|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 5, 2018 1:44:34 GMT
tpfkar Since you're too lazy; from above: mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it." goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. " It's on this page. No, that's your standard dishonest presentation. The actual flow was: mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it."
And whilst I couldn't stop life, it's conceivable that a very powerful AI in the future could terminate life on this planet, if it was programmed to make decisions based on unadulterated pure logic and act in the best interests of the living inhabitants of the world."goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare."
Addressing the whole of your of your garbage doesn't mean she was assenting to your repeated pleads of "intrinsically positive about life", whatever it is you're trying to suggest with it.
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2018 2:41:42 GMT
tpfkar Since you're too lazy; from above: mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it." goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. " It's on this page. No, that's your standard dishonest presentation. The actual flow was: mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it."
And whilst I couldn't stop life, it's conceivable that a very powerful AI in the future could terminate life on this planet, if it was programmed to make decisions based on unadulterated pure logic and act in the best interests of the living inhabitants of the world."goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare."
Addressing the whole of your of your garbage doesn't mean she was assenting to your repeated pleads of "intrinsically positive about life", whatever it is you're trying to suggest with it.
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."Its entirely obvious that 'intrinsically positive' was the part being addressed by 'That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently'. That quote would have no bearing on the rest of the post, which merely consisted of a hypothetical scenario of ai ending sentient life (therefore evolution and natural selection have no bearing on such a scenario). Flagrantly dishonest backtracking on your part. You are also implying that sentient life is intrinsically positive when you state that non existent people are in a worse position than existing people, even though there is no cognitive mechanism to appreciate that there is any choice being missed out on. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 5, 2018 2:46:17 GMT
tpfkar That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare. lolwut? I thought that you were an atheist. If you're saying that there is something intrinsically positive in life, then that would imply an objective arbiter (i.e. a god). If you're an atheist, then you accept the premise that evolution/natural selection wasn't a process that was set off in order to create a 'good' in the universe; it's simply an unintelligent process whereby the specimens best adapted to their environment survived. Humans are the strongest gladiators in the gladiator war, and we have a strong aversion to the termination of our existence. Even if we are enduring immense suffering; our programming will always cause us to prolong our existence for as long as possible, always at any cost to our wellbeing. As for AI, I have just, this night found an interesting article which dovetails with a lot of my thinking on the issue of why a benevolent AI might logically determine that extinction is the best course of action: www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baanNice, Ada.  "If" is a big word you frequently turn into one of your mind "facts". Life is good because we value it so. And what a shocker you found some article that "dovetails" with your great thinking. And your wellbeing line is more pure (deranged) subjective rubbish both in the big and in the small.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 5, 2018 2:53:54 GMT
tpfkar No, that's your standard dishonest presentation. The actual flow was: mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it."
And whilst I couldn't stop life, it's conceivable that a very powerful AI in the future could terminate life on this planet, if it was programmed to make decisions based on unadulterated pure logic and act in the best interests of the living inhabitants of the world."goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare."
Addressing the whole of your of your garbage doesn't mean she was assenting to your repeated pleads of "intrinsically positive about life", whatever it is you're trying to suggest with it.
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."Its entirely obvious that 'intrinsically positive' was the part being addressed by 'That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently'. That quote would have no bearing on the rest of the post, which merely consisted of a hypothetical scenario of ai ending sentient life (therefore evolution and natural selection have no bearing on such a scenario). Flagrantly dishonest backtracking on your part. You are also implying that sentient life is intrinsically positive when you state that non existent people are in a worse position than existing people, even though there is no cognitive mechanism to appreciate that there is any choice being missed out on. It's entirely obvious that "intrinsically positive", whatever it's supposed to mean, is your attempt to get somebody to say something that you try to work. "Positive" is subjective in all cases so your entire presentation was/is nonsensical even before meanderings into other peoples' conjectures and thought experiments about wwad. Life is good == human value. You're the one who goes on and on about nonexistent being wronged (objectively!), and once you go there, then we can also project backwards from the existent based on actual evidence of wants, whether you like it or not that it highlights the utter ludicrousness of your "arguments". Nobody but you keep trying to push that "the nonexistent" are anything of any kind.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2018 5:05:02 GMT
The problem with this article is: An AI is not alive, as opposed to human beings. Human beings are biological machines. They aren't just brains and consciousnesses. They have bodies, with central and vegetative nervous systems; and they thrive for survival and reproduction. They are collections of selfish genes, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins. An AI is not. They don't have selfish genes, and therefore no need nor desire to survive or reproduce. If a blind person told us that visual art is useless, would we believe them? If a deaf person told us that music is useless, would we believe them? If an AI told us that reproduction is useless, why should we believe it? I agree that the AI will not necessarily feel compelled to continue its own existence (which I think is covered in the article), but the whole point is that it does not have the existence bias of biological organisms, and therefore if set the task of acting in the best interests of biological organisms, it may end all life, before taking itself out. We should take the ai's word for the fact that the existence bias is irrational, because it is plain to see that no biological organism will regret its non-existence, but will be freed from the cycle of suffering and need. This would be a hard sell, as the existence bias is all consuming for most, but but the ai may decide to save us from ourselves, rather than putting the matter to a democratic vote. There is no need for us to continue existing, only our genes duping us into the belief that continuation of the cycle of life is a beneficial thing. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 5, 2018 6:19:57 GMT
The problem with this article is: An AI is not alive, as opposed to human beings. Human beings are biological machines. They aren't just brains and consciousnesses. They have bodies, with central and vegetative nervous systems; and they thrive for survival and reproduction. They are collections of selfish genes, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins. An AI is not. They don't have selfish genes, and therefore no need nor desire to survive or reproduce. If a blind person told us that visual art is useless, would we believe them? If a deaf person told us that music is useless, would we believe them? If an AI told us that reproduction is useless, why should we believe it? I agree that the AI will not necessarily feel compelled to continue its own existence (which I think is covered in the article), but the whole point is that it does not have the existence bias of biological organisms, and therefore if set the task of acting in the best interests of biological organisms, it may end all life, before taking itself out. We should take the ai's word for the fact that the existence bias is irrational, because it is plain to see that no biological organism will regret its non-existence, but will be freed from the cycle of suffering and need. This would be a hard sell, as the existence bias is all consuming for most, but but the ai may decide to save us from ourselves, rather than putting the matter to a democratic vote. There is no need for us to continue existing, only our genes duping us into the belief that continuation of the cycle of life is a beneficial thing. This is my last post on this subject ever. I will indulge your ridiculousness, illogical nonsense no longer. You are the ultimate hypocrite speaking from a position of living. You advocate that all life ceases within a reproductive lifecycle for each organism and perhaps 100 years for humans. It sucks to be you that you will NOT( as a living advocate of suicide and non reproduction) be the last living human to turn off the lights and shut the door. You are one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. I bid you good day. ...and it has for me been spent with my six grandchildren playing in the surf in a wonderful beach environment, laughing cuddling playing loving and making a 10th birthday cake, then walking our dogs, cuddling one who at five scraped her knee and just being SO GLAD TO BE ALIVE, LIVING AND LOVING at the autumn end of a wonderful life, which has been beset with human problems, deaths and horror...yet it is the best gift for any human being...yes some have less, to extreme degrees, which are totally unrelated to my JOY... for whatever reason I have been blessed, and I have taken nothing from another living human being in my just plain being here. I feel sorry for you that you have not had that. I will never let you spoil this for me and NEVER answer you again. Your aim is to bring people and evolutions and life on earth down. Sucked in....NEVER gonna happen. Bye. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 5, 2018 15:09:56 GMT
tpfkar The problem with this article is: An AI is not alive, as opposed to human beings. Human beings are biological machines. They aren't just brains and consciousnesses. They have bodies, with central and vegetative nervous systems; and they thrive for survival and reproduction. They are collections of selfish genes, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins. An AI is not. They don't have selfish genes, and therefore no need nor desire to survive or reproduce. If a blind person told us that visual art is useless, would we believe them? If a deaf person told us that music is useless, would we believe them? If an AI told us that reproduction is useless, why should we believe it? I agree that the AI will not necessarily feel compelled to continue its own existence (which I think is covered in the article), but the whole point is that it does not have the existence bias of biological organisms, and therefore if set the task of acting in the best interests of biological organisms, it may end all life, before taking itself out. We should take the ai's word for the fact that the existence bias is irrational, because it is plain to see that no biological organism will regret its non-existence, but will be freed from the cycle of suffering and need. This would be a hard sell, as the existence bias is all consuming for most, but but the ai may decide to save us from ourselves, rather than putting the matter to a democratic vote. There is no need for us to continue existing, only our genes duping us into the belief that continuation of the cycle of life is a beneficial thing. Right, we should take a nonexistent construction's nonexistent word, that some other human concluded it would come up with, because it's AI. And you think you're not full on nutcase?
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 10:08:43 GMT
I agree that the AI will not necessarily feel compelled to continue its own existence (which I think is covered in the article), but the whole point is that it does not have the existence bias of biological organisms, and therefore if set the task of acting in the best interests of biological organisms, it may end all life, before taking itself out. We should take the ai's word for the fact that the existence bias is irrational, because it is plain to see that no biological organism will regret its non-existence, but will be freed from the cycle of suffering and need. This would be a hard sell, as the existence bias is all consuming for most, but but the ai may decide to save us from ourselves, rather than putting the matter to a democratic vote. There is no need for us to continue existing, only our genes duping us into the belief that continuation of the cycle of life is a beneficial thing. This is my last post on this subject ever. I will indulge your ridiculousness, illogical nonsense no longer. You are the ultimate hypocrite speaking from a position of living. You advocate that all life ceases within a reproductive lifecycle for each organism and perhaps 100 years for humans. It sucks to be you that you will NOT( as a living advocate of suicide and non reproduction) be the last living human to turn off the lights and shut the door. You are one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. I bid you good day. ...and it has for me been spent with my six grandchildren playing in the surf in a wonderful beach environment, laughing cuddling playing loving and making a 10th birthday cake, then walking our dogs, cuddling one who at five scraped her knee and just being SO GLAD TO BE ALIVE, LIVING AND LOVING at the autumn end of a wonderful life, which has been beset with human problems, deaths and horror...yet it is the best gift for any human being...yes some have less, to extreme degrees, which are totally unrelated to my JOY... for whatever reason I have been blessed, and I have taken nothing from another living human being in my just plain being here. I feel sorry for you that you have not had that. I will never let you spoil this for me and NEVER answer you again. Your aim is to bring people and evolutions and life on earth down. Sucked in....NEVER gonna happen. Bye. You haven't shown anything illogical in my views, you just don't like them. Quite the contrary, you've had to resort to mysticism in order to try and refute it (such as suggesting that there's something intrinsically important about life). I would assume that you don't believe in the notion of disembodied souls floating about in the ether prior to birth, therefore you can't refute the point that the unborn will never regret not being born. Everyone takes from others through their existence, but I don't blame you for that. What is salient you have created unnecessary impositions on others and are trying to irrationally rationalise the decision. If they haven't come to, or don't come to rue the imposition, then it's by luck and nothing more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 10:18:32 GMT
tpfkar Its entirely obvious that 'intrinsically positive' was the part being addressed by 'That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently'. That quote would have no bearing on the rest of the post, which merely consisted of a hypothetical scenario of ai ending sentient life (therefore evolution and natural selection have no bearing on such a scenario). Flagrantly dishonest backtracking on your part. You are also implying that sentient life is intrinsically positive when you state that non existent people are in a worse position than existing people, even though there is no cognitive mechanism to appreciate that there is any choice being missed out on. It's entirely obvious that "intrinsically positive", whatever it's supposed to mean, is your attempt to get somebody to say something that you try to work. "Positive" is subjective in all cases so your entire presentation was/is nonsensical even before meanderings into other peoples' conjectures and thought experiments about wwad. Life is good == human value. You're the one who goes on and on about nonexistent being wronged (objectively!), and once you go there, then we can also project backwards from the existent based on actual evidence of wants, whether you like it or not that it highlights the utter ludicrousness of your "arguments". Nobody but you keep trying to push that "the nonexistent" are anything of any kind.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceSo now it's my fault that goz had a ridiculous and nonsensical answer to a statement that I made? I'm not attempting to get anyone to say anything illogical; I'm attempting to make people realise the illogic of the rationalisations that they use. And positive is indeed subjective, and it takes people to exist in the first place to subjectively value life or feel that being alive and having the choice to continue living is better than not existing. There are no such things as non-existent people, and therefore such can never be in a worse position due to not having the choice to live, as there is no mind to subjectively grasp the concept that multiple choices are superior. Life is good is only a human value and it is only good for those who have the capability of subjectively valuing. It's something that cannot be lost or missed by not bringing someone into existence, because a non-existent person, by definition, does not exist to miss out on the good. I haven't stated anything about the non-existent being wronged. Bringing someone into a miserable life is an imposition that is inflicted on an actual person (someone can only be wronged if they exist, and by giving birth to the person you create a consciousness that can be wronged against); whereas your argument implies that there are 'non-existent people' who are missing out on the joys of life. I'm not claiming that my argument benefits any non-existent people, merely that it prevents a condition of imposition and vulnerability to harm being created where it needn't have been. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 10:23:20 GMT
tpfkar I agree that the AI will not necessarily feel compelled to continue its own existence (which I think is covered in the article), but the whole point is that it does not have the existence bias of biological organisms, and therefore if set the task of acting in the best interests of biological organisms, it may end all life, before taking itself out. We should take the ai's word for the fact that the existence bias is irrational, because it is plain to see that no biological organism will regret its non-existence, but will be freed from the cycle of suffering and need. This would be a hard sell, as the existence bias is all consuming for most, but but the ai may decide to save us from ourselves, rather than putting the matter to a democratic vote. There is no need for us to continue existing, only our genes duping us into the belief that continuation of the cycle of life is a beneficial thing. Right, we should take a nonexistent construction's nonexistent word, that some other human concluded it would come up with, because it's AI. And you think you're not full on nutcase?
Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."It's called a thought experiment or hypothetical scenario. If an AI did exist which was charged with acting in the best interests of the welfare of all sentient organisms, there would be no rational arguments against swiftly and peacefully eradicating all sentient life. No human has ever come up with a rational argument for why the wellbeing of the winners of the lottery justifies a trespass against the welfare of the losers. And the 'right to reproduce' is really only 'might makes right'. Perhaps the AI could figure out a rational justification for allowing the imposition to continue that is beyond the ken of any humans. But I'm simply presenting a hypothetical scenario based on the best logic and reasoning that is accessible to human beings, at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 6, 2018 11:40:38 GMT
If an AI did exist which was charged with acting in the best interests of the welfare of all sentient organisms, there would be no rational arguments against swiftly and peacefully eradicating all sentient life. And as I said before: The opinion of the AI would be meaningless. It's like if a person blind from birth declared painting useless, or a person deaf from birth declared music useless. There may be rational reasons for arguing like this; but nobody has to listen to them. No human has ever come up with a rational argument for why the wellbeing of the winners of the lottery justifies a trespass against the welfare of the losers. First, that's a strawman; and second, humans are not entirely rational. In fact, philosophers like Pascal and La Rochefoucauld have argued that the irrational side in humans is more important than the rational side. And the 'right to reproduce' is really only 'might makes right'. Do you have any rational arguments against "might makes right"? If you don't, then you admit that people shouldn't always make rational decisions. And if you do, then you have rational arguments for the right to reproduce. Either way, your argument is pointless. Perhaps the AI could figure out a rational justification for allowing the imposition to continue that is beyond the ken of any humans. But I'm simply presenting a hypothetical scenario based on the best logic and reasoning that is accessible to human beings, at this time. And as I pointed out (and other posters as well): What you consider "best logic and reasoning" is nothing more than your subjective opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with it; but you shouldn't present it as more logical or rational than the opinions of goz, cupcakes, or other posters. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 6, 2018 12:06:11 GMT
And as I pointed out (and other posters as well): What you consider "best logic and reasoning" is nothing more than your subjective opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with it; but you shouldn't present it as more logical or rational than the opinions of goz, cupcakes, or other posters. Agreed. People who present their opinion as irrefutable fact are dumb. There is no point debating or having a philosophical discussion with someone who doesn't seem to think that reality is subjective and frames his subjective perspective as objective fact. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 3:42:48 GMT
If an AI did exist which was charged with acting in the best interests of the welfare of all sentient organisms, there would be no rational arguments against swiftly and peacefully eradicating all sentient life. And as I said before: The opinion of the AI would be meaningless. It's like if a person blind from birth declared painting useless, or a person deaf from birth declared music useless. There may be rational reasons for arguing like this; but nobody has to listen to them. It wouldn't be meaningless if we were appointing the AI to make decisions on our behalf, as indicated in the article. Although the AI wouldn't have experienced life as a biological entity, it could still be intelligent enough to understand all of our motivations, biases, instincts, etc. We're not entirely rational, that's true. But if someone trespasses against you for an irrational reason, it's likely to offend you more than if you were trespassed against for a rational reason. Just because we're irrational by nature, doesn't mean that a potential rational agent (the AI) should not prevent us from creating more victims in our unreason. It doesn't work as an organising principle in civilised society, and if we adopted that principle in every aspect of life, then only a very small privileged few would have any rights, and we would all be at their mercy. People shouldn't make irrational decisions when it is on behalf of someone else, and that someone else cannot consent. What's your 'rational argument' for the right to enter people into a dangerous lottery without their consent? What's your 'rational argument' that someone should be freely able to make me vulnerable to harm (without any benefit to myself), just because I wasn't capable of refusing consent at the time of imposition? And what's your rational argument that you deserve a happy life more than someone who just happened to be born crippled or diseased, and spends their entire life in misery? The fact is that there wasn't any condition of fairness or desert which separates your fate from theirs. 'The non existent do not feel deprived of existence, but the existent often feel harmed' is not a statement that can be refuted with the current scientific understanding of consciousness. So certainly the bedrock of my argument is based on sound logical and rational principles. Conversely, the suggestion that we should be able to subject people to harm just because we feel like it is psychopathic nihilism, and the bedrock of the argument for why it isn't selfish to do so makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to take this tack, you should at least expect the reproducers to admit that all of their motives are selfish ones. Also, if their only contention is 'the universe doesn't care about torture, so therefore nothing ought to be done to prevent it', then they are hypocrites if they are claiming to be moral people, given that the bedrock of modern moral codes and jurisprudence is not to harm other people, or cause them to be put in harm's way, without reason. In short, if the costs of reproduction are irrelevant, then the only alternative to that is amoral nihilism. And neither goz nor cupcakes have claimed to be, or owned up to being, amoral nihilists, which makes them hypocrites. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 3:45:44 GMT
And as I pointed out (and other posters as well): What you consider "best logic and reasoning" is nothing more than your subjective opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with it; but you shouldn't present it as more logical or rational than the opinions of goz, cupcakes, or other posters. Agreed. People who present their opinion as irrefutable fact are dumb. There is no point debating or having a philosophical discussion with someone who doesn't seem to think that reality is subjective and frames his subjective perspective as objective fact. So in other words 'I'm gonna keep creating more victims because it's only a subjective opinion that risking other people's welfare as a means to my own selfish end is a bad thing. If it can't be proven that the universe cares about torture victims, then that makes it alright to create new consciousnesses to be tortured'. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 7, 2018 14:43:43 GMT
tpfkar Agreed. People who present their opinion as irrefutable fact are dumb. There is no point debating or having a philosophical discussion with someone who doesn't seem to think that reality is subjective and frames his subjective perspective as objective fact. So in other words 'I'm gonna keep creating more victims because it's only a subjective opinion that risking other people's welfare as a means to my own selfish end is a bad thing. If it can't be proven that the universe cares about torture victims, then that makes it alright to create new consciousnesses to be tortured'. No, it's deranged ca-ca subjective lugubrious pathological framings.
Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 22:00:39 GMT
tpfkar So in other words 'I'm gonna keep creating more victims because it's only a subjective opinion that risking other people's welfare as a means to my own selfish end is a bad thing. If it can't be proven that the universe cares about torture victims, then that makes it alright to create new consciousnesses to be tortured'. No, it's deranged ca-ca subjective lugubrious pathological framings.
Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMENobody can be tortured if we stop the production line which keeps churning out torturers and torture victims. And thanks for the link to an article from one of the richest and most fortunate people ever to exist telling people that they need to be more optimistic.  If one of the top 5 richest people on the planet thinks that life is all coming up roses, then who is the Bangladeshi sweatshop worker, Indonesian asylum inmate or child condemned to a lifetime of painful and crippling disability to disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 7, 2018 22:02:29 GMT
Nobody can be tortured if we stop the production line which keeps churning out torturers and torture victims. And thanks for the link to an article from one of the richest and most fortunate people ever to exist telling people that they need to be more optimistic. If one of the top 5 richest people on the planet thinks that life is all coming up roses, then who is the Bangladeshi sweatshop worker, Indonesian asylum inmate or child condemned to a lifetime of painful and crippling disability to disagree? On the bright side, your goal is being achieved, this thread is sapping my will to live. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 7, 2018 22:06:45 GMT
tpfkar Nobody can be tortured if we stop the production line which keeps churning out torturers and torture victims. And thanks for the link to an article from one of the richest and most fortunate people ever to exist telling people that they need to be more optimistic. If one of the top 5 richest people on the planet thinks that life is all coming up roses, then who is the Bangladeshi sweatshop worker, Indonesian asylum inmate or child condemned to a lifetime of painful and crippling disability to disagree? The breakfast cereal of homicidal psychopaths.
Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 22:54:14 GMT
tpfkar Nobody can be tortured if we stop the production line which keeps churning out torturers and torture victims. And thanks for the link to an article from one of the richest and most fortunate people ever to exist telling people that they need to be more optimistic. If one of the top 5 richest people on the planet thinks that life is all coming up roses, then who is the Bangladeshi sweatshop worker, Indonesian asylum inmate or child condemned to a lifetime of painful and crippling disability to disagree? The breakfast cereal of homicidal psychopaths.
Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldNo doubt the sweatshop worker who soiled his trousers whilst working a 16 hour shift because he had diarrhea and toilet breaks aren't allowed will be pleased to learn that things are looking up for the wealthy westerners who buy the goods that he produces. Yes, nobody has individual wellbeing which is separate from how the species as a whole fares. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 7, 2018 22:55:01 GMT
tpfkar It's called a thought experiment or hypothetical scenario. If an AI did exist which was charged with acting in the best interests of the welfare of all sentient organisms, there would be no rational arguments against swiftly and peacefully eradicating all sentient life. No human has ever come up with a rational argument for why the wellbeing of the winners of the lottery justifies a trespass against the welfare of the losers. And the 'right to reproduce' is really only 'might makes right'. Perhaps the AI could figure out a rational justification for allowing the imposition to continue that is beyond the ken of any humans. But I'm simply presenting a hypothetical scenario based on the best logic and reasoning that is accessible to human beings, at this time. Right, read above where I called it just that. You treating a human's "maybe" conjecture as to what a nonexistent AI's nonexistent conclusion would be - in his case in the service of warning against AI - as anything more than just some fellow human's opinion, just highlights your utter lack of discernment and complete willingness to be ludicrous. There are no required winners and losers in life as the good is not zero sum; we keep net-growing it all the time. Winning the lottery is getting the option of experiencing and enjoying life or not, and the right to f!ck for grown people is something you extremists will have to keep your grubby little hands out of as your day is ending overall, despite your only current hope with extremest Islam. You were not simply presenting a scenario, you were making direct conclusions based on conjectures your new god AI might conclude. I suppose the guy conjecturing on it can be your high priest.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
The only "god" is your deity of pain & suffering.
