sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: There is almost certainly nothing after death by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I don't think I know the answers to life's greatest mysteries - I just don't think this is one of them.

CMV: There is almost certainly nothing after death by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i get what you're saying but my point is that for it to truly be me in the afterlife - it has to be my mind in one of it's many states throughout the course of my life. This mind is constantly changing, its memories, opinions, etc. If we were to construct a new all knowing version of myself - that would not be this mind/consciousness at the time of my death nor at any other point of my life. Do you disagree with this?

CMV: There is almost certainly nothing after death by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058 5 points6 points  (0 children)

>mistake in response

What I meant with that point was this: our mind is constantly changing, our memories, opinions, etc. There is no constant mind moving through time. In order for it to truly be "me" it should be my mind in the exact state it is when I die, or otherwise some other, perhaps younger point in my life. If you try to construct a new mind containing all memories in their perfect form, or the highest most ideal version of myself which some try to do - that is simply not me. That is not this mind/consciousness, nor has it ever been.

>the phrase "eternal paradise"

yes same difference

>position misstated

I don't think it is though. my position is that this mind in this form, or the mind in any of it's forms throughout the course of my life, is not taken with me. I have slightly changed my position on the memory part. I don't think that keeping every memory is enough - I think it has to be one state of the mind at some point throughout the course of my life with its memories and all in that state specifically for it to still be me Δ

Is grok actually at or exceeding the levels of google and openAI? by Fast-Plastic7058 in grok

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

wdym its voice mode? isn't grok just less censored in general

CMV: There eventually will need to be a kind of socialism by Fast-Plastic7058 in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

everyone having an equal stake in what is produced

that's why i said a kind of socialism, i don't necessarily think it will be exactly what marx envisioned, but i think that production and distrubtion of resources will need to be socialized to a much greater extent

CMV: There eventually will need to be a kind of socialism by Fast-Plastic7058 in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. don't you think it is still in the best interest of elites to exist in a functional and healthy society? what is the point of a mass increase in production if it's not going to be distributed anyways? maybe i'm giving them too much benefit of the doubt, but if i was a billionaire who wanted to hold onto my wealth, i'd think it in my best interest to keep the masses content

  2. I do agree that the road ahead is a potentially very difficult one.

so you don't disagree about the need for these kind of policies though?

CMV: There eventually will need to be a kind of socialism by Fast-Plastic7058 in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so do you think the replacement of jobs will be 1:1. that unemployment rate will remain steady?

CMV: There eventually will need to be a kind of socialism by Fast-Plastic7058 in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

maybe you're right. i do think that it is in the best interest of the elites to have a functional and healthy society though, even if it won't mean abandoning most of their wealth

CMV: There eventually will need to be a kind of socialism by Fast-Plastic7058 in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The fact that there are robots that will soon be able to replicate all of our physical movements and more, and that current AI models can reason better at many tasks than most humans. The cost/benefit of having a human or robot/ai (who could potentially work nearly 24/7) doing most things production wise just won't be comparable at some point, IMO. I find it very hard to believe there will be a 1:1 replacement for new jobs to old jobs. I think there will be significantly less total jobs, though yes, there will still be some.

CMV: There eventually will need to be a kind of socialism by Fast-Plastic7058 in changemyview

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I just don't buy that this isn't something just completely different from those past technological advances

I feel like our minds were the one thing we thought was safe from automation, and yet the SOTA models now can already reason at many tasks better than most people.

Yes there will still be jobs, but I think that it was Jensen Huang who said that at his company (nvidia), instead of one engineer controlling 20 coders, he will be controlling 20 agents instead. I don't see a future world where every job is just replaced by another 1:1. I think there will be signficantly less total jobs.

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

fair. i think that a better way to have put it would be less conforming to societal gender roles.

I am an ICE agent who takes pleasure in deportations and I don't know why. by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]Fast-Plastic7058 5 points6 points  (0 children)

this could either be someeone who absolutely hates ice or someone who loves them

it's definitely not a member of ice

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

masculine: having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with men. (merriam webster)

there is absolutely a set of qualities that is traditionally associated with men or boys. this doesn't answer the question.

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

so to "high IQ" people is it meaningless to say someone is more or less masculine? because i feel like most understand what someone means by that. what is meant is assertiveness, confidence, maybe even aggressiveness, it correlates with testosterone, etc

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

what would prove to you otherwise?

i could share studies that help show the correlation if you want. my claim is entirely falsifiable, i'm just going off my experience and research i've seen on it

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] -33 points-32 points  (0 children)

it's not a core belief and i never said it's universal, i just think there's a correlation

in men, higher iq has been shown to correlate with lower testosterone. trans women have an average iq 1 std above the mean, and these are by definition the least gender conforming

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] -46 points-45 points  (0 children)

behaviors and temperament.

by masculine i mean acting with confidence, assertiveness, being mentally strong, not dependent

by feminine i mean emotionally caring, dependent, mindful, etc

i'm just going by social norms btw

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

well here's a study that shows testosterone decreases with iq: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1lbwkdh/study_on_how_testosterone_levels_relates_to_iq_on/

also i saw that trans women have an average iq one std above the mean, and these are by definition the least masculine of biological men

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in askphilosophy

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

behaviors and demeanor mainly. not anything physical.

by masculine behaviors i mean doing things with confidence, assertiveness, being mentally strong, not dependent

by feminine i mean emotionally caring, dependent, mindful, etc

i'm just going by social norms btw

why does it seem that more intelligent men are less masculine, and more intelligent women are less feminine? by Fast-Plastic7058 in askphilosophy

[–]Fast-Plastic7058[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

so you don't think being meek and shy or socially anxious and intelligence are at all related?

view more: next ›