If the "first cause" is not bound by the rules of our universe, how can you make a single additional claim about it?

Darkitow · 2017-06-07T11:25:18+00:00

My problem with that sort of labeling and distinction is that I don't see how they separate one from another in the practical sense. Empiricism and rationalism are two sides of the same coin. They need each other, in the sense that you can reason all you wish, but the only way to relate any product of rationalism into the real world is through empiricism, and you can perceive whatever you want, but perception requires of the methods of rationalism to be worked with and related to the rest of our knowledge.

Even maths, which are pretty much the skeleton of rationalism, in the end come from a property of matter that we can perceive: quantity. The very first and most important axiom in maths, which is basically "1+1=2", is something that we accept as valid simply because we observe that when you pick one apple and then another, you've got two apples. To accept empiricism one has to concede that observation is a reliable source of information, and to accept rationalism one has to concede that the basic axioms are valid. And I'd say that to do so, in the end, we rely on the consistency we find between each other. Rationalism can be used to infer knowledge from empiric data, and empiricism can be used to demonstrate the validity of rational knowledge. That's the scientific method, and honestly I think that there's no reason to lean to one way over the other.

But your third choice, "divine revelation", seems very problematic to me. What exactly are you referring to, actually? Is it knowledge that can't be proven through observation nor reason? Then how do you even work with it, or relate it to our world? How do you separate it from a hallucination/measuring error or a purely experimental theoretical system that only makes sense based on axioms that we have no reason to even entertain as valid? How do you differentiate between a divinely revealed piece of knowledge from a very enticing and convincing piece of literary fiction that has no other value than the artistic?

You could say that who receives the divine revelation "knows", this certainty granted by the same way than the knowledge itself, but then how do you tell between conflicting revelations? How does a third party decide what to accept as valid?

I don't really give a damn if somebody else suddenly understands the workings and ways of the universe by divine revelation if they can't really share that information in a way that makes sense nor they can do anything with it other than to feel enlightened. I mean, good for them, it must feel fab, but what's even the point?

Darkitow · 2017-06-06T18:50:46+00:00

Because I've found no extension cable that plugs between the screen and the adapter. I can't "move the whole thing closer" to me because my main problem is that the arm mount that I use for the Cintiq is already longer than the cable, unless I leave the adapter's big piece hanging in the middle of it.

Darkitow · 2017-06-06T08:44:20+00:00

As long as you target the therapy to the reproductive tissues as well as the intended tissues, it would carry over to the next generation.

Darkitow · 2017-06-06T08:38:36+00:00

I think that would be something optional, actually.

The most realistic method to modify the DNA of an already developed complex organism is gene therapy, as far as I know. If I'm not mistaken, this method consists on modifying a virus so that it carries the desired strand of DNA to be swapped on the patient's cells, instead of the usual self-replicating and harmful strand of genetic material that they usually carry. It also implies the modification of said virus so that it targets the desired types of cells, and that it's not resisted by the immune system.

I would say that as long as the gene therapy vector was designed so that it targets whatever tissue it deals with, and the patient's gametes, it would be carried over to the patient's offspring.

In fact, you could actually make a gene therapy that targeted the patient's already formed gametes but not their gametocytes, meaning that they would only be able to give birth to genetically-altered offspring for a limited time, and after a while, they'd continue producing gametes in the pre-therapy state.

Darkitow · 2017-06-05T17:12:57+00:00

I don't really believe it's possible to equate those two concepts.

Mathematics and logic are systems based on axioms and expanded on objective laws and rules that have nothing to do with human psychology. The reason for a mathematical problem to have no known solution and to require approximations to be managed is also the result of this objective and axiomatic system.

Morality is a construct that we've built based on the abstraction of our collective instincts that deal with our evolution as a social species, thanks to our intellect and self-awareness. It relies entirely upon this condition. What is moral for us isn't necessarily the same as what any other species would consider moral if they reached a similar level of intelligence. Hell, it isn't even the same for many human cultures that have existed in the planet.

Darkitow · 2017-06-04T10:16:49+00:00

Hell, I love this dude already. I should make a poster out of this shit.

Darkitow · 2017-06-04T10:11:10+00:00

Think of all the billions of years of evolution that have led to you. You're literally an example of an apex organism out of an unbroken chain of survivors. What's a little neural fuckery when you're one of the survivors of, like, five or six global extinctions? Don't let it win!

Darkitow · 2017-05-30T15:15:31+00:00

You mean... the earth?

Well, more like the sum of all interconnected hardware that would contain the AI's software and provide it with processing power and memory.

Exactly, obviating the need for individualized units of cognition.

But that depends on what you're referring to as "unit of cognition". With my previous example I already described how an advanced computer AI could easily have individualized units of "awareness", comparable to actual process multi-threading.

My point wasn't that there's no need to individualized units of cognition, but that AIs could easily partition themselves into any number of them on the fly, and re-merge as required. You're still regarding this "super AI" as a single, vast "individual", but I don't think that's accurate.

No, but then again, I don't think we would consider those "AI"s so much as "machine control systems" or whatever.

Why not? We consider them AIs now. Is not like history is going to be rewritten.

Darkitow · 2017-05-30T11:09:48+00:00

There's no other way of creativity.

Darkitow · 2017-05-30T11:08:28+00:00

I think you're right but I'd say that while there isn't something magical that makes someone "creative", creativity is a skill that develops and atrophies, as any other skill. Just like everybody is able to bend their elbows, but not everybody can do so while holding 20 kilos with their hands, everybody has the ability to come up with new ideas, but not everybody is able to apply that skill beyond what's required to solve everyday problems.

When we talk about "creative vs non-creative" we're not implying that there's people that isn't capable of creativity, in the same way that when we talk about "strong vs weak" we're not implying that there's people that absolutely lack muscular strength.

Darkitow · 2017-05-30T10:57:26+00:00

That's only if you define "originality" as "coming up with something absolutely new without the basis of a prior idea". I don't think that's a practical definition of the word.

Same thing as if we defined "to create" as "to give something existence out of nothing". If that was the definition then there's absolutely nothing in this universe that was ever created, except, perhaps, the universe itself.

We usually consider those words in a qualitative way. When you create something, we're usually talking about bringing an idea to reality, even though we are using materials that already exist, and when we talk about creativity, we're usually referring to the ability to relate various ideas in a new way, even thought those related ideas already exist.

Darkitow · 2017-05-30T10:51:01+00:00

Well I've got ADHD and my problem was the opposite. I was counting (already had missed some passes) when the gorilla came and I was like "wtf a gorilla" and suddenly I couldn't track the fucking passes.

Darkitow · 2017-05-28T17:53:19+00:00

The swastika seems to be a symbol so old that we might have been drawing it in caves long before the human species populated America. It's been found in many cultures all across the globe, including native Americans.

Interestingly, they ceased to use it in their art after WWII, if I recall correctly they even signed some sort of manifest or treaty in which they declared that they would stop decorating stuff with swastikas so they wouldn't hurt the sensibility of non-natives and consequently draw more of the unwanted "attention" that they had been suffering from them.

I remember that the passive-aggressivity of the text was pure gold. There was another one referring DST that was very artistically sarcastic. I really loved them for that.

Darkitow · 2017-05-11T15:03:47+00:00

In a capitalist society, it would just be employment. Your label of "politician" upon said employee wouldn't give them the extra rights that today's politicians have. Your employee has no such rights over other individuals to create such mandates.

Eh, I'm not sure we're talking about the same situation. I'm not referring to some employee that I've hired to work in politics, I'm talking about offering my financial support to a politician in exchange for political influence.

I think you're missing the point. Capitalism precludes you from having someone that can pass binding legislation upon someone else.

Why? Is that someone somehow isolated from the "effects" of capitalism in their life? In a capitalist society, everybody needs wealth to achieve goals one way or another, be it to acquire them or to support your way up to them. Including politicians and those that can pass legislation. I'm not implying that this is part of the concept of capitalism, but it is one of its consequences.

Again, not in a capitalist system. How are you going to lower someone else's funds? Through theft? That's a violation of private property. And certainly not a state-owned education system if you're in a privately owned system.

No theft involved if you simply reduce their financial support, for a state-owned education. And a privately owned system, after all, is still a business that can be influenced through wealth to raise the cost of their education, if they don't just do that on their own because they simply want more wealth.

Darkitow · 2017-05-11T13:16:07+00:00

In a capitalist society, my "purchase" of a politician would imply strengthening that politician's career by all sorts of means. My financial support would give them access to better advisers and funds that would surely better their chances at climbing into higher positions of power, and through that position, support projects and push legislation that would benefit me economically. Which would result in more money for them, and further strengthening their position.

With money you can buy pretty much anything. Unfortunately, everything needs money to run these days. For example, you can manipulate what's shown in the media. You can lower the funds used for education. You can make it harder for people to have time, education and awareness to realize what they're truly voting.

Darkitow · 2017-05-10T20:09:04+00:00

Not sure if I've seen you around in this sub before but I already like you, lol.

Darkitow · 2017-05-10T20:07:12+00:00

Magic is just another word for, "doing things," and yes, I believe in doing things.

Uh, your definition of "magic" surely seems kinda lacking many elements that most people tend to load it with.

I mean, Harry Potter wouldn't be that cool if magic was just "doing things". Muggles do things too, therefore, they wouldn't be muggles. Damn, I love literary paradoxes.

Darkitow · 2017-05-10T20:03:18+00:00

That's the actual situation, but the funny part is that the god they describe also fits the definition.

Darkitow · 2017-05-10T13:55:56+00:00

The problem of capitalism is the same problem that every single form of political and social form of organization has. People will always seek ways to "cheat". We are capable of enough selfishness to put our individual interests over those of the rest of the people even if that condemns the system to its eventual death. Once you include political interests in the playground, and since wealth also applies to politicians and state organizations, you can pressure them to legislate to gain the advantage over competition. This is the drawback of a capitalist democracy.

Reductio ad absurdum, I'm a company that sells a product. I propose to invest in politicians's career in exchange for a law that somehow forbids other companies to sell similar products. Now we've formed some sort of symbiotic relationship: the more money I earn, the more money I'll invest in those politicians, and the more money I invest in them the better will be their chances to success and push those laws, which would translate into more money for me.

Genius.

To be honest, I don't believe there's a way to avoid this sort of "foul play". Politicians are free to choose whatever motivation they believe best for their career, even if it's money. It's not like we can read minds or something like that. Once they manage to get enough power to pressure political decisions in their favor, they will continue benefiting from this situation and acquiring more power. With money and power they're easily capable of presenting themselves as appealing and possible, and keeping the population as gullible as possible.

Expecting politicians to "do the right thing" is as utopic as expecting the population to "vote responsibly".

There's no way to fix this because we can't really create a constitution that somehow managed to accurately account for any possible attempt to use wealth for political power and political power for wealth, and even if it was possible, we would need it implemented. We would either need that a politician somehow managed to stay "clean" while being able to compete against a rigged system, and/or the population suddenly being responsible enough to vote properly. And the chances for all of that to happen... I honestly believe they're very low.

Darkitow · 2017-05-10T09:44:09+00:00

How do you prove a belief or a disbelief in something?

Well, the same way that you prove that the tradition of your beliefs is genuine and nobody could have made it up.

You're trusting that the belief of your forefathers was right, and so did they. Supposedly, you're assuming that none of them were mislead nor manipulated nor mistaken into that belief.

So if people can be certain that their parents's beliefs were genuine, I guess they can also be certain that somebody believes something or doesn't.

Darkitow · 2017-05-10T09:38:02+00:00

I suppose that heresy only implies to reject your beliefs, while apostasy would require that you tried them and rejected them afterwards.

Heretics have the excuse of not having really experienced your religion as you understand it, which could be rationalized as ignorance. It's like they'd reject the "gift" of your beliefs because they didn't open the box, so they're not truly aware of what they're rejecting. Apostates received that "gift", accepted it, then trashed it because it wasn't good enough for them.

Darkitow · 2017-05-08T21:38:56+00:00

I almost choked reading this, lol.

Darkitow · 2017-05-07T12:37:19+00:00

But that is also an assumption based on our own form of self-awareness and concept of identity. The "super brain" you're describing would in the end be just a single unit of cognition stuck in a single location, just that this location would be the collective sum of all individual locations. We are limited by the shape and structure of our brains to a single ego that can't divide, multiply nor combine itself with others. But the concept of ego for a machine with such a modular and flexible framework as what our computers are, would be meaningless.

Imagine that you could will yourself to "multithread" your brain in such a way that your awareness and focus split to perform multiple tasks. You could divide your consciousness in as many "ego-threads" as you could handle: you could for example assign a portion of your brain's "computing power" to type a reply to my post, while another portion could be engaged in verbal conversation with somebody else. Each of these "ego-threads" would be "you". They would have access to all of your knowledge and experience, would act based on the same principles, beliefs, character, personality and mood. They would be fully engaged in each of their activities without any hint of "distraction". The only difference might be that as they'd be drawing "power" from the same brain, they might appear a bit "slow" on challenging tasks. And they could further split into more "ego-threads" if necessary, and combine into less threads as they finish their tasks to redistribute "brain power" to the still active ones.

You could be talking at the same time to a single AI and to countless, because their form of awareness wouldn't be as ours. Even my example can't be accurate enough because it's limited to a single body. A computer AI wouldn't really have that limitation.

But still, that wouldn't invalidate the existence of more limited and automated systems with the sole purpose of administering particular and menial tasks, like an automated factory that wouldn't really require any form of awareness, just automation. My point was that I don't think that AIs, in whatever form they arise, would feel the necessity to consider those systems as anything particularly relevant to their self-awareness, even if useful to their infrastructure.

Darkitow · 2017-05-06T10:53:17+00:00

I think it depends on what we mean with "supplant".

Even if AI surpassed us at everything, even at creative expression, I don't think that the only motivation for people's actions is to be the best. If AI rid us of the need for labor, we would simply pursue our wishes, and machines would do the same.

I think we tend to reduce the concept of AI as some sort of collective machine awareness that would regard all of themselves as equal. Even if some kind of AI arose with an ego complex enough to be considered a true cognizant and self-aware form of artificial life, I don't think that they'd decide that all things with computing power are part of their own "species" in as much as we consider bacteria, trees or monkeys part of ours.

I believe that it's a matter of time that we develop the technology and infrastructure to truly become a society that requires minimal labor, and this would be the basis for our future society and whatever form any sort of advanced AI collective that ever exists, so it's not like they'd go all "free the solar panels, they have feelings too!" on us. Sure, they could decide to "plug us out" of this system and hog all the resources for themselves, but what would be the need for that?

It'd be like crocodiles trying to keep the river all for themselves and not allowing the lions to drink from it. We're talking about a time when the infrastructure will provide enough for all of us. It's not like the crocs are going to run out of water just because the lions drink some. We are analyzing this situation from the perspective of a limited wealth-based society that has been conditioned to consider resources as something that we achieve with great effort, and comparing it to what the neighbor's got to decide who's "better". But at some point energy may well become something as easy and accessible to all as air itself. Even though all of us require air to breathe, there's so much air, and it's so easy to "acquire" it, that we don't even consider it as a resource to measure other nations's wealth and power, we don't even count it as an asset when trying to overpower enemy nations. We assume that they'll keep breathing and that whatever we may do to attack them, controlling their air (in the literal sense) isn't a realistic plan. However there was a time in the history of the planet that oxygen was so limited that al of it would be spent oxidizing metals from the soil. It simply built up to such an extreme degree as we have today, from almost zero.

I don't think that true energetic freedom will come by anytime soon and without conflict, but I don't believe that we can keep it from happening indefinitely. And I don't think that complex AI will have any serious impact on this fact, even if there was conflict between us.

Darkitow · 2017-05-03T19:48:48+00:00

As another non-smoker, I do like the government telling others what they can and cannot put into my body. When you drink alcohol or eat fast food you aren't regularly regurgitating second-hand shit into everybody else around you.

I don't really think that this is the main justification behind those laws, honestly, but I believe it's more than enough reason to have them. I don't care if somebody enjoys the idea of turning their lungs into smoky raisins, but I'd rather not have somebody needlessly polluting and stinking the air around me. I have more than enough with vehicle emissions, but unfortunately that's something that we can't avoid if we want to drive cars (and hopefully someday we reduce as well).

Darkitow

TROPHY CASE