, the New Age. A time of high tech, peace, and the end of tranny.

If we agree that just because the majority says something doesn't make it right (in most cases, which can be mobocracy), why have we codified societal rulings on ethics and morals in our lives? — Copernicus

I believe there is a connection between reason and morality. We used to read our children stories such as The King With No clothes, The Little Red Hen, The Fox and Grapes, and then ask, "What is the moral of that story." The answer would cause and effect. No one would help the Little Red Chicken make the bread, so she did not share it.

Especially The King With No Clothes is about saying what is true even when no one else is saying what is true.

But the fact is that the working class has not seized control of the economy in order to protect itself. — BC

I think the working class seizing control of the economy would be like trying to pick up mercury with tweezers. :lol: To get control of mercury requires a different tool. To increase working-class control is a matter of organization. We need to replace the autocratic industrial order with a democratic order and return to education for democracy.

Sure, a million bucks for everyone all at once would be intensely inflationary, but that's not likely to be the case. — BC

If Trump has his way with Greenland, we will find out what giving everyone a million dollars does to the economy.

Your "if tomorrow everyone gets $1M, bread costs $1M" example could be instructive. As a thought experiment, it shows that nominal money isn't the same thing as real resources. But it's also an "extreme event-style" scenario: overnight, universal, unconditioned, with no or little matching change in the background neo-liberal free-market structures. Real policy proposals that aim to keep people solvent in an automated economy don’t have to look like that. Inflation depends on system-level constraints: whether the transfer is financed by taxes vs new money, whether the economy has slack or is supply-constrained, whether production can expand, whether rents/monopoly pricing dominate, etc. So "handing out money" isn’t automatically self-defeating (and often isn't in social democracies) It’s a collective design question about how purchasing power is distributed relative to real productive capacity. — Pierre-Normand

Good morning, both of you- With Trump as president, we might have a real-life experiment of what happens when everyone is given a million dollars. I think mathematicians could use math to predict much of what happens. I was not that worried about every Greenlander getting a million dollars until reading Pierre-Normand's explanation, and now I am even more opposed to Trump's desire to buy Greenland. Unfortunately, Denmark made some very bad decisions regarding birth control and the education of Greenland's children. The relationship between Greenland and Denmark is damaged, and having a million dollars seems wonderful, but an even worse decision could come out of this.

For sure, we need a better understanding of economics. We can look at Alaska, which pays everyone who lives in Alaska.... This is too important to ignore, and we need better information than I can provide without the help of AI.

Yes, Alaska pays its citizens an annual Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) from oil revenue, not a "royalist tax," but a share of state mineral royalties, providing yearly checks to eligible residents (including children) ranging from a few hundred to over $2,000, funded by oil extraction, and used as a model for Universal Basic Income.

.

Also, when I lived in a small coastal town, many women earned much-needed money in a shrimp factory where we removed the shrimp shells by hand. A man came to town with a shrimp-picking machine and all the women lost their seasonal income. The man who owned the machine made so much money that every year he invested in a new business to reduce the taxes he had to pay. This one man was getting richer and richer, while the women lost their much-needed money.

That is how capitalism works, but I was one of those women so, coming from the worker's point of view, what if we all got to buy the machine, and we shared the work and the profit? I was of childbearing age, and sharing the work would mean working a lot less and still having money to raise a child. As a young mother, that looks pretty good. But it does not build the capital to create new businesses. But then again, our income would go back into the community.

I want to add something very important. We not only have capitalism, but we also have autocratic industry, and from my point of view, that is the devil, a terrible evil we need to get rid of. Autocratic capitalism is a hierarchy of power, and it can be dehumanizing and bad for families and the whole community. The solution is Deming's democratic model for industry. His model of industry enables everyone to keep learning and contribute to providing a better product or service.

I could be wrong, but I think empowering us to own and manage our income could yield positive economic and social outcomes. If the US returned to education for democracy and we replaced the autocratic industrial model with a democratic model, we might have healthier communities. Now the machine that takes our jobs improves our lives and leaves us independent of government assistance.

When everyone around you believes the dead are resurrected, that makes a resurrection seem possible. Certainly, the Egyptians believed in resurrection, but they were not the only ones.

The Persian Zoroastrianism was very much about the resurrection at the end of time. Mithraism, coming from Zoroastrianism, was popular in the Roman military and dealt with resurrection.

The Greeks had notions of resurrection, but there was no single story of resurrection that everyone shared. At first the Romans could not accept the trinity of God. Until they had a word for that, they were killing each other, because for some, father/son/holy ghost was 3 gods, not one. So here we have a debate of the substance of the soul. I want to clarify that the Greeks had a concept of the trinity, and that Hellenized Jews were the first to write the Bible.

The Celts believed we were immortal and that we could be reborn. Hinduism, Buddhism, are Indian beliefs about immortality and being reborn.

This whole thing gets more complex because it involves not only belief in souls and life after death, but also the idea that Jesus is more than a mortal. This can be hard for some to believe.

Under what circumstances might someone need support? — bert1

Whenever someone has control of a resource that others need, there can be a need for support. When I am asked "how do I direct your call", I snap back "How should I know? I don't know how you are organized. " I try to use a nice tone of voice even though I am mad as hell about the world putting policy above my humanness. In my mind, the person who answers the phone should ask, "How can I help you?" and then s/he figures out who I need to speak with.

The circumstance is being human. And I think if we were having the human experience, there would be less killing by people who feel locked out and desperate.

Yes i think that's right. Discrimination is not the same thing as being mean or even prejudiced. It's about unnecessarily disadvantaging someone, and you can do that while trying to be nice to them. And you can also include someone while not being very nice to them. — bert1

Thank you sooo much. I don't know if any nation has a vocabulary that is better for explaining our experiences. For us, with English, it is often very difficult to convey our experience, including the feeling that goes with it. Everyone at the library is being nice, and they do not understand how an old lady may feel when she is told to use a kiosk instead of having the human experience of being helped that we once had. They are nice people in a dying, impersonal, demanding reality. What it feels like to be a citizen today is not what it used to feel like.

Before AI began taking over, it was how we organized ourselves that was changing. Everything is run by "policy" and that is very dehumanizing compared to the human experience we once had. Now it is policy and technology, and the lockout is much worse.