People become tech-overloads because they are blind to these sorts of beauties - and that'd be fine if it wasn't for the fact that we have collectively allowed these people to come to power and have fallen for their empty promises of freedom and liberation.
I have yet to read the whole thing - but I agree that the Church's view of intelligence is not to the level of sophistication needed to counter the Valley's pantheistic view of intelligence. I think that is because of how Aquinas was utilized to counter the Reformation. That being said, I don't believe that such a view cannot be elaborated, it will just take time. The key is embodiment, wherein how we view sex ends up being incredibly important because it necessarily relates to how we take on flesh to begin with. Once sex is divorced from procreation (and vice-versa), intelligence is divorced from humanity. It's very relevant - but the culture of dehumanization is so deeply rooted today that it's difficult to be productive when tackling that dehumanization via sex.
Humanity was not made to scale quickly. The trouble we have nowadays is that there is no backpressure, largely because the systems that generated that backpressure were dismantled in the name of "freedom" and other myths.
I agree. Heck, it was only 20 or 30 years ago that a common exhortation was to not "sell out". Nowadays that is gone, replaced only by "get that bread". We need to hold each other to a higher standard
The "we must do it or someone else will" logic is pernicious and dehumanizes both the enemy and the supposed good-guy. I cannot count how many times it's been used after the first couple answers to "why are we doing this?" fall flat.
I remember talking to someone who worked on quantum computing explain how interesting the domain was, and at the very end he concluded with "if the Chinese figure this out before we do, then it's all over".
There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age". In that time religion already existed right?
So what was the speciality of christianity apparently bootstrapping everything else? You could only be religious if you had resources to do so. Could have been filled with something else instead.
Napoleon wrote somewere (i read that in a museum) that education is ncessary to fight religion.
We do not know if it hold us back or not, but it also didn't push us through phases like the dark age.
But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
The allegedly lack of progress during the "Dark ages" is a narrative constructed later on, during the Illustration/Enlightenment era. Just to mention an example, alchemical research was verly prolific in that time, and it was the basis for what we now call chemistry and pharmacology.
Yes, it does feed a spiritual need but is's absolutely about control. The current US administration is guided by Project 2025 which wants God to govern (so to speak).
I spend a lot of time thinking about religion, and most of that is anger/fear over the religious zealots who want to control everybody else.
There is a control dimension, because humans require some degree of limitations in order to thrive. Ultra-individualism breaks down entirely the moment you think about actual society (like actually considering children) rather than utopian fantasies about how some people want society to work.
That being said, the way anti-religion ppl talk about "control" is so profoundly sloppy and underdefined that it's entirely meaningless. If I try to stop someone from shooting me, am I trying to control them? If I change the the youtube algorithm, did I control them? If I spread a bunch of malaria-resistent mosquitos around, did I control them?
Christianity is evangelical because it believes what it's doing is good and should be shared. If you can only conceptualize this as "control", then I feel sorry that you've internalized the worst and most misery-inducing parts of the last 100 years of western philosophy.
This evangelical quality is a feature of many world religions, including the ones that don't normally get called religion, like the New Atheism movement.
Not a religion, not a faith. It's simply well-publicized challenging of religion.
I think that you only see it as such because of how you see the world, but Dawkins, Harris, et al are not my leaders and I strongly disagree with several of their positions.
If you abstract away the specific claims made by new New Atheists (either the leaders or the footsoldiers) and analyze it from a purely sociological point of view - it behaves identically to any other religion or faith - especially when you consider that strong, top-down leadership is not a universal property of religion.
Also relevant here is that the concept of "religion" itself was introduced very recently in the 16th and 17th centuries, and seems to have been created so that specific groups of people could consider their own activities as being non-religious. See Before Religion by Nongbri.
While it's nice to be vindicated, I'd much rather we live in the same universe and this is why I try to engage. I saw dang's warning about this is a flamebait topic, but I need to stress a couple points:
* I'm in no way trying to attack *anyones* spiritual beliefs
* I'm not trying to denigrate their religion of choice
* I *am* trying to point out the nature of their religion in regards to outsiders
The best analogy I can offer up here is drugs. I believe in bodily autonomy, which means that people should be able to do the drugs they choose to do. A lot of drugs can be done with minimal danger (even pure heroin when properly administered is less harmful to the body than alcohol).
That said, drug abuse can happen and it can spread in society in a very unhealthy way. My point analogy is: let people do what they want but let's not have a public health crisis with people overdosing in the streets.
It's a crude analogy, but it's the best I've got for the moment.
I think you see my comments as an attack and that I am "the enemy", but I'm not. I just want to be able to live my life the way I choose to, rather than by somebody claiming to speak for God.
Accepting, that we do just not believe in something someone else said, is not a different kind of religion. It is acceptance and growth and mental freedom
Historians are nowadays equivocal in saying that the "dark ages" is really a misnomer. It's the middle ages and it was more marred (in Europe) by several powers warring with each other than by any religious "darkening".
> There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age".
The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.
The Dark Ages are dark, because they lack surviving written record; ironically due to advancements in writing technology, where people would begin writing on hides instead of papyrus or chisel stone; this made writing a lot faster, but also had a far shorter life span, particularly because people could wipe the hide clean (after the text was of no use), and then rewrite on it.
Conversely, a lot of the writings of the Antiquity are preserved, in large part due to Middle Eastern scholars. The Dark Ages aren't a myth, but rather what is meant by "dark" is misunderstood.
No, the whole thing is some sort of revisonist history gambit. The Dark Ages were "dark" because they represented a massive and lasting decline in social organization, trade, and yes, literacy. These are all extremely well documented. You can see it in basically any field you want -
Your understanding of history, here and downthread, is fascinatingly selective, and, as far as the historical consensus goes, very mistaken.
The Dark Ages refer specifically to Western/Central Europe, so without Byzantium. Byzantium and the Islamic kingdoms were very much thriving, intellectually and culturally, in that period.
Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.
From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.
Sorry. Should have also added various Germanic tribes to the list of invaders as well.
> Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.
The fall of the western Roman Empire was literally because of invaders (the Goths and Vandals I forgot to initially mention), the infighting was to fill the void and the poverty also related to that as well as constant Viking raids. Literally half the west (Spain) conquered by Muslims for 700 years. Religion not a factor, the Eastern Roman empire was also Christian and stayed rich until it also fell to invaders.
> From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.
Did they not invade the area that is today Spain and France during the "dark" ages? Did they not invade the Byzantine empire (now referring to the other thread)? This is literal history.
The invention of the "dark ages" is really interesting, and afaik it was created in order to create a "this time it's different" sense of ahistoricity. Very similar to the "year zero" idea in communism, and even the current AI hype cycle.
> But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
well, now you're just revealing that you don't understand the religion of Christianity at all
I got indoctrinated by the christian church as a very young age.
This is control.
I only started to question this when I was 14 and i do remember that I had the empiphany that its okay that i might go to a hell. Then i questioned what hell would even be.
Christianity literaly controlled me through this garbage.
And its also the fault of Christian priests that apparently 'i don't understand the religion of christianity'.
Ah yes the 5 silver is a old testament thing, plenty of weird stuff in the new testament as well.
And lets not ignore the basic fact, that for Christians woman are second class citizen.
I just stoped accepting to be that ignorant and I prefer to see woman as equal, also homosexual people and co. The bishop of passau, btw. is not. He doesn't like the 'different'.
This is either insane levels of incompetence, or an intentional act to enable compromise by other agents.
>>"“Currently, there is no indication that any sensitive data was compromised as a result of this incident[…]"
Of forking course there is no indication of compromise. Anyone competent would use the keys and passwords to login, exfiltrate the data they wanted, and depart without being noticed. And of course, the actors leaving it there could help cover.
OFC, it is also possible that it is insane levels of incompetence since the primary and only criteria to work in this administration is loyalty, and competence is usually seen as a liability since actual skill and knowledge often conflicts with being strictly loyal.
So, Hanlon's Razor applies, but they sure test the limits of it.
I did this myself a few weeks ago and the technique that helped me the most was to compare the TLA output against the race-conditions I could construct by hand. I worked iteratively and unit-tested the model by constructing a model that didn't have certain race protection mechanisms and validating that the model generated the expected race.
You can also work backwards from the races it generates and ensure that they're real races.
> with things like religious beliefs and human ego meaning that people come to the discussion with a major bias and fixed views rather than even being open to any rational discussion.
You're forgetting that attempting to have a "rational" discussion is itself a bias inherited from the many centuries of intellectual development that occurred between the middle ages and now - the parts that the article conveniently skips over entirely.
The "debate" here doesn't function to generate an answer, but to narrow down the scope of the question into the very constrained domain. When ppl debate "consciousness" they are re-affirming their opinion that humans are inherently rational agents (hence "scire" -> "to know"), rather than agents that can live, feel, think and will, which would require a different term, like "soul".
> rather than agents that can live, feel, think and will, which would require a different term, like "soul"
You're just substituting one ill-defined, and overloaded, word ("consciousness") with a bunch of others ("live", "feel", etc), and asserting that to you they mean something different.
It's impossible to have a discussion on this basis, and I'm sure to many people "soul" is exactly what they mean by "consciousness", or at least part of it. It's no less reasonable that an AI has a soul as that it is conscious - it depends on exactly what you define those words to mean.
People have made due with conceptual fuzziness, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that discussion is impossible without absolute conceptual clarity. All you are saying is that using these terms does not allow you to have a specific kind of discussion - which, a lot of the time, is one that reduces humans to mathematical objects that perform computations.
Yet, if that is your goal and the definition of "soul" or "consciousness" are entirely arbitrary decisions that you don't care about - then it's worth remembering the adage "you may not care about politics, but politics cares about you".
Yes, but as noted elsewhere in this thread it's a matter of degree. Consciousness is such an ill-defined and overloaded word that it's hard to say it really means anything - it's more of an all-encompassing term for a bunch of largely subjective phenomena.
I don't disagree - for a long while I believed that the study of "consciousness" was the result of a linguistic mixup and best dealt w/ via Wittgenstein.
However, if you move past surface appearances, you can think about what kind of cultural "work" is being done spending effort on this mixup. What's happening is that, in the noosphere, the cloud of concepts around "consciousness" is battling it out with the cloud of concepts around "soul" over which cloud of concepts best describes what it means to be human, with big implications on what it means to be good person. Now we're dealing with a mix of Aquinas and Latour.
reply