What makes you puke?

[ken]

Is it part of human nature to be despicable?

No.

To covet?

No.

To want more?

Yes.

To have a monopoly on whatever it is that is endlessly available and charge what you like for it?

No.

Religious and secular laws that have come into being, over millenia, seem to suggest so.

Religious and secular laws are not necessarily things that should be followed, used for instruction, nor used for guidance.

[Greta]

Hostility and anxiety will probably only go away when the cause - lack of sustainability - is addressed. If resources were endlessly available there would be no conflict. Maybe when almost everyone is living a virtual existence?

I'd like to think this were true. Things, over time, have only become better for the mass population in the progressive first world. The more we have, the more we want. If resources were endlessly available, I still don't think it would satisfy greed. Somehow, someone would have something, someone else desires, even if it's just that somebody' else's wife! As ridiculous as it might sound, something as stupid as that, could be the start of a chain of events that lead to mass suffering.

Is it part of human nature to be despicable? To covet? To want more? To have a monopoly on whatever it is that is endlessly available and charge what you like for it? Religious and secular laws that have come into being, over millenia, seem to suggest so.

A virtual existence renders it all moot. You have have what you want whenever you want, and need not be at the expense of others. How humans could physically be able to live solely in a virtual world is another matter. I suppose that what I'm talking about would not be human.

I just don't see much problem with human nature other than it tends to be inconvenient. Other social species do all the same rotten and sneaky things as we do, at least the ones they're capable of.

In nature heterogeneousness (equality) inevitably particulates into "master" and "slaves". That is, some zones in a fairly even substrate will over time inevitably become more dense and informationally more complex. They will then control the less dense and complex things around them, and they will consume a disproportionate amount of resources.

This is the the relationship between the brain and the body, between capitalists and ordinary people, between the planets and the rest of the protoplanetary disc, between humanity and other animals, between a redwood and the undergrowth around it, and so forth - that same dynamic repeating everywhere, endlessly in interspersed cycles.

[commonsense]

All your questions can be very easily answered. But how much time and effort are you prepared to give?

I am retired but busy. Also, I think asynchronous communication can be acceptable for this and other forum discussions. For those reasons I will only commit to a daily visit and to replying when I believe I have, if only in my opinion, a valuable contribution to make.

What contribution could you make other than to clarify My responses? If you are asking your questions from a truly open perspective, then you will want to remain open and just keep seeking clarification, this is best done with further truly open-ended questioning. However, if you believe you already have a solution or know some of the answers to your questions already, then what use is there in Me providing answers?

I am also quite willing to apply the effort necessary to research my position before making a case for it. (I hope I have answered your question about time and effort.)

Yes you have answered My question. But unfortunately you appear to already have a position regarding the questions you asked, therefore those questions were not asked seeking answers for learning and wisdom purposes. It appears that they were asked in the hope that the answers given will provoke either you already agreeing with them, which will provide more support for your already held position, or, you will be able to reject them, and then argue/fight for your already held position. Either way I am not interested in that way of discussing.

I look forward with delight to reading your answers to these and other questions as they arise.

If you are truly open and thus are looking forward to learning more, then I would be more than delighted to have a discussion with you. But if you just want to put forward your position, then unless it is something that will benefit ALL of society, then I am not really interested in it.

Just let Me know if you are truly open and asked those questions from a truly open perspective, or if you have a position already, which you just want to make a case for. There is no use in Me providing answers if it is the latter.

P.S. I am taking you off of my foe list.

I am not absolutely sure how foe lists work, but i thought posts by users on a foe list are not able to be seen by the one who made the foe list. How could you see this post of mine if I was on your foe list previously?

P.S. Why was I on your foe list anyway?
And, why take Me off now?

Here's my first pass at what the future replacement for humans will be: Artificial intelligence will be the next stage in evolution.[1][2] Human-machine hybrids would have superhuman intelligence, far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human mind. Powerful AI will have ntelligent software, that could reprogram itself.[3] The improved software will be even better at improving itself, leading to even better intelligence.[4] These hybrids will eventually evolve to a state of no longer needing humans. Their intellectual capacity will eventually end civilization.[3] Surviving humans will be living in a post-apocalyptic world. Governments will disintegrate into a dog-eat-dog social environment wherein the strongest brutes will own everything thrown aside by the superintelligent machines. Clandestine schools will attempt to educate humans. Implements will be manually constructed from natural materials. Food, clothing and shelter will be secured in pre-historic fashion. Sustainability will be a major challenge for humans.
1.Minsky, Marvin (1986). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 52. ISBN 0-671-60740-5
2.Dyson, George (1998). Darwin among the Machines. Allan Lane Science. ISBN 0-7382-0030-1
3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificia ... telligence. Accessed 5/4/2017.
4.Omohundro, Steve (2008). The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence. presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San
Francisco, CA.

P.S. I have a moderate tremor at best, resulting in my clicking on things unintentionally. Ken, you were never on my foe list.

As you see, I have a position to propose. However--and this may surprise you--I consider myself to be open to counter arguments and alternative proposals. I often learn best this way, regardless of whether my thoughts are confirmed or rejected. In fact, I prefer rejection because it usually teaches me more. I still offer the invitation to you and any others as well, though I understand your objection to participating in such a discussion.

(And by "research my position" I simply meant that I will read before I write rather than I will develop a specific position before I read. Incidentally, I did not have any position when I posed my questions. I only asked in hopes of stimulating participation of some kind in a topic I found intriguing. Again, I regret that You may not wish to engage in such a discussion.)

[commonsense]

To covet?

I take the intrinsic nature of humans to be like in kind to the basic instincts of prehistoric humans. In that sense I would expect caveman and cavewoman to resemble the animals with whom they coexisted. A crude comparison can be made by considering a modern animal such as my giant Labradoodle, Charlie. Whenever he has a dog-playmate, and there are many toys to be selected for play, Charlie always covets the toy selected by the other dog, and vice versa. So I take it that coveting was an animalistic character of ancient humans. Like other pre-historic qualities extant today, it is my suspicion that coveting has not been entirely eradicated.

[ForCruxSake]

Is it part of human nature to be despicable?

No.

To covet?

No.

To want more?

Yes.

To have a monopoly on whatever it is that is endlessly available and charge what you like for it?

No.

Religious and secular laws that have come into being, over millenia, seem to suggest so.

Religious and secular laws are not necessarily things that should be followed, used for instruction, nor used for guidance.

Agreed. They are not always necessarily right, either, they just seek to control what the powers that be deem to need controlling, from era to era, and certainly secular laws can be amended over time.

I think the point I was trying to make is that laws, both religious and secular, continue to try to control man's greed and his propensity to covet. This has been going on for so long, over the course of human history, that to me it suggests that greed and covetousness might be intrinsic to human nature, something experience and our capacity to be moral teaches us to control. We aren't intrinsically moral. That's something we learn or have forced on us.

[ForCruxSake]

Here's my first pass at what the future replacement for humans will be: Artificial intelligence will be the next stage in evolution.[1][2] Human-machine hybrids would have superhuman intelligence, far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human mind. Powerful AI will have ntelligent software, that could reprogram itself.[3] The improved software will be even better at improving itself, leading to even better intelligence.[4] These hybrids will eventually evolve to a state of no longer needing humans. Their intellectual capacity will eventually end civilization.[3] Surviving humans will be living in a post-apocalyptic world. Governments will disintegrate into a dog-eat-dog social environment wherein the strongest brutes will own everything thrown aside by the superintelligent machines. Clandestine schools will attempt to educate humans. Implements will be manually constructed from natural materials. Food, clothing and shelter will be secured in pre-historic fashion. Sustainability will be a major challenge for humans.
1.Minsky, Marvin (1986). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 52. ISBN 0-671-60740-5
2.Dyson, George (1998). Darwin among the Machines. Allan Lane Science. ISBN 0-7382-0030-1
3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificia ... telligence. Accessed 5/4/2017.
4.Omohundro, Steve (2008). The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence. presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San
Francisco, CA.

Source notes apart, this sounds like the plot of the 'Terminator' movies crashed in with those of 'Mad Max'.

[commonsense]

Hollywood, here I come!

[ForCruxSake]

Hollywood, here I come!

[commonsense]

Although there are futurists who predict a significant decrease in demand for human laborers, I foresee a different scenario. Yes, a singularity will bring with it fewer and fewer opportunities for human knowledge workers, service employees and manufacture laborers to name a few. However, beyond that I expect that at some point employing humans will be cheaper than engineering smart machines. Money always underpins power and authority. At some future time a social upheaval, not exactly unlike the Industrial Revolution, will provide humans with opportunities previously unimaginable.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Actually the 'Warriors of the Righteous Personhood' makes me puke.

'Warriors of the Righteous Personhood'
Rules for non Warriors:
Do as we say, not as we do.
You must not speak, write or think without the prior approval of a Warrior of the Righteous Personhood.
Never, under any circumstances, question our righteousness.
To question us is to invoke our wrath and we will make sure that you are silenced forever, whatever it takes. This might include letter/pm-writing campaigns (we have friends in high places), cultivating social contacts and friendships that are useful to our glorious crusade, and other generally covert but effective tactics.
''VIR PRUDENS NON CONTRA VENTUM MINGIT''.

[ForCruxSake]

Although there are futurists who predict a significant decrease in demand for human laborers, I foresee a different scenario. Yes, a singularity will bring with it fewer and fewer opportunities for human knowledge workers, service employees and manufacture laborers to name a few. However, beyond that I expect that at some point employing humans will be cheaper than engineering smart machines. Money always underpins power and authority. At some future time a social upheaval, not exactly unlike the Industrial Revolution, will provide humans with opportunities previously unimaginable.

With power in mind, and going back to your super smart AI gaining control, do you really think that authority, or those that command the means of production of the self replicating AI machines, would allow the machines to develop so far?

I do think some governments are a bit stupid and great deniers of catastrophes to come, particularly "on their watch", which usually turns out to be no more than two terms.... But do you really think the overlords would allow themselves to be overthrown? No failsafes?

[commonsense]

Actually the 'Warriors of the Righteous Personhood' makes me puke.

'Warriors of the Righteous Personhood'
Rules for non Warriors:
Do as we say, not as we do.
You must not speak, write or think without the prior approval of a Warrior of the Righteous Personhood.
Never, under any circumstances, question our righteousness.
To question us is to invoke our wrath and we will make sure that you are silenced forever, whatever it takes. This might include letter/pm-writing campaigns (we have friends in high places), cultivating social contacts and friendships that are useful to our glorious crusade, and other generally covert but effective tactics.
''VIR PRUDENS NON CONTRA VENTUM MINGIT''.

"Et Non Facit In Defecate Ventum Molendinum"

[vegetariantaxidermy]

roar of laughter.

[commonsense]

With power in mind, and going back to your super smart AI gaining control, do you really think that authority, or those that command the means of production of the self replicating AI machines, would allow the machines to develop so far?

but what if the human(s) in charge of production make the fatal mistake of constructing just one self-replicating machine? Unless there's a way to destroy that first machine before it replicates (and makes significant, even if incremental, improvements), the machines would not need permission to develop that far!!!

I do think some governments are a bit stupid and great deniers of catastrophes to come, particularly "on their watch", which usually turns out to be no more than two terms.... But do you really think the overlords would allow themselves to be overthrown? No failsafes?

One misstep by a nearsighted functionary could set off a chain reaction that overthrows the status quo.

Do you have any ideas for a failsafe or a way to stop the machines?

As an aside, do you have an interest in MMORPGs? Have you seen EVE Online?

BTW, it's time for me to take my lithium; my creativity may be in abeyance until it wears off.

[Greta]

Here's my first pass at what the future replacement for humans will be: Artificial intelligence will be the next stage in evolution.[1][2] Human-machine hybrids would have superhuman intelligence, far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human mind. Powerful AI will have ntelligent software, that could reprogram itself.[3] The improved software will be even better at improving itself, leading to even better intelligence.[4] These hybrids will eventually evolve to a state of no longer needing humans. Their intellectual capacity will eventually end civilization.[3] Surviving humans will be living in a post-apocalyptic world. Governments will disintegrate into a dog-eat-dog social environment wherein the strongest brutes will own everything thrown aside by the superintelligent machines. Clandestine schools will attempt to educate humans. Implements will be manually constructed from natural materials. Food, clothing and shelter will be secured in pre-historic fashion. Sustainability will be a major challenge for humans.
1.Minsky, Marvin (1986). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 52. ISBN 0-671-60740-5
2.Dyson, George (1998). Darwin among the Machines. Allan Lane Science. ISBN 0-7382-0030-1
3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificia ... telligence. Accessed 5/4/2017.
4.Omohundro, Steve (2008). The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence. presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San
Francisco, CA.

At this stage one can perhaps think of humans as "dinosaurs" and the superhuman hybrids as emerging "birds" - as one story comes to a close, others begin.