John F

That’s true.  But they’re related because each is an example of something fulfilling an ideal.

Good (morally good) as fulfilling an idea is only valid for some moral theories and not for others. In other words, your argument works only if it aligns with your arbitrarily chosen moral system. It does not with other ones such as deontological or util…[Read more]

But theologians are making an honest attempt to make sense of the factual information they think they have, in the same way that philosophers do.

Well Simon…you could say the same thing about flat-Earthers or QAnon lunatics. There is honestly no difference between flat-Earthers who put their stupid ideas into rational sounding arguments…[Read more]

Enco, I get the feeling that your point of view here stems from your deep mistrust of government, support for industry to do nearly whatever they like and an extreme dislike of regulation. You know fully well I never said we should be hostile to AI nor did I even insinuate we should assume the worst. Your occasional gift for putting words in other…[Read more]

for atheists, philosophy takes the place of theology.

Not really Simon. Theology is viewed as either a sub-branch of philosophy or an entirely different subject to philosophy. I take the latter view, some religious people do not.

Theology is a particularly pernicious intellectual field (if you can call it intellectual) because, with the most…[Read more]

Hey Unseen,

I am fairly certain that you can create a new group, and while you create a group, check the option to create a forum that is part of the group (I know that is slightly confusing). If you cannot do that, then I will happily create one for you. Go to images.google.com and search for two philosophy related images (try to be creative if…[Read more]

Thrive:

To grow or develop well

Nothing about evolution, adaption, fitness etc. If I wanted to talk about evolution, adaption or fitness…then I would use the terms: adaption, evolution or fitness. I would not confusingly replace it with: thrive.

You should accept that random and/or meaningless things happen Simon, frequently and at a much…[Read more]

To answer your question Unseen, I did create an ethics and humanism forum which cover all of the philosophy related questions I have asked so far…but it wouldn’t hurt to have one. By all means create one.

Simon, I do not know why you keep making claims about Philosophy without actually familiarising yourself with the subject. It is absolutely beyond my comprehension how someone feels compelled to comment to such an extent on a theme they know, and make little effort, to know more about.

In the Leuven philosophy library the…[Read more]

Yes Enco, not taking precautions ahead of time with AI development is totally wise. What could possibly go wrong? Brilliant minds such as Stephen Hawkins have warned humanity about this…but what do they know?

Simon, I said “your definition” of thriving, not the actual one.

I don’t think you fully got what I was trying to say about violence. Some of it is absolutely pointless, meaningless that defies even comprehension. It is outside power structures or simple explanations. This must be considered when theorising about human cruelty (especially…[Read more]

Ultimately Simon…your second and third point are virtually the same. Your definition of thriving has become almost replaceable with “adaption and fitness” that the two are barely distinguishable.

Why people take pleasures in cruelty is insanely complex and requires more than just three categories that very broadly describe human nature. Just…[Read more]

No. If you are talking about a common ancestor…every single King and Queen have one single ancestor. So…by your very strange and completely arbitrary definition…there is only one house.

Current royal houses in Europe:

• United Kingdom
• Sweden
• Denmark
• Norway
• Netherlands
• Belgium
• Luxembourg
• Spain

(Russia is not included)

I am fully aware, and I have said multiple times now that the human brain functions very differently to a computer. I still do not see why it cannot eventually be reproduced (or an equivalent or even better one) through circuitry. We do not even need to fully understand the brain to create artificial intelligence in a digital medium. Again, we…[Read more]

I am aware that the brain functions very differently to computers. I still do not see how they could not eventually be mapped out using different materials and or improved upon (or something far more complex developed in a much more rapid way). It took only a decade to develop a go program to beat a human master. That is 10 years to beat what took…[Read more]

What Jake said. Intelligence is already a difficult term to deal with, wisdom is far more nebulous and I would say unconstructive in this kind of conversation. I don’t know if AI could develop human wisdom. I don’t see why they couldn’t develop their own relative AI wisdom. If it was simply a case of realising their goals (which is what humans do…[Read more]

Robert, our brains are just meat computers. They work in a different way but I see no reason why the human mind cannot eventually be mapped out via circuitry and even improved upon.

I do not have the answer unseen, however obviously if a computer can become far more complex and draw on far more computing powers and networks and greater resources and have an absolute memory and crunch far more data than we can and even utilise forms of intelligence we could never achieve without some sort of enhancement or surgery then it is…[Read more]