‘Science is concerned with what a man (or, a thing) must do, ethics with what he thinks he should do. Until the contrary is proved, therefore, we must suppose ethics to be derivable from science.‘ —JBS Haldane.
The shaping of us as a whole is the story of what they will push no matter what they call it. Was the jab ethical or madness? To some it seemed to be the most important thing in human history to do, to others it seemed to be a control mechanism with deadly consequences. My ethics will remain as they are now, a matter of personal choice based on life experiences and not a dictated use of commands to get us to fold to freedom and live as slaves, because ethics is science, I call BS. Your point is very clear and the softness attempt at tyranny is crystal.
and here we are again. You're without question a diligent and hard working researcher, and you've done some great framing here. Now let me get to my point.
It's unclear what you're even trying to suggest. There's no 'there', here.
What is it you're even trying to say, and why does it matter...?
I want to be clear when I say I'm not trying to shit on this, I agree 1000% that what the world needs to think about right now more than anything is the fact that most of our 'ethical' framing is rooted in 'evolutionary' gobbledygook. We're total agreement. It's mental.
and there's no point in me writing down what i already wrote on a number of occasions already. i explained, in minute detail, how the pipeline works, and why it matters.
I wonder if this push towards the Omega point will leave some behind and create inequality. No change there then!
If computers surpass our collective intellect, and our only way to maintain our place in the universe will be to merge with them, will everybody be included? Whether they even want to stay human or not is also a question that isn't being asked at the moment as questioning technology is not very common.
The shaping of us as a whole is the story of what they will push no matter what they call it. Was the jab ethical or madness? To some it seemed to be the most important thing in human history to do, to others it seemed to be a control mechanism with deadly consequences. My ethics will remain as they are now, a matter of personal choice based on life experiences and not a dictated use of commands to get us to fold to freedom and live as slaves, because ethics is science, I call BS. Your point is very clear and the softness attempt at tyranny is crystal.
and here we are again. You're without question a diligent and hard working researcher, and you've done some great framing here. Now let me get to my point.
It's unclear what you're even trying to suggest. There's no 'there', here.
What is it you're even trying to say, and why does it matter...?
I want to be clear when I say I'm not trying to shit on this, I agree 1000% that what the world needs to think about right now more than anything is the fact that most of our 'ethical' framing is rooted in 'evolutionary' gobbledygook. We're total agreement. It's mental.
So...... what?
i dont think you picked up on the implications, whatsover. i have written extensively on ethics, and there are plenty of links up top.
the rise of ethical authoritarianism, for instance, should lay it out, step by step.
I don’t think you understand what I’m asking.
This is all pretty evident.
And?
and there's no point in me writing down what i already wrote on a number of occasions already. i explained, in minute detail, how the pipeline works, and why it matters.
the 'Omega Point' is veiled authoritarianism.
I wonder if this push towards the Omega point will leave some behind and create inequality. No change there then!
If computers surpass our collective intellect, and our only way to maintain our place in the universe will be to merge with them, will everybody be included? Whether they even want to stay human or not is also a question that isn't being asked at the moment as questioning technology is not very common.