Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Zoom Patron Meeting (Patreon)

Published:
2021-07-09 14:41:41
Edited:
2021-07-09 14:41:44
Imported:
2022-03

Content

We're finally having the Zoom Patron Meeting this Sunday at 2 PM EST. Talk to me about WhatifAltHist topics. 


https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88118467912?pwd=VEhSZHh0N3F3MHhUWUI2RWpIVk5mZz09

Comments

Anonymous

Since YouTube is automatically deleting my comments under "The Four Trends of the 21st Century" video, I figured I'll leave them here. "AI will never be able to make decisions in the real world" - yeah, right. "Everything that can be invented has been invented." I'll just leave this here: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/worst-tech-predictions-of-the-past-100-years-c18654211375/ Similarly, making Neuralink work for proper Brain-Machine Interfaces is a temporary engineering problem, not a fundamental limitation. Of course they're starting with disabled people, because that's an immediate practical application that already has demand and will fund further research. Just as first computers were first developed to break cyphers and had nothing to do with innumerable applications that computers have today. We just need means to increase resolution and bandwidth of information, which we will develop as we work in that direction. It's little surprise that we don't know enough about the brain YET - after all, human brain is the most complex object in the universe currently known to us. But saying that it's impossible and will never be possible is kind of presumptions. It will happen eventually, and it will happen even sooner if the AI gets developed first. For both the BMI and the AI you seem to focus too much on the current state that the field is in, and ignore the fact that we already made immense progress in both areas over the last half a century. Also lowkey emotions are also part of the mind, so the AI that can pass the Turing test will certainly be able to recognize and emulate emotions.

Anonymous

The rest of the point 3 is just parroting of your Christian views. You gravely underestimate both innate human curiosity for knowledge and creativity, and the ability of governments and societies to definitively taboo anything. Barring collapse of civilization and/or human extinction, we have no way of stopping genetic engineering and AI from ever being developed. The question is not whether we can develop these technologies (we can), or whether we can prohibit their development (we can't), but whether we'll be able to develop them in a safe manner that won't lead to our extinction. And the way you tout in favor of "basic happiness with friends and family and nature" and "return to more primitive lifestyle" looks very naive. All of these things are just a reward system that was hard-wired into us by nature in order to serve a basic utility function that all living things have - procreation. Human intelligence initially emerged for that exact same reason, but by doing so nature accidentally created self-aware creatures - essentially biological computers who, while still having hard-wired incentives to procreate, also obtained a new purpose with intrinsic value - knowledge and creativity (or, in computer lingo, input and output). As Eliezer Yudkowsky put it, our single utility function splintered into a thousand shards of desire. We are no longer slaves of the cruel system of the survival of the fittest, and can focus on more interesting things than survival, or even basic hedonism. By learning and creating new things we fight the entropy of the universe. A fight that we probably ultimately can't win, but we can still have lots of fun along the way. More on this rationalist/transhumanist view in this couple of Russian articles (your browser can probably translate it automatically with good enough quality): https://rufabula.com/articles/2016/07/28/the-rationalist-paradigm So being an atheist does not at all necessarily mean viewing life as devoid of meaning. Neither it means being an immoral person. Rational atheists still follow moral postulates. But for a rational person, any moral postulate is not a dogma that is enforced from above and isn't supposed to ever be questioned, but rather a theorem that requires proof. For a rational person, if a dogma coincides with reason, then it is redundant, and if it doesn't coincide with reason, then it is harmful. That's why I find it weird that you cite anthropology and psychology in support of religion. Yes, some of the dogmas were objectively useful crutches that forced large groups of people to cooperate despite them not yet being rational enough to understand the intrinsic value of cooperation. But now most of these dogmas are no longer useful, if they ever were. Any dogmatic morality system is by definition the enemy of progress. Read more here: http://yun.complife.info/miscell/endstage.txt

Anonymous

"I'm surprised people haven't realized there isn't a contradiction between science and religion". There are innumerable contradictions. The concept of God is irrefutable only in its most general sense, i.e. omnipotent supernatural force that can manifest itself (or not) in any way it pleases. Say, an alien civilization that created our universe for scientific, artistic or entertainment reasons would fall under this definition. However, the postulates and gods of particular human religions are falsifiable, and they do contradict science. If anything similar to God does exist, it has nothing to do with organized religions of humanity. Read more here: https://rufabula.com/author/yuri-nesterenko/577 "You know who's been saying that for thousands of years? Religion." Wow. What a revelation. Turns out there are some things we don't know, and possibly some things we can never know. What a deep and original idea! Never would've thought of it on my own! I guess I should start believing in God now. Sarcasm aside, it's usually religion that claims it knows everything about the world order. A shift in paradigm from "We know everything!" to "We don't know everything, but you don't know everything either!" is fairly recent, and happened when the pile of inconsistencies just became too huge to ignore. And that's only some of the more reasonable religions with relatively educated followers. Crazier and more obscurant religions in more backward parts of the world just continued to claim that they know everything and reject science completely as heresy. You keep talking about how religions of the world will continue evolving and adapting in the future, and how Christianity was supposedly the reason why the western civilization was so successful. But the thing is, religions are by definition built on dogmas, and are not supposed to change. Original Christianity was an abhorrent sect of slaves and the cult of death that has nothing to do with modern Protestantism except for symbols and external attributes. The underlying ideology was completely replaced on its direct opposite - promoting prosperity and self-improvement, rather than simply awaiting death as a slave of God. Protestantism went the farthest from the original Christianity, and that's exactly why it's the best and the most successful version of it. While the Orthodox Christianity stayed closest to the original, and is therefore the most obscurant and backward. See this article: https://rufabula.com/articles/2014/12/12/orthodoxy-and-death Your point about atheistic "religions" (that are best called philosophical teachings rather than religions) not lasting long is discounted by the fact that all of them were still based on dogmas rather than on reason (and yes, that includes Communism - you make a good point that communist Russia's ideology and corrupt party were also dogmas that ruled over reason, so it being "scientific" is just propaganda, while in truth it was no different than religion - "credo quia scientifice", rather than "quod erat demonstrandum"). The mere fact that the supernatural component of these teachings varied from insignificant to nonexistent does not automatically imply that these teachings were rational. As of now, we didn't have a single society in our history where rational people would constitute a majority yet. Human brain is flawed, and overcoming its flaws and biases is not an easy task, so it took humans some time to figure out how to mitigate them. There's an art to it that most people still don't know and don't care about.

Anonymous

Ildar Galiev, thank you for knowing that art and caring about it!

Anonymous
>>70880316

I don't know it all that well, but I know the basics. And I certainly do care about it. Wikipedia's "List of fallacies" and some articles on lesswrong.com are good places to start. Assuming that your comment is not sarcasm.

Anonymous

It was not. When someone makes a lot of statements without them being challenged on their veracity, mishaps go ignored and become "truth" and decrease that orator speech value...

Anonymous

You seem like a good challenger to him.