Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

Philosophy Discussion Forums
A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.


Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
#468798
To reduce confusion and make the discussion more readable, let’s boil things down.

Side issue 1) You claim that the Earth is unimportant. It would seem that, according to your definition, all planets are unimportant, which makes no sense.

Earth is important because it is important to us. We are important, people are important, animals are important, plants are important – to ourselves, at least. Since there appears to be no one else around in this part of the cosmos, our views matter most.

Side issue 2) You claim that geology does not evolve, only biology, as per the textbooks. "Evolution" was defined at a time when scientists did not know what we know today about the connections between geology and biology. That's why the field of geobiology was created. There was an entire evolution of Earth's chemistry that made abiogenesis possible.

The question of whether the technical meaning of evolution needs to be expanded to better describe what nature is really like could be a topic in itself.

----

Main issue: You claim that the idea of self-replicating, self-improving machines (SRSIMs) is simply science fiction, and unworthy of consideration.

However, self-replicating AIs have already been developed, and self-improving AI is considered by serious observers to be not just a possibility, but as much an existential risk.

The idea that AI research will not produce SRSIMs in, say, the next thousand years only makes sense if you believe human societies will soon no longer exist, that we are at The End of Days.

If we are not on the verge of global nuclear holocaust, then in the next million years, the advancement of AI will be at least as far beyond our comprehension as the internet would be beyond a Neanderthal’s comprehension.

It would take a brave philosopher to claim that AI development over a million or billion years would not generate a new kind of sentience.

Again, you disregard deep time. I suppose that's because it’s hard to predict so far ahead and one cannot be sure about anything. Yet you are confident that, over deep time, AI cannot possibly develop any kind of sentience. Why would AI, over deep time, never take advantage of the obvious utility of sentience? It's not a matter of teleology, as you imply, but logic. Sentience is obviously useful. If it wasn't, it would not have become so widespread.

To be fair, AI might (rightly) assess that sentience is the source of suffering, and decline in the spirit of Benetar. However, it might not be in control. As AI complexifies, there will surely be unexpected emergences.

One would expect that, if not sentience, AI would evolve some kind of equivalent. As Lagaya suggested, if a form of sentience is useful to future AI's operations, then it will emerge through competition.

The merging of biology and technology is another potential pathway towards AI.
#468803
Count Lucanor wrote: October 11th, 2024, 12:58 pm
Lagayscienza wrote: October 11th, 2024, 10:21 am
I don’t see why SRSIMs could not also evolve in complexity and prowess.
What SRSIMs? Show me a real one.
I can't. They haven't been invented yet. At least, not on earth. But other intelligences out there may have already sent SRSIMs out. It will be quite a long time (in human terms) before we invent them here on earth, but not forever. If we are around for long enough, then I don't doubt that it will happen eventually. And maybe some ETSRSIMs will discover us before we get around to inventing our own.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#468856
Sy Borg wrote: October 11th, 2024, 6:44 pm To reduce confusion and make the discussion more readable, let’s boil things down.

Side issue 1) You claim that the Earth is unimportant. It would seem that, according to your definition, all planets are unimportant, which makes no sense.

Earth is important because it is important to us. We are important, people are important, animals are important, plants are important – to ourselves, at least. Since there appears to be no one else around in this part of the cosmos, our views matter most.
I don’t have major issues with this view since it is more or less consistent with what I’ve said in this thread and this forum. It might differ in that my view is more anthropocentric, because I don’t think plants and other animals have such judgement abilities as to be able to care about their place in the universe, but since I don’t want to open another side issue, I will not insist. The point to make is that the Earth-centered view that values our exceptionality needs to be balanced with the humble acknowledgement of our littleness and ephemeral presence in a superlatively vast universe. It’s not a strange, awkward concept, it was eloquently captured in Carl Sagan’s famous Pale Blue Dot.
Sy Borg wrote: October 11th, 2024, 6:44 pm Side issue 2) You claim that geology does not evolve, only biology, as per the textbooks. "Evolution" was defined at a time when scientists did not know what we know today about the connections between geology and biology. That's why the field of geobiology was created. There was an entire evolution of Earth's chemistry that made abiogenesis possible.

The question of whether the technical meaning of evolution needs to be expanded to better describe what nature is really like could be a topic in itself.
One needs to be careful with the use of words. “Evolution” is a generic word for change, but placed in specific contexts, it carries different meanings. Initially, you placed the words “evolution” and “natural selection” in the context of not only Earth’s geology, but the solar system, comets, asteroids, etc. I stand by my reply: they are not the same evolution, nor natural selection, as Darwin had described for biological systems. Geobiology is fine, it goes to the relationships between the environment and organisms, specially microorganisms, but it does not cancel geology or biology, which still constitute domains of their own.
Sy Borg wrote: October 11th, 2024, 6:44 pm Main issue: You claim that the idea of self-replicating, self-improving machines (SRSIMs) is simply science fiction, and unworthy of consideration.

However, self-replicating AIs have already been developed, and self-improving AI is considered by serious observers to be not just a possibility, but as much an existential risk.

The idea that AI research will not produce SRSIMs in, say, the next thousand years only makes sense if you believe human societies will soon no longer exist, that we are at The End of Days.

If we are not on the verge of global nuclear holocaust, then in the next million years, the advancement of AI will be at least as far beyond our comprehension as the internet would be beyond a Neanderthal’s comprehension.

It would take a brave philosopher to claim that AI development over a million or billion years would not generate a new kind of sentience.

Again, you disregard deep time. I suppose that's because it’s hard to predict so far ahead and one cannot be sure about anything. Yet you are confident that, over deep time, AI cannot possibly develop any kind of sentience. Why would AI, over deep time, never take advantage of the obvious utility of sentience? It's not a matter of teleology, as you imply, but logic. Sentience is obviously useful. If it wasn't, it would not have become so widespread.

To be fair, AI might (rightly) assess that sentience is the source of suffering, and decline in the spirit of Benetar. However, it might not be in control. As AI complexifies, there will surely be unexpected emergences.

One would expect that, if not sentience, AI would evolve some kind of equivalent. As Lagaya suggested, if a form of sentience is useful to future AI's operations, then it will emerge through competition.

The merging of biology and technology is another potential pathway towards AI.
Let’s start with self-replicating (not necessarily intelligent) machines. They have been for decades the subject of sci-fi books and a bunch of futuristic theories, some with the aim of opening the path to serious research and implementation, NONE of which went any further than the printed words. Finally, a supposedly great milestone was achieved: a self-replicating machine was built, which was nothing more than the predecessor of the 3D printers. It could 3D-print its own parts, but of course, all the software, design, materials and power used by the mother-machine to produce the parts, had to be supplied by humans controlling the whole process. And then, the new machine itself had to be assembled by them, too. And that was all the hype about self-replicating machines.

Now, consider what is AI actually. It’s software running on hardware, on physical systems (devices) comprised of electronic circuits, wires and other electrical components fixed to metal frames, all built by humans. These devices are powered with electrical current sourced from systems of power generation and distribution designed and built by humans with organized labor to extract, transport, distribute and modify raw materials. The whole operation of this network of human activities is what ensures the existence and operation of any electronic device, such as the computers where the software runs. But then, what do we mean by a “self-replicating AI” when talking about life-emulating capabilities? If we meant: one that reproduces an instance of its own algorithms (software), we would be only fooling ourselves. A real self-replicating, life-emulating AI, will have to build its own hardware, produce new devices, under its total control, even if automated. If humans intervene and are required to activate any process, it stops being self-replicating. Think of any stage in the production chain of devices and you’ll easily realize that such a marvel has not been even prototyped, so it’s not true that we are in the first steps.

As always, AI enthusiasts argue that it’s still possible in a distant future, but when doing so, they don’t advance a comprehensive theory of HOW it would be technically done, they simply rely on the purely theoretical assumption, taken from the computational theory of mind, that from sophisticated algorithms, agency and consciousness will emerge. They also take for granted that mind-body dualism is true, so intelligence can be a thing on its own, just accidentally attached to a physical body. So, somewhere some time, robotics will be thrown into the mix and…eureka! you will have artificial organisms. I can see clearly that such path cannot lead to the AI utopia (or dystopia) that they envision, because no matter how many algorithmic iterations and computational networks you make to simulate life, agency, sentience and intelligence, none of these things work that way.
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco Location: Panama
#468858
Lagayscienza wrote: October 12th, 2024, 5:03 am
Count Lucanor wrote: October 11th, 2024, 12:58 pm
Lagayscienza wrote: October 11th, 2024, 10:21 am
I don’t see why SRSIMs could not also evolve in complexity and prowess.
What SRSIMs? Show me a real one.
I can't. They haven't been invented yet. At least, not on earth. But other intelligences out there may have already sent SRSIMs out. It will be quite a long time (in human terms) before we invent them here on earth, but not forever. If we are around for long enough, then I don't doubt that it will happen eventually. And maybe some ETSRSIMs will discover us before we get around to inventing our own.
If we were just interested in being creative and letting our speculations about the future run free, well...anything goes, so there's not much run for informed reasoning about what we can really expect from today's technology.
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco Location: Panama
#468863
Count Lucanor wrote: Yesterday, 3:14 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 11th, 2024, 6:44 pm To reduce confusion and make the discussion more readable, let’s boil things down.

Side issue 1) You claim that the Earth is unimportant. It would seem that, according to your definition, all planets are unimportant, which makes no sense.

Earth is important because it is important to us. We are important, people are important, animals are important, plants are important – to ourselves, at least. Since there appears to be no one else around in this part of the cosmos, our views matter most.
I don’t have major issues with this view since it is more or less consistent with what I’ve said in this thread and this forum. It might differ in that my view is more anthropocentric, because I don’t think plants and other animals have such judgement abilities as to be able to care about their place in the universe, but since I don’t want to open another side issue, I will not insist. The point to make is that the Earth-centered view that values our exceptionality needs to be balanced with the humble acknowledgement of our littleness and ephemeral presence in a superlatively vast universe. It’s not a strange, awkward concept, it was eloquently captured in Carl Sagan’s famous Pale Blue Dot.
I don’t need convincing about Earths smallness. The Sun comprises 99.98% of the solar system’s mass, so what’s happening on Earth is really part of the Sun’s journey, given that we exist deep within the Sun’s heliosphere. I am also a fan of Sagan and his Blue Dot speech.

While size matters in many arenas, it is a mistake to equate size with importance. A virus can bring down a human, despite being 70,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 times less massive.

Count Lucanor wrote: Yesterday, 3:14 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 11th, 2024, 6:44 pm Side issue 2) You claim that geology does not evolve, only biology, as per the textbooks. "Evolution" was defined at a time when scientists did not know what we know today about the connections between geology and biology. That's why the field of geobiology was created. There was an entire evolution of Earth's chemistry that made abiogenesis possible.

The question of whether the technical meaning of evolution needs to be expanded to better describe what nature is really like could be a topic in itself.
One needs to be careful with the use of words. “Evolution” is a generic word for change, but placed in specific contexts, it carries different meanings. Initially, you placed the words “evolution” and “natural selection” in the context of not only Earth’s geology, but the solar system, comets, asteroids, etc. I stand by my reply: they are not the same evolution, nor natural selection, as Darwin had described for biological systems. Geobiology is fine, it goes to the relationships between the environment and organisms, specially microorganisms, but it does not cancel geology or biology, which still constitute domains of their own.
The word “evolution” was coined in the 19th century, long before the interdependencies of geology and biology were understood. Another example of such an incongruency is the naming of planets and stars, thus a red dwarf is many times more massive than any gas giant. It’s even possible that the universe has been prematurely named.

While science needs to break things down into categories for analytical purposes, we need to be careful not to confuse the map with the territory. The phenomena matter more than the words, a point that was well illustrated by Richard Feynman. There is no hard difference between organic chemistry and biology, hence the debated status of viruses, prions, viroids and ribozymes. Further, we do not know of the transitional forms that preceded LUCA.

Everything is under selection pressure and thus evolves, including culture, currencies, the arts, et al … and including technology.


Count Lucanor wrote: Yesterday, 3:14 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 11th, 2024, 6:44 pm Main issue: You claim that the idea of self-replicating, self-improving machines (SRSIMs) is simply science fiction, and unworthy of consideration.

However, self-replicating AIs have already been developed, and self-improving AI is considered by serious observers to be not just a possibility, but as much an existential risk.

The idea that AI research will not produce SRSIMs in, say, the next thousand years only makes sense if you believe human societies will soon no longer exist, that we are at The End of Days.

If we are not on the verge of global nuclear holocaust, then in the next million years, the advancement of AI will be at least as far beyond our comprehension as the internet would be beyond a Neanderthal’s comprehension.

It would take a brave philosopher to claim that AI development over a million or billion years would not generate a new kind of sentience.

Again, you disregard deep time. I suppose that's because it’s hard to predict so far ahead and one cannot be sure about anything. Yet you are confident that, over deep time, AI cannot possibly develop any kind of sentience. Why would AI, over deep time, never take advantage of the obvious utility of sentience? It's not a matter of teleology, as you imply, but logic. Sentience is obviously useful. If it wasn't, it would not have become so widespread.

To be fair, AI might (rightly) assess that sentience is the source of suffering, and decline in the spirit of Benetar. However, it might not be in control. As AI complexifies, there will surely be unexpected emergences.

One would expect that, if not sentience, AI would evolve some kind of equivalent. As Lagaya suggested, if a form of sentience is useful to future AI's operations, then it will emerge through competition.

The merging of biology and technology is another potential pathway towards AI.
Let’s start with self-replicating (not necessarily intelligent) machines. They have been for decades the subject of sci-fi books and a bunch of futuristic theories, some with the aim of opening the path to serious research and implementation, NONE of which went any further than the printed words. Finally, a supposedly great milestone was achieved: a self-replicating machine was built, which was nothing more than the predecessor of the 3D printers. It could 3D-print its own parts, but of course, all the software, design, materials and power used by the mother-machine to produce the parts, had to be supplied by humans controlling the whole process. And then, the new machine itself had to be assembled by them, too. And that was all the hype about self-replicating machines.

Now, consider what is AI actually. It’s software running on hardware, on physical systems (devices) comprised of electronic circuits, wires and other electrical components fixed to metal frames, all built by humans. These devices are powered with electrical current sourced from systems of power generation and distribution designed and built by humans with organized labor to extract, transport, distribute and modify raw materials. The whole operation of this network of human activities is what ensures the existence and operation of any electronic device, such as the computers where the software runs. But then, what do we mean by a “self-replicating AI” when talking about life-emulating capabilities? If we meant: one that reproduces an instance of its own algorithms (software), we would be only fooling ourselves. A real self-replicating, life-emulating AI, will have to build its own hardware, produce new devices, under its total control, even if automated. If humans intervene and are required to activate any process, it stops being self-replicating. Think of any stage in the production chain of devices and you’ll easily realize that such a marvel has not been even prototyped, so it’s not true that we are in the first steps.
It's true that the process is in its early days. Then again, consider what the internet was just thirty years ago and what it is now.
AI wrote: Recent advancements have brought the concept of self-replicating machines closer to reality:
• Xenobots: In 2020, researchers at Tufts University created xenobots—living robots made from frog cells—that can perform simple tasks and exhibit self-replication capabilities. These xenobots can collect materials and build copies of themselves through a novel form of replication that differs from traditional biological processes. This discovery represents a significant step toward understanding how living systems can be engineered for autonomous reproduction.
• NASA Initiatives: NASA has been exploring self-replicating factories for space missions since the 1980s. Studies have proposed designs for lunar factories that could utilize local resources to create additional manufacturing units without requiring constant supply from Earth. This approach aligns with NASA’s goals of sustainable exploration and resource utilization on other celestial bodies.
• AI Integration: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the design and operation of self-replicating machines is another recent development. AI algorithms can optimize designs for better performance in replication tasks, as demonstrated by xenobot research where AI-generated shapes improved their ability to replicate effectively.
Count Lucanor wrote: Yesterday, 3:14 pm As always, AI enthusiasts argue that it’s still possible in a distant future, but when doing so, they don’t advance a comprehensive theory of HOW it would be technically done, they simply rely on the purely theoretical assumption, taken from the computational theory of mind, that from sophisticated algorithms, agency and consciousness will emerge. They also take for granted that mind-body dualism is true, so intelligence can be a thing on its own, just accidentally attached to a physical body. So, somewhere some time, robotics will be thrown into the mix and…eureka! you will have artificial organisms. I can see clearly that such path cannot lead to the AI utopia (or dystopia) that they envision, because no matter how many algorithmic iterations and computational networks you make to simulate life, agency, sentience and intelligence, none of these things work that way.
Firstly, I am not an “AI enthusiast” or any other hip term that people occasionally ascribe to me. I am just an old person who analyses reality (more usually biology and space), but it’s clear that AI is becoming ever more pivotal and is a fascinating area with extraordinary potentials.

Self-replication will conceivably occur by providing 3D printers with blueprints. This kind of machine will be critical to any attempts to colonise other worlds, eg. Moon, Mars, Titan, to extract resources and construct habitats. So, it will be done (asteroids permitting).

Your comment about AI utopias or dystopias suggests that you do not understand my point. I am not thinking about the short term, in our life spans. I am looking far, far into the future. Just because it is hard to predict doesn't mean we should pretend that that distant future is fantasy. Barring a killer asteroid or global nuclear destruction, the far future will arrive and ideas currently in blueprint form will be actualised.

I doubt that AI will destroy humans, but it will almost certainly outlast humans. Further, in the future AIs will be sent to other worlds so that they may proliferate and develop. There are many plans in the works towards this end, and not just in the US.
#468885
I imagine being dialectical myself as I can have the freedom to focus on what my understanding considers possible and how the possibility(virtual) becomes substance. As I examine the concept of substance, I might consider not using any categorical imperatives and instead using our paradigm when possible. Instead of infinitely infinite (Spinoza’s dialectic notion), I want to draw the line in the discovery of new boson particles and the boson themselves as the first regime (the virtual regime). That there is the Higgs mechanism that there is matter, elements and finally organic and inorganic compounds. In general, I see two regimes: The bosonic (virtual) regime and the matter regime. I see human substance as an integration of both regimes. IMO there is a relationship between both regimes since the beginning of the Universe and if matter can take any elementary shape, then the shape of an Android might be possible, but the understanding of the relationship is not dialectically possible for many of its properties. However, if I consider a cyclical genesis that is a duality of X and the bosonic regime becoming the duality bosonic regime and the matter regime and those two becoming the human regime that in a hypothetical dialectic might become the Human Android regime… or not since hypothetically, there are other possible regimes.
#468887
1. Earth Smallness: importance is, evidently, a matter relative to the criteria and context you choose. The point I made about how ridiculously unimportant our planet is, is justified by the criteria and context I chose, and everyone is entitled to use another one, in fact I have done it myself, as it has been made clear. So I don't think it's worth insisting that the statement is a mistake, objectively speaking, because it is not.

2. The word "evolution": I was very doubtful that it was coined in the 19th century, so I had to look it up. I avoided asking ChatGPT because it always flunks at history. Turns out it was not invented in the 19th century, as it entered the English language around the 16th century, which makes sense, given that the word comes from the Latin term evolutio. Romanic languages took from that root, so in Spanish we have "evolución¨,"évolution" in French and "evoluzione" in Italian. I don't know exactly how it made it into English, but in any case, it is without question that the word was being used long time before Darwin, and Darwin himself seems to have avoided the term. So, my previous reply stands as the right approach: the word is a generic term for change, which takes specific meanings in the context it is used.

3. Self-replicating machines: in case I did not make myself clear, I don't endorse the idea that the process to build them is in the early days. The context in which we are arguing about self-replicating machines is focused on the possibility of life-emulating technology recreating the processes of living beings, starting from non-organic, inanimate matter. It is more than obvious that xenobots, made from frog cells, do not fall into that category. So, these are no primitive self-replicating machines, these are organic cells being reengineered.

Regarding the NASA initiatives, what the AI chat refers to is the 1982 NASA paper on the subject (that's 42 years ago), which I've read. It mentions again Von Neumann and falls within the scope of my summary about the purely theoretical attempts on self-replicating machines that ended in no implementation whatsoever, finding its peak achievement in the predecessor of the 3D printers. Anything that needs humans inputs as blueprints, maintenance, materials, etc., is not self-replicating. The term is deceiving, a better word that encompasses what we should be looking for is self-sustainable (collectively).

4. AI enthusiasts: I'm sorry if my comment is taken as directed personally. By AI enthusiasts I often refer to the whole field of public intellectuals in academia and the tech industry, peddling said utopian (or dystopian) views, and surely, their followers. I prefer that term over some others that might sound like a conspiracy. The label just points at the fact that these commentators and tech entrepreneurs have created a public hype mostly out of wishful thinking rather than feet-on-the-ground reality. As I said: they don’t advance a comprehensive theory of HOW it would be technically done, they simply rely on the purely theoretical assumption, taken from the computational theory of mind, that from sophisticated algorithms, agency and consciousness will emerge. They also take for granted that mind-body dualism is true, so intelligence can be a thing on its own, just accidentally attached to a physical body. So, somewhere some time, robotics will be thrown into the mix and…eureka! you will have artificial organisms. All of those assumptions are highly debatable.

I have no doubt that automation, called AI or whatever, will outperform humans in many activities, as all technology has done since the rise of human civilization. It's just that it will not be intelligent tech, not really, just a sophisticated simulation, controlled all the time by humans.
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco Location: Panama
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking For Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking For Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


1. Earth Smallness: importance is, evidently, a ma[…]

It seems there are two types of bullying being dis[…]

All sensations ,pain, perceptions of all kin[…]

Censorship of "misinformation"

Misinformation is not the problem, citizen gulli[…]