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

[Lagayascienza]

Religions and their various gods come and go. They build on ancient tribal deitites, they grow, evolve, transform and die out. None of them last because none of them are true. They are about power and control in this life, with a promise to the sheeple of a life to come if they stay in line, and eternal damnation if they don't.

[Sy Borg]

It may have been longer than intended but it was a good read, Sy Borg.

It got me thinking that, if AI is involved in the next "universal wave", that next wave might be as inimical to general human comfort and well-being as previous waves.

Yes. It will result in a greater split between those with access to the top AIs and those who don't. That's why I predict a future species split - well, that and the last 3.8 billions years :)

Glad you enjoyed he read. I try not to be too dry and boring because reading on a screen in harder than on the page.

Universality is a nice idea but, for it to happen, we humans would need to become a different sort of animal. We would need to think in terms of humanity as one entity, acting in concert to better it’s situation rather than in terms of old religions, races and nation states jostling for power. AI might be a catalyst for that, especially if it goes badly wrong. But, if that happens, AI, instead of us, might become the Giant Sphere’s latest, most eloquent expression.

Hehe - I'm fairly sure AI will be involved right up to its neck bolts in the Earth's future expressions. Whether it will be capable of doing so without human help is another matter. The Penrose camp that sees consciousness as the product of quantum activity in microtubules (who were previously blithely dismissed by "experts", but recent studies how shown that he might be right) figures that "wetware" will be necessary for internality. Then again, there's been work on using neurons to add brain processing power to microchips, which are apparently currently being used biomedicine, pharmacology, environmental analysis, and biodefence.

Another scenario that might bring humanity together is a climate catastrophe so huge that it threatens our existence. It would need to be so bad that it makes us realize that we are all in the same boat and that the boat will sink unless we act as one. We already know what’s happening to the climate and why, and yet coal mining, and oil and gas extraction continue to be expanded and the rise in GHG emissions continues unabated, so I’m thinking things will have to get pretty bad before we woke up. But, by then, it might be too late.

I don't think so. I think it would simply break nations up into disparate cultures that would grow without significant contact with other survivor groups.

Yet another scenario that might nudge us towards universality is an alien invasion - humanity against an extraterrestrial. This might be a more immediate and effective a catalyst than one like climate change which will play out over several generations. Maybe humans need an adversary. But any ET who could get here and threaten us would be much more technologically advanced and powerful than us, so, again, we may “wake up” too late to do anything about it.

And if such a threat did occur, many would proclaim the End Times predicted by their religion. and they’d be out looking up at the sky waiting to be raptured rather than helping out.

Yep. An alien invasion would only do it if the invaders showed no interest in communicating, only conquest. Then we might unite against a common enemy. If aliens showed the slightest interest in bargaining, it is certain that US, Chinese, Russian, Iranian, Korean and French envoys would be desperately sucking up to the aliens in the hope for preferential treatment, and provision of advanced tech that could easily defeat their (human) enemies.

I don't think humans have evolved/advanced enough to live up to theistic ideals of "goodness, truth and beauty". Let's say, 1-10% of individuals are really, really trying to be truly good human beings to all, without any nativism or nationalism (never mind the speciesism, eh). What of the other 90+%? I'd make a scratchy guess that there would about be as many people who care nothing for goodness, truth and beauty as there are who are passionate about those ideas. At least ...

Bringing advanced morality to today's masses is akin to trying to teach chimps to write novels, and then consistently being disappointed when they write "jfsff fud )))) ilkooy bana )))) qaa ))))) cwgz ".

[Sy Borg]

Pattern-Chaser, you are a cheeky blighter .

Like Belinda, I didn't know who Kal-El was. I Googled it, half expecting some obscure reference to a name given to Yahweh's successor. Then I found that I was not quite on the right trail ...

[Pattern-chaser]

But i don't understand what you mean by "Kal-El".

Sorry. My (so-called) sense of humour. Kal-el is Superman's Kryptonian name.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-Chaser, you are a cheeky blighter .

Cheeky? Well, at least it's nice to see you defending the proprieties when it comes to God...

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

I believe in the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible because of our fine-tuned universe and the visible creations around us, as well as the accurate fulfillment of Bible prophecy. There are some 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

Alter2Ego

AWESOME!! I read the Bible 4 times, maybe I didn't look at it properly

Please give 5 or 6 fulfilled prophecies.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

Excluded middle: Either God exists or God doesn't exist.

Random comment: The so-called 'Law' of the Excluded Middle applies only to binary thinking. If we branch out toward systems thinking, that I prefer to call network thinking, then the 'Law' of the Included Middle applies...

Either, or, both, or neither...

The Law of Excluded Middle applies to any logical propositions that are true dichotomy. "Thinking" is irrelevant to that law.

Yes:

Dichotomy
noun

1. a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

As I said, "binary thinking". Such 'laws' are guides to our thinking; they have no other purpose, yes?

And if we go your definition of binary thinking, being either, both, or neither, are still binary thinking.

Either A or B = binary
Both A and B = binary
Neither A or B = binary

So, your point is......?

I would say that "neither A nor B" is a category that can then be broken down to include C, D, E etc - that is, all the many notions of the nature of God/s.

Here are seventeen major concepts of God:

I very much doubt that would be an exhaustive list, too. So I don't see the question of God existing to be a binary proposition, because the question is then, "Which god?". We then may apply a binary judgement to each concept of God/gods in turn, but the question is overall far from a binary proposition.

What?? My point is that was a VERY specific proposition.... Show me how BOTH God EXISTS AND GOD DOESN'T EXIST! Please??

Ok then...

Premise 1 : "A to Z don't exist"

Now show me from premise 1 how B exists.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

So, your point is......?

...that whether God exists has more than two possible answers. It may seem like a binary decision, but is that because we routinely 'twist' concepts to render them in a binary-seeming form, so that we can make a simple decision, deliberately limiting the possible outcomes to two?

For existence itself is not as clear cut as it might seem. What sort of existence? Physical? Mental-only? Spiritual? Magical? Is there a complex set of phenomena that, taken together, might seem to be or represent a God? If so, is that really a God, in the sense of our existential question? And so on...

Binary thinking is often deployed for the purpose of keeping our thinking simple. Sometimes that is a sensible, practical, and pragmatic approach. Other times, we use it to hide away from complexity that is much harder for us to think about; laziness.



So when someone comments "Either God exists, or She doesn't", I suggest that this could be an attempt to limit the discussion to easy-thinking, deciding in advance of serious consideration that we will consider only two possible, black-and-white, outcomes.

Yeah, well my main man... There's much for you and I to discuss and I'll try. But time is of the essence and I have my fundamental queries about the concept of God and her queries.

I'll get back to you at some point.

Cheers!

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

But time is of the essence and I have my fundamental queries about the concept of God and her queries.

...the concept of God and her existence**

[Sy Borg]

Yes:

As I said, "binary thinking". Such 'laws' are guides to our thinking; they have no other purpose, yes?

And if we go your definition of binary thinking, being either, both, or neither, are still binary thinking.

Either A or B = binary
Both A and B = binary
Neither A or B = binary

So, your point is......?

I would say that "neither A nor B" is a category that can then be broken down to include C, D, E etc - that is, all the many notions of the nature of God/s.

Here are seventeen major concepts of God:

I very much doubt that would be an exhaustive list, too. So I don't see the question of God existing to be a binary proposition, because the question is then, "Which god?". We then may apply a binary judgement to each concept of God/gods in turn, but the question is overall far from a binary proposition.

What?? My point is that was a VERY specific proposition.... Show me how BOTH God EXISTS AND GOD DOESN'T EXIST! Please??

Ok then...

Premise 1 : "A to Z don't exist"

Now show me from premise 1 how B exists.

You clearly believe that your angry caps lock has shown how correct you are.

But demonstrating that God exists and does not exist is easy. God does not exist objectively. There has been zero evidence, despite centuries of attempts to prove that the myth is real.

God does obviously exist subjectively. This is simply proven by obvious fact - that many believe in God.

[Pattern-chaser]

God does not exist objectively...

...as far as we know. It's difficult to be certain about such things. Do we know of all the things that "exist objectively"? I don't think we do. So we can't really say, with any certainty, or even confidence, that God exists, or doesn't. Can we?

[Lagayascienza]

We can't say for sure whether the Pink Spaghetti Monster exists objectively or not either. But is that a reason to entertain the idea?

[Sy Borg]

God does not exist objectively...

...as far as we know. It's difficult to be certain about such things. Do we know of all the things that "exist objectively"? I don't think we do. So we can't really say, with any certainty, or even confidence, that God exists, or doesn't. Can we?

There are two basic options:

1) An extraordinary intelligence exists, say, if the universe turns out to be a giant brain or intelligent being

2) the bleeding obvious, as we have observed all our lives, that God is a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one.

Billions of people, for decades, centuries, looking desperately for a single sign that God is an objective reality. Results = nada.

Nor do I see a logical objection to this, other than "we don't know everything". I find it odd that Christians dislike the idea of God being purely subjective. They want God to be material, to be made of stuff. Why? Pure materialism.

[Pattern-chaser]

God does not exist objectively...

...as far as we know. It's difficult to be certain about such things. Do we know of all the things that "exist objectively"? I don't think we do. So we can't really say, with any certainty, or even confidence, that God exists, or doesn't. Can we?

There are two basic options:

1) An extraordinary intelligence exists, say, if the universe turns out to be a giant brain or intelligent being

2) the bleeding obvious, as we have observed all our lives, that God is a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one.

Billions of people, for decades, centuries, looking desperately for a single sign that God is an objective reality. Results = nada.

Nor do I see a logical objection to this, other than "we don't know everything". I find it odd that Christians dislike the idea of God being purely subjective. They want God to be material, to be made of stuff. Why? Pure materialism.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Often, the "bleedin' obvious" isn't obvious at all, just wishful thinking.

As to your final sentiments, I know there are those who follow them, although I don't.

[Sy Borg]

God does not exist objectively...

...as far as we know. It's difficult to be certain about such things. Do we know of all the things that "exist objectively"? I don't think we do. So we can't really say, with any certainty, or even confidence, that God exists, or doesn't. Can we?

There are two basic options:

1) An extraordinary intelligence exists, say, if the universe turns out to be a giant brain or intelligent being

2) the bleeding obvious, as we have observed all our lives, that God is a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one.

Billions of people, for decades, centuries, looking desperately for a single sign that God is an objective reality. Results = nada.

Nor do I see a logical objection to this, other than "we don't know everything". I find it odd that Christians dislike the idea of God being purely subjective. They want God to be material, to be made of stuff. Why? Pure materialism.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Often, the "bleedin' obvious" isn't obvious at all, just wishful thinking.

As to your final sentiments, I know there are those who follow them, although I don't.

Your claim that my seeing God as obviously not real as "wishful thinking" is beyond ridiculous - exactly opposite to reality. I would love nothing more than for a gigantic humanoid deity who loves us and wants us all to live in paradise for eternity to be real.

I also would have loved for Santa to be real, but I suppose you think I should remain agnostic on Santa just as you (absurdly) thought it right to be agnostic about leprechauns. However, this kind of view could be reasonably of as an extension of today's left's "postmodernism gone mad" approach - where all modernist standards and reason are discarded for unthinking mysterianism and politics.