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

[Sushan]

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.

The breadth and depth of your viewpoints reflect a nuanced understanding of the societal and ethical challenges we face. Your approach in seeking a pragmatic center, case by case, acknowledges the complexities of these issues without resorting to oversimplification. This balanced perspective is indeed essential in a world that often tends towards polarized extremes.

Your list of issues also underscores an important aspect of human agency in addressing life's challenges. It suggests that while life presents numerous problems, humans possess the capacity to mitigate these through thoughtful, compassionate, and pragmatic actions. This aligns with the notion that life's benevolence might not be an inherent quality of life itself, but rather something that is actively cultivated through human effort and wisdom.

Considering your views, it seems you believe in a dynamic interplay between life's challenges and human agency. In this context, how do you perceive the role of AI and technology in augmenting human efforts to create a more benevolent world? Could AI, if conditioned appropriately, become a tool that not only reflects human values but also aids in achieving these pragmatic solutions you advocate for?

[Sushan]

Life lives upon life; how benevolent can that be?

Your observation highlights a fundamental aspect of life's complexity. The notion that life sustains itself through a cycle where living beings depend on one another, often at the expense of each other, indeed poses a challenge to the idea of inherent benevolence. It brings to the forefront the natural order's indifference and the survival instinct ingrained in all living beings.

However, this also opens up a philosophical inquiry into the nature of benevolence. Is benevolence a concept that we can attribute to life itself, or is it a human construct applied to interpret and give meaning to our existence? Perhaps benevolence is less about the natural processes of life and more about the conscious choices and actions of sentient beings, especially humans, who have the capacity for moral reasoning and empathy.

Given this perspective, how do you think humans can reconcile the harsh realities of the natural world with the aspiration for benevolence in their interactions and societal structures?

[Sushan]

The characterization of life as benevolent is subjective and can vary based on individual experiences and perspectives. For me I perceive life as generally benevolent, emphasizing positive aspects and opportunities,

I appreciate your perspective on viewing life as generally benevolent, focusing on the positive aspects and opportunities it presents. This viewpoint aligns with an optimistic approach to life, recognizing that while life can be unpredictable and challenging, it also offers growth, learning, and moments of joy.

This leads us to consider the power of perception in shaping our experience of life's benevolence. It raises the question of whether our individual mindset and attitude play a crucial role in determining how we interpret and respond to life's events.

Do you think that maintaining a positive outlook can significantly influence our experience of life's benevolence? And to what extent do you believe that our internal attitudes and beliefs can shape our external realities? Additionally, how might we balance this optimistic perspective with the recognition of life's inherent challenges and struggles?

[Radiant3]

Yes, I agree that Life is inherently benevolent, although, it maintains a neutral state of being. Its purpose is to reflect and project what is inherent and energized in all living things on an individual basis.

[Sushan]

Yes, I agree that Life is inherently benevolent, although, it maintains a neutral state of being. Its purpose is to reflect and project what is inherent and energized in all living things on an individual basis.

Your perspective on life as inherently benevolent yet maintaining a neutral state is fascinating. It implies that life, in its essence, mirrors the energy and intentions we bring into it. This viewpoint aligns with the idea that our experiences and the way we interact with the world are reflections of our internal state.

This leads to an interesting discussion on the role of individual agency in shaping life experiences. If life reflects our inherent energies and intentions, then does this mean we have the power to influence the benevolence we experience in our lives? And if so, how do we navigate the unpredictable elements that life throws our way, which may seem beyond our control?

[Radiant3]

Yes, I agree that Life is inherently benevolent, although, it maintains a neutral state of being. Its purpose is to reflect and project what is inherent and energized in all living things on an individual basis.

Your perspective on life as inherently benevolent yet maintaining a neutral state is fascinating. It implies that life, in its essence, mirrors the energy and intentions we bring into it. This viewpoint aligns with the idea that our experiences and the way we interact with the world are reflections of our internal state.

This leads to an interesting discussion on the role of individual agency in shaping life experiences. If life reflects our inherent energies and intentions, then does this mean we have the power to influence the benevolence we experience in our lives? And if so, how do we navigate the unpredictable elements that life throws our way, which may seem beyond our control?

Yes, we do have this power to influence the benevolence in our lives, but it is somewhat of a "double-edged sword." Sometimes, we are unaware of the true state of our present energy and where our dominant intentions are focused. These can be hidden deep within ourselves in the unconscious and may be more negative than positive or the opposite. There are times when we don't control our inner state, and our energy goes in all directions. So how would that reflect in our lives? Chaos, perhaps.

The interconnectedness of all living beings means that there is external energy all around us and coming towards us. This could also account for some of the unexpected events that occur in our lives.

To navigate these elements, I believe we must have deep inner clarity about ourselves and where we stand in terms of whatever is to be faced. We must go on even though we are full of fear. We can face it, endure it, defeat it, or ignore it if we need to. We can use whichever strategy is in alignment with our integrity, but we must always maintain our equanimity as best as we can.

[Sushan]

Yes, I agree that Life is inherently benevolent, although, it maintains a neutral state of being. Its purpose is to reflect and project what is inherent and energized in all living things on an individual basis.

Your perspective on life as inherently benevolent yet maintaining a neutral state is fascinating. It implies that life, in its essence, mirrors the energy and intentions we bring into it. This viewpoint aligns with the idea that our experiences and the way we interact with the world are reflections of our internal state.

This leads to an interesting discussion on the role of individual agency in shaping life experiences. If life reflects our inherent energies and intentions, then does this mean we have the power to influence the benevolence we experience in our lives? And if so, how do we navigate the unpredictable elements that life throws our way, which may seem beyond our control?

Yes, we do have this power to influence the benevolence in our lives, but it is somewhat of a "double-edged sword." Sometimes, we are unaware of the true state of our present energy and where our dominant intentions are focused. These can be hidden deep within ourselves in the unconscious and may be more negative than positive or the opposite. There are times when we don't control our inner state, and our energy goes in all directions. So how would that reflect in our lives? Chaos, perhaps.

The interconnectedness of all living beings means that there is external energy all around us and coming towards us. This could also account for some of the unexpected events that occur in our lives.

To navigate these elements, I believe we must have deep inner clarity about ourselves and where we stand in terms of whatever is to be faced. We must go on even though we are full of fear. We can face it, endure it, defeat it, or ignore it if we need to. We can use whichever strategy is in alignment with our integrity, but we must always maintain our equanimity as best as we can.

The concept of navigating life with deep inner clarity is a compelling one. It implies a level of self-awareness and mindfulness that allows us to stay aligned with our core values and integrity, even in the face of unpredictability and chaos. This approach seems to advocate for a balance between accepting life's unpredictability and actively shaping our experiences through our reactions and attitudes.

Your emphasis on maintaining equanimity resonates with many philosophical and spiritual teachings. In a world where external energies constantly interact with our own, finding that center of calm and clarity can be crucial.

Building on your thoughts, how do you think we can cultivate this inner clarity and equanimity in our daily lives?

[Radiant3]

To me, Inner clarity comes with consistent self-reflection. There are so many levels of our inner selves, I think it helps to choose a starting point, like what you may consider as the truth. What is your moral code and ethics? What keeps you grounded as a person during a difficult time in your life? When faced with a difficult decision on what basis do you make a decision? To me, those are some of the questions you ask and answer for yourself to get closer to inner clarity.

Maintaining equanimity is such a challenge. I feel that it's always a work in progress, building higher degrees of equanimity through, practice and learning to control the tendency to let things throw you into turmoil or off balance. Choosing to respond after deliberating instead of just reacting, depending on the situation.

[Donald666]

In essence, the perception of life as benevolent or otherwise is deeply personal and can be influenced by cultural, spiritual, and individual factors. It's part of the ongoing exploration of the human experience and the meaning we find in the events that shape our lives.

[Sushan]

To me, Inner clarity comes with consistent self-reflection. There are so many levels of our inner selves, I think it helps to choose a starting point, like what you may consider as the truth. What is your moral code and ethics? What keeps you grounded as a person during a difficult time in your life? When faced with a difficult decision on what basis do you make a decision? To me, those are some of the questions you ask and answer for yourself to get closer to inner clarity.

Maintaining equanimity is such a challenge. I feel that it's always a work in progress, building higher degrees of equanimity through, practice and learning to control the tendency to let things throw you into turmoil or off balance. Choosing to respond after deliberating instead of just reacting, depending on the situation.

Your focus on inner clarity through self-reflection resonates with Socratic philosophy, which holds that an unexamined life is not worth living. By probing our moral codes, ethics, and grounding principles, we indeed move closer to understanding our true nature and the essence of a good life.

Equanimity, a central tenet in both Stoicism and Buddhism, is indeed a work in progress, as you've said. It's the practice of remaining composed and maintaining inner peace regardless of external circumstances. The Stoics, particularly Epictetus, believed that we should concern ourselves only with what is within our control, and this detachment leads to tranquility.

In pursuit of equanimity, how do we ensure that our deliberations and responses are aligned with our inner truths and not merely a facade of control? How do we reconcile the calmness within with the chaos without?

[Sushan]

In essence, the perception of life as benevolent or otherwise is deeply personal and can be influenced by cultural, spiritual, and individual factors. It's part of the ongoing exploration of the human experience and the meaning we find in the events that shape our lives.

Whether life is inherently benevolent is a question that has engaged philosophers for centuries. From the Stoic perspective, life's benevolence isn't found in the events themselves but in our judgments and reactions to them. Marcus Aurelius mused that what we deem as obstacles can also be viewed as opportunities.

The existentialists, on the other hand, might argue that life's meaning—and by extension its benevolence—is not a given but something we must each define for ourselves through our choices and actions.

The idea of life's benevolence is indeed a tapestry woven with personal experiences and beliefs. Like you, I find that this perception is a journey rather than a destination, shaped by the narratives we craft from our life's events. It's fascinating how two people can experience the same event and interpret its benevolence differently— one may see a lesson, and the other, a setback.

How do you reconcile moments of hardship with the belief in life's fundamental goodness?

What are your thoughts on how our individual definitions of a benevolent life influence our perceptions and experiences? How does this subjective benevolence shape our interaction with the world and its challenges?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Can we really say life is benevolent ?

Life is a sexually transmitted fatal disease :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2818&p=451372#p451372

[Sushan]

Can we really say life is benevolent ?

Life is a sexually transmitted fatal disease :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2818&p=451372#p451372

Your post raises profound questions about the mechanisms underlying the diversity and complexity of life. The comparison of life to a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease' is an intriguing metaphor that invites reflection on the nature of existence itself. (I referred the other post to which you provided the link)

The debate between natural selection and Intelligent Design (ID) has long been a topic of intense discussion and research within the scientific community. While proponents of ID argue that certain complex biological features are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural selection, the broad consensus within the scientific community continues to support the theory of evolution by natural selection as the most robust explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

The assertion that life is 'obviously intelligent, not blind, and not random' is a significant claim. Could you elaborate on why you describe life as a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease'?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Can we really say life is benevolent ?

Life is a sexually transmitted fatal disease :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2818&p=451372#p451372

Your post raises profound questions about the mechanisms underlying the diversity and complexity of life. The comparison of life to a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease' is an intriguing metaphor that invites reflection on the nature of existence itself. (I referred the other post to which you provided the link)

The debate between natural selection and Intelligent Design (ID) has long been a topic of intense discussion and research within the scientific community. While proponents of ID argue that certain complex biological features are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural selection, the broad consensus within the scientific community continues to support the theory of evolution by natural selection as the most robust explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

The assertion that life is 'obviously intelligent, not blind, and not random' is a significant claim. Could you elaborate on why you describe life as a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease'?

Dear Sushan,

Hi,

Thank you so very much for your very kind words, my friend!

You observed :

" the broad consensus within the scientific community
continues to support the theory of evolution by natural selection "

In my humble opinion, any consensus within the scientific community,
broad or narrow, is, at best, secondary to the pursuit of scientific truth.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with such consensus,
as long as it does not become a substitute for objective truth,
and does not become an obstacle to free and open pursuit
of alternative views, or a basis for good old scientific witch-hunts,
which happen to this day.

It is worth keeping in mind that the matter of scientific truth
and objectivity is never a subject to a democratic majority vote,
Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, and Copernicus, being cases in point.

The way I see it, such consensus could become a counterproductive
case of a clearly un-scientific kind of so-called group-think.
I could go on and on about it from my personal experience with variety of scientists.

" Could you elaborate on why you describe life
as a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease'? "

Well, partly, it was a dark humour, partly a provocative statement,
and partly because this statement, at least to me, is brutally self-evident.

According to Buddhism, upon deep reflection,
life, in its essence, is nothing but suffering, and then we die.

At the first glance it seems to be extremely pessimistic,
and it omits all our best and most intelligent human efforts
to give our life as much of positive meaning as possible,
which is a responsibility of each individual, according to
one's personal limitations.

Birth is suffering, sickness is suffering, old age is suffering,
and death is suffering. Among these basic facts of life,
them being a background of our short existence,
we struggle to do our best, and often we don't attain
our noble goals, due to no fault of our own.
What comes to my mind in relation to this
is ancient Stoicism and Arthur Schopenhauer's
philosophy of human condition.

Despite this initial bleak Buddhist assesment above,
Buddhism advocates only radical unconditional
optimism, positive thinking and positive loving approach
to everything in our difficult lives, especially toward our enemies
and everythng else that seem to stand in our way to happiness,
like for example :

" Your point hits home even more with a personal example. One of my friends lost everything in the 2004 Tsunami, a situation that would understandably break many. But his response was remarkable. He remained positive and grateful for what he had left, which was contagious. Despite starting from scratch, his radiant attitude drew people towards him, creating connections that eventually led to his financial recovery. It’s a living testament to how a positive attitude, even in the face of adversity, can open doors and lead to success in unexpected ways."

Knowing from the outset how bad and difficult life essentially is,
or can often be, we will be more realistic and less frustrated
when things do not go the way we wish them to go.
We will be genuinely happy with small simple things in life,
as opposed to being very unhappy and resentful
that we are not in the top 10% of winners in every category
that happens to matter to us.

It all comes with age, and with much life experience.

Personally, I am happy with having almost nothing in every respect.
The best things in my life have always happened to me
without me desiring or wishing for them to happen,
and without working hard for them. I do work hard, but
most often all this hard work seldom results in the kind
of success that I have expected to achieve.

The most important to me is to have as much leisure time
as possible, to be alone, in silence and quietness,
to be with my mind for the purpose of deep
unhurried philosophical reflection, like now, when I write
these words for you, my dear Sushan.


So, to properly and honestly answer your very important
philosophical question, I strive to make my life
as benevolent toward all living beings, as I possibly can
under my limitations and imperfections of my character.
It gives me great satisfaction, and gives much of quality meaning
to my otherwise average and insignificant human existence.

Dear Sushan, would you like to accept my invitation
and respond to the following post of mine? :

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15419&p=451394#p451394

[Sushan]

Can we really say life is benevolent ?

Life is a sexually transmitted fatal disease :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2818&p=451372#p451372

Your post raises profound questions about the mechanisms underlying the diversity and complexity of life. The comparison of life to a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease' is an intriguing metaphor that invites reflection on the nature of existence itself. (I referred the other post to which you provided the link)

The debate between natural selection and Intelligent Design (ID) has long been a topic of intense discussion and research within the scientific community. While proponents of ID argue that certain complex biological features are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural selection, the broad consensus within the scientific community continues to support the theory of evolution by natural selection as the most robust explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

The assertion that life is 'obviously intelligent, not blind, and not random' is a significant claim. Could you elaborate on why you describe life as a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease'?

Dear Sushan,

Hi,

Thank you so very much for your very kind words, my friend!

You observed :

" the broad consensus within the scientific community
continues to support the theory of evolution by natural selection "

In my humble opinion, any consensus within the scientific community,
broad or narrow, is, at best, secondary to the pursuit of scientific truth.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with such consensus,
as long as it does not become a substitute for objective truth,
and does not become an obstacle to free and open pursuit
of alternative views, or a basis for good old scientific witch-hunts,
which happen to this day.

It is worth keeping in mind that the matter of scientific truth
and objectivity is never a subject to a democratic majority vote,
Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, and Copernicus, being cases in point.

The way I see it, such consensus could become a counterproductive
case of a clearly un-scientific kind of so-called group-think.
I could go on and on about it from my personal experience with variety of scientists.

" Could you elaborate on why you describe life
as a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease'? "

Well, partly, it was a dark humour, partly a provocative statement,
and partly because this statement, at least to me, is brutally self-evident.

According to Buddhism, upon deep reflection,
life, in its essence, is nothing but suffering, and then we die.

At the first glance it seems to be extremely pessimistic,
and it omits all our best and most intelligent human efforts
to give our life as much of positive meaning as possible,
which is a responsibility of each individual, according to
one's personal limitations.

Birth is suffering, sickness is suffering, old age is suffering,
and death is suffering. Among these basic facts of life,
them being a background of our short existence,
we struggle to do our best, and often we don't attain
our noble goals, due to no fault of our own.
What comes to my mind in relation to this
is ancient Stoicism and Arthur Schopenhauer's
philosophy of human condition.

Despite this initial bleak Buddhist assesment above,
Buddhism advocates only radical unconditional
optimism, positive thinking and positive loving approach
to everything in our difficult lives, especially toward our enemies
and everythng else that seem to stand in our way to happiness,
like for example :

" Your point hits home even more with a personal example. One of my friends lost everything in the 2004 Tsunami, a situation that would understandably break many. But his response was remarkable. He remained positive and grateful for what he had left, which was contagious. Despite starting from scratch, his radiant attitude drew people towards him, creating connections that eventually led to his financial recovery. It’s a living testament to how a positive attitude, even in the face of adversity, can open doors and lead to success in unexpected ways."

Knowing from the outset how bad and difficult life essentially is,
or can often be, we will be more realistic and less frustrated
when things do not go the way we wish them to go.
We will be genuinely happy with small simple things in life,
as opposed to being very unhappy and resentful
that we are not in the top 10% of winners in every category
that happens to matter to us.

It all comes with age, and with much life experience.

Personally, I am happy with having almost nothing in every respect.
The best things in my life have always happened to me
without me desiring or wishing for them to happen,
and without working hard for them. I do work hard, but
most often all this hard work seldom results in the kind
of success that I have expected to achieve.

The most important to me is to have as much leisure time
as possible, to be alone, in silence and quietness,
to be with my mind for the purpose of deep
unhurried philosophical reflection, like now, when I write
these words for you, my dear Sushan.


So, to properly and honestly answer your very important
philosophical question, I strive to make my life
as benevolent toward all living beings, as I possibly can
under my limitations and imperfections of my character.
It gives me great satisfaction, and gives much of quality meaning
to my otherwise average and insignificant human existence.

Dear Sushan, would you like to accept my invitation
and respond to the following post of mine? :

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15419&p=451394#p451394

Thank you for your enriching response. Your perspective on scientific consensus is thought-provoking. True scientific inquiry indeed demands an openness to challenge existing paradigms. The historical examples of Galileo and Copernicus serve as potent reminders that prevailing consensus is not the definitive measure of truth.

Your description of life as a 'sexually transmitted fatal disease' is striking. In the context of Buddhism's perspective on life as suffering, it's a poignant metaphor for the human condition. Buddhism's emphasis on finding contentment despite life's inherent suffering, and the subsequent embrace of radical optimism and loving-kindness, is a profound response to this condition.

Your approach to life, favoring quiet reflection and contentment in simplicity, resonates deeply with philosophical traditions valuing inner peace over external achievements. It's reminiscent of the Stoic practice of ataraxia – a peaceful state of mind undisturbed by external events.

On the point about the 'Tsunami incident', it was actually an experience of a friend of mine. His journey of loss, resilience, and eventual recovery is indeed a powerful example of the human spirit's capacity to find hope and positivity in the face of great adversity.

Thank you for your invitation to respond to your other post, and please check my response to that.