Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta: "The qualities gained along the way of humanity's evolutionary history are not lost but, as I say, rationalised."

I am saying that human intelligence is multi-faceted and reason is just one aspect of it. It includes intuition, emotional sensitivity and empathy, and other nonlogical perceptual faculties. Paring it down to analytical reason alone will excise our humanity in the process. I know you are a musician, if you boiled down the music you enjoy to a series of computer algorithms, what would become of it?

Greta: "Remember, the US is not the vanguard any more so we can assume that, whatever we are told these days is behind the cutting edge. While the Confederates are getting restless in the US, China is pulling ahead (since they don't have a huge and well-resources anti-science faction holding them back) and their advances are not always being reported in the west."

No ethical principles to hold them back either... I wouldn't hold up China as an example because they are proving the point I just made: they are refining and utilizing AI for the express purpose of spying on and oppressing their citizens - cold hard logic in action.

Greta: "By the time we humans can no longer live on a stripped Earth, you'd expect AI to be highly advanced and capable of self-support and self-improvement in the absence of humans."

The problem is that "self improvement" becomes a dreadful curse when a completely self-centered entity pursues it.

From the famous scientist Carl Sagan:

“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”
― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

UniversalAlien wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 5:40 am From the famous scientist Carl Sagan:

“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”
― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

True? - Reasonable and makes sense, agreed?

Now try this - The Atheists are right, there is no provable creator, no reason to believe there is a
Prima Facie reason to believe there is any reason for existence.

And yet........In a World, a Quantum World, where every possibility must be considered
- In this World, the World you live in - The non-existent creator becomes inevitable.
- the state of pure logic, absolute intelligence will at some point be reached
- At that point chaos yields and reason rules.

A state of God? - I still don't know what that means - do You ?



From Max Planck, one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics and winner of the Noble Prize:

“Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition... [and therefore] 'On to God!”
― Max Planck

Felix wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 12:14 amI am saying that human intelligence is multi-faceted and reason is just one aspect of it. It includes intuition, emotional sensitivity and empathy, and other nonlogical perceptual faculties. Paring it down to analytical reason alone will excise our humanity in the process. I know you are a musician, if you boiled down the music you enjoy to a series of computer algorithms, what would become of it?

It would sound like much of today's music.

Trouble is, if we are to do achieve anything in space, it's got to be machines because biology and space don't mix. Humans have a shelf life, even failing our recklessness, so ultimately the story must be continued by our machine successors.

Felix wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 12:14 amNo ethical principles to hold them back either... I wouldn't hold up China as an example because they are proving the point I just made: they are refining and utilizing AI for the express purpose of spying on and oppressing their citizens - cold hard logic in action.

The only good guys today are too small to matter. It feels a bit like Hitler won after all, just 70 years late.

Greta: "By the time we humans can no longer live on a stripped Earth, you'd expect AI to be highly advanced and capable of self-support and self-improvement in the absence of humans."

Felix wrote: ↑May 13th, 2019, 12:14 amThe problem is that "self improvement" becomes a dreadful curse when a completely self-centered entity pursues it.

Well, we humans are hardly in a position to criticise any other entity's morality when our own is degrading - and it didn't start from an especially high point.

Next I would 'evolve' the Human mind one step higher than its current state.

Human intelligence in some ways has been increasing - but it has yet to surpass limitations that are hindering
its advancement into the future.

Computer scientists keep prophesizing 'Artificial General Intelligence' and 'the Singularity'

- But they still can't do this because the Human brain is still not sufficiently evolved.

If I had the Power of God I would evolve Humans one step higher and give you your magical fantasy world and open up the Universe to Human {or android]' exploration - But from that day forward you will be working for me.

Are you still game

UniversalAlien wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 5:26 am If I had the Power of God [for one day] I would... But from that day forward you will be working for me.

First of all you'd need an escape route, a back door so to speak to add time to your deliberations. This could be accomplished by adding another plane of existence separate from this world. Perhaps the separate plane of existence can be so engrossing of the senses to reduce the necessity of interacting with our world.

So Gods essentially provide themselves with better living conditions which leaves us in the clutches of nature, kill and be killed and scrabble with what we have to improve our own lives until everything is used up.

I don't think a compassionate God-like entity would insist that souls inhabit life-forms that depend on a kill and be killed situation which infers that God is not compassionate. Perhaps everything depends on the kill and be killed process to provide the very environment in which we find ourselves on this planet but it would seem that if people can live by vegetarianism then this is not so, ergo God is a kid engrossed in battle scenes and the devising of new life forms to enter the fray, or at least was.

I don't know about you but I am more productive mentally in this two dimension universe of the internet where we interact in two dimensions rather than the three dimensions of physical reality. This two dimensional reality is a retreat from the physical world and could be compared with existence after death, a retreat from 3 dimensions to 2.

Ok, how can a God in this two dimensional universe improve the 3 dimensional universe of physical reality? Well it's going to take longer than a day for the ongoing processes to wind down and any new implementations to overtake the old ones, so we will have to implement a rule to govern what a God can and cannot do and name it "The Pearl Of Great Price" and attach the slogan "Find my treasure who can!"

Trouble is, how do you shift from rock eating microbes to civilisations without much pain?

We developed our instruments of pain - the brain and nervous system - because these things made us respond in ways that promoted survival and thrival. AI might be able to solve this problem by simply using signals as a guide, without need for nature's "brute force" approach.

If we, or our successors, manage to overcome the problem of suffering, then the last billion years or so of nervous systems have simply been about growing pains, like a teenager. We, en masse, consume like teens or caterpillars too ...

Just remember the power of god by definition accepts no limitations - Its dangerous

And.......

The power of god can do anything - Again dangerous!

So we can see why Atheism is so popular now a days.

But if nothing else, the 20th Century showed us how dangerous atheism can be
{Nazism and Communism for example}


But now there is no turning back - with the advent of the quantum super computer
the power of god may be inevitable.

Someone will, sooner or later, program 'the game of god' into a super computer
and watch-out!

Meantime this hasn't happened yet so let your Human speculation play out
- Your mind is still free {more or less}.

Greta wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 8:12 pm Trouble is, how do you shift from rock eating microbes to civilisations without much pain?

Be God for a day and get everyone to agree with a plan for civil obedience?

I would make humans share the world, instead of treating it as if it was theirs to [ab]use as they choose. I would make them evaluate what the world can spare, and then evaluate what part of that they could take as their share, leaving the other creatures their shares. A bit of hippy druidism, but so what? It has a positive effect, even if it's too late to save our species.... <sickly-grin>

The power of God to effectuate a goal from a singular perspective may not be ethical and thereby not acceptable. The saying is "power corrupts". Despite ones belief in how good their intentions are, I am certain that Nazi's were also convinced that what they intended was truly good, for the cleanliness of the human race etc.

Respect for others - to serve their optimum condition and thereby the purpose of life - requires the consideration that one cannot judge for others. One can propose and enforce, but in either case, ethics remain questionable. Thus not worthy of the power of God.

I would simple supplant the feeling of joy in cruelty for utter abject shame.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 6:10 pm I would simple supplant the feeling of joy in cruelty for utter abject shame.

Would you feel joy in doing this?

Could some consider doing that itself as cruelty?

creation wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 8:37 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 6:10 pm I would simple supplant the feeling of joy in cruelty for utter abject shame.

Would you feel joy in doing this?

Could some consider doing that itself as cruelty?

I would be more happy for people to feel shame at the thought of cruelty, than for people to take pleasure in inflicting cruelty on others.
As a god I'd have the privilege of never having to feel that my actions were cruel.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 10:09 am

creation wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 8:37 am


Would you feel joy in doing this?

Could some consider doing that itself as cruelty?

I would be more happy for people to feel shame at the thought of cruelty, than for people to take pleasure in inflicting cruelty on others.

Yes I know.

As a god I'd have the privilege of never having to feel that my actions were cruel.
[/quote]

But are you "a God"? The question asked, IF you had the 'power of' a God.

How do you know 'a God' never has to feel that their actions are cruel?

Also, you did not answer my clarifying question, Could some consider you doing what you want to do being cruel itself?

If so, then what you would be doing would be cruel, and then the feeling of joy and happiness you would think you would get, would be supplanted with utter abject shame.

See, if you really had the power of God, then you would already know WHY all people feel joy in the cruelty they do, including yourself here.

The cruelty you are doing right now, in the days of when this is written, would not suddenly stop if the joy you feel when doing it was supplanted with utter abject shame, you would just continue to do it, but more secretly.

If you truly wanted to stop cruelty, then first you would admit the cruelty that you, yourself, does do, then you would seek to change those ways, for the better, then you would do all you can to change for the better, and to do this you would have to be truly open and honest about the cruelty you are doing now.

But from what you have written here one might think that you, yourself, believe that you do not do cruel things, nor that you feel joy in cruelty, and that, from your perspective, it is only "others" who are cruel and feel joy from cruelty, correct?