Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[FrankSophia]

History is a tale of increasing what is included in that.

[FrankSophia]

We can provide the best possible life to all.

Instead we create false distinction by restriction.

[FrankSophia]

Not that the rich have to lower their quality of life.

That can just be what is provided because you're alive.

Instead we accept that some claim ownership and require us to rent our life to gain access.

[FrankSophia]

We can collaborate around interests...

Spending our lives on what we love while the mundane is handled automatically...

Instead we insist on what is barely superior to slavery.

[FrankSophia]

This is why I use "stupid" so much.

It only makes sense if you ignore everything about it.

[FrankSophia]

We could already be living that life.

Capitalism just produces too much duplicate effort.

It is basically antagonistic to collaboration.

It is anti-social.

[FrankSophia]

We haven't actually tried communism yet, it keeps being ran by fascists.

Democracy is the right way to direct communism, weighted to locality of ramifications.

That way everyone gets a say in how their community develops, but they don't get to violate human standards.

[FrankSophia]

There should be no central agency of control.

The "wisdom of the crowd" phenomena shows that generally in large enough groups the majority answer is correct.

The fewer you include in decision making the more that is likely to skew erroneously.

[FrankSophia]

Now politics is just the debate of each topic...

And there are penalties for being wrong consistently...

Now there is just a fight to win regardless of the details.

[FrankSophia]

This can also change how we consume news.

Now we're exposed to important things to vote on them.

A cool side effect is we'll have less time for frivolous things.

This again relies on and builds investment.

[FrankSophia]

No one should ever seek individual control.

Such a person is not fit for that control, people fit for it would recognize the absurdity.

[FrankSophia]

Even I do not want to have a say in every detail...

Indeed, I do not have the skills...

I just know enough to convey it.

[Tegularius]

How do you perceive the idea of benevolence in life without the overlay of religious or spiritual frameworks? And do you think human agency plays a significant role in determining the benevolence of life, or is it more about the natural order of things?

It's always been a kind of non-sequitur conclusion by many that a religious or spiritual frameworks is required for benevolence to reveal itself when instead, empathy and conscience are the natural prerequisites and motivating power which stirs benevolence into being. Empathy is of a range which can encompass even the inanimate in having a sense of mutual being with the object encountered.

[Sy Borg]

It's thought-provoking to consider how AI, devoid of these dualistic human tendencies, might navigate the complex web of human values and allegiances. Could the objectivity and neutrality of AI possibly serve as a mirror, reflecting back the ingrained biases and dualities within human nature? Or, on the flip side, might it exacerbate existing divides by coldly executing logic devoid of empathy and understanding?

Moreover, in a world increasingly intertwined with AI, how might human values evolve? Could AI potentially foster a new form of human interaction and societal structure that transcends the insider-outsider dichotomy? Or might it further entrench existing biases and divisions?

It will depend on how the AI is conditioned and the material used to condition it. If a serious effort is made by the makers to identify previously hidden biases to avoid, then maybe an AI could emerge that showed where the "pragmatic centre" lies in politics.

Indeed, the conditioning of AI carries immense weight in determining its impact on society. The notion of a "pragmatic center" is intriguing. It suggests a point of equilibrium, perhaps where decisions are made based on a balanced consideration rather than skewed biases. However, identifying a pragmatic center could be a complex endeavor given the myriad of perspectives and interests involved.

Moreover, the idea of unveiling a 'pragmatic center' through AI raises questions about the nature of political and social consensus. Could the insights from a well-conditioned AI foster greater understanding and compromise among divergent groups, or might it lead to an over-reliance on technology to mediate human disagreements? And as we venture down this path, how do we ensure that the process of conditioning AI is transparent and inclusive, to avoid merely reinforcing existing power structures and biases?

It's a fertile ground for exploration, and the engagement of diverse stakeholders in conditioning AI could be pivotal. How do you envision the process of inclusivity and transparency in conditioning AI to ensure it serves a broader societal good rather than a narrow interest?

I seek the pragmatic centre - or at least I hope for it from politicians. I think of it on a case-by-case basis. So I favour welfare for the genuinely needy, scholarships, a healthcare safety net, environmental protection, abortion choice, to tax billionaires (at least something), euthanasia, free tertiary education, ethics controls of factory farming, protection of vulnerable minorities and making a real effort to rehabilitate prisoners, not just to punish. I also favour strong testing to ensure that welfare recipients are legitimate, nuclear power, the death penalty for incurable, dangerous criminals, certain financial deregulation, reducing immigration, dialling back multiculturalism, and selection for jobs, accommodation and education based on merit, not on quotas.

When I consider the above lists, each showcases issues in life that make clear that life is clearly full of problems and that humans have the power to reduce them somewhat. The key word in that paragraph is somewhat, which is why the question about life's benevolence was asked rather than assumed.

[popeye1945]

Life lives upon life; how benevolent can that be?