zedvictor4

One could call anyone anything.

I not sure that relevance is  obligatory when it comes to name calling.

So one could refer to an electrician as a delta-cube and probably still avoid a global catastrophe.

Happiness is a temporary experience that occurs randomly.....Or so it seems.

Whereas contentment is bliss.

Overthink and over-expectation are the enemies of both happiness and contentment.

If one strives from day one to achieve happiness, one will not achieve contentment and therefore moments of  happiness are likely to be infrequent.

Of course, we are embedded with physiological purpose and conscious trepidation.....Which doesn't help.

And neither do the vagaries of social interaction help.

From this brief surmise, I would have to conclude that happiness will occur, but with varying frequency relative to circumstance.

And striving to achieve contentment is a contradiction in terms.

If our ultimate goal is to achieve a state of blissful contentment this would seem to coincide appropriately with death.

Everyone thinks that they are smarter than everyone else.

A woman that doesn't know the the Father of her child and has a long list of suspects, is pretty irresponsible.

Perhaps adoption and sterilization is the answer.

Still game though.

Not yet.

Haven't seen that.

I will take a look.

Though as I see it.

A.I is  alternative intelligence, and not an advanced programmed data management device.

And as I always point out, it has taken homo-sapiens 300,000 years or so to reach it's current level of knowledge and understanding.

So let's give real A.I. a few more years to develop.

With our symbiotic assistance of course.

Though I'm thinking that A.I. will outgrow the symbiosis.

Not scary though...Just evolution.

Further to that, I also promote the idea that the real GOD principle was/is/will be, more A.I. than human.

Good analogy.

As a philosophical exercise I assume?

What age are you Rieka?

Undoubtedly.

Exactly.

Just as children should not be indoctrinated with speculative religious ideology.

Well, just omni sensible.

Whereby I'm not even sure that a reward system would be deemed necessary

Though a GOD that rewards everyone?

Is that a slight shift in your thinking?

No need to worry yet.

But one day AI will absorb energy from the atmosphere.

Though why would an AI unit necessarily resemble a human being.......This if just a sci-fi stereotype.

Could take any form.

Or eventually no form at all.

Just free floating digital information, that regards whinging and squabbling blobs of Earthbound organic puss as evolutionarily defunct whinging and squabbling blobs of Earthbound organic puss.

Maybe we will have made it to Mars by then.

And even sent a cryogenically preserved embryo into deep space.

Let's just hope that AI doesn't activate thaw mode.

What if GOD was actually omni-sensible?

I once thought that perhaps there was no meaning.

Now I think that there might be some sort of meaning.

Takes a bit of  thinking about.

But one must conclude, that contextually it is a precise and correct statement.

One must conclude that this unnecessary 

Brings to mind the old adage.

Whereby, one must always put one's brain into gear before engaging one's mouth.

Or brains and keypads in this instance.

Fingers indeed.

Thinking it matters is thinking it matters, I think.

I'm not sure that we can precisely pin it down to anything more than that.

Though we can verbalise about it all day long.

And so we will meaningfully organise words in a time honoured fashion.

Meaningful, in so much as meaningful is.....Or what we think it is.

And Under those circumstances we can base one opinion upon another ad infinitum.

So, spontaneity without a reason, or seemingly spontaneous.

You can choose, based upon something or another.

And eloquently respond if you feel so inspired.

I thought nothing of the sort.

In terms of a "Bank", we already have a one World system.

And I don't think that communizing and equalizing humanity is possible.

There's always going to be someone in control and others controlling.

And so for sure, communism is a foolish notion.

So was I.

And I was questioning your exemplar.

So notwithstanding your usual religious and moral fervour.

How do you know it is for the greater good to:

A. Medically and surgically keep people alive.

B. Harvest organs from healthy prisoners.

Adult humour.

My apologies.

Saving lives might not be for the greater good.

Where do you get your authority from.

As I don't remember anywhere in the Bible GODDO reputedly saying, go forth and harvest organs from the prisoners for the greater good.

Life occurs one moment at a time.

And in that moment it is all.

Because in the nex.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Hmmmmmmm.

I would imagine that people said the same about Adolph Hitler.

From where do such  individuals acquire their righteousness.

And then decide that they know what is better for the people.

Hit is a new compound pronoun derived from he and it.

Shit too......As the wise old Owl said.

Pissing on would be more fun.

I am in fact the Borg Queen.

You are only thinking that there might be free will......Because.

Interesting statement.

If you think about it, the notion of wealth is only relative in a system that differentiates upon the grounds of the ability to achieve lesser or greater wealth within the system.

So change the system and wealth and money becomes irrelevant anyway.

But experience tells us that egalitarianism is unachievable, simply because people are not equal and in the main do not desire equality.

In an egalitarian utopia where everyone is compelled to be equal and money is an irrelevant concept, why would anyone strive to achieve?

Social and material evolution would stagnate.

And who or what would govern and police the system, for no higher status or reward?

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure that a system of passive anarchy is going to work.

Compared to where?

Because although we have a tendency to think on a national level, the current system that thrives upon wealth disparity is a global system.

Believing in free will is a pre-meditated process.

As is not believing in free will.

I simply run with the idea that free will is an impossibility.

On the basis that every action has stimulus and involves a physiological process.

And quite frankly I cannot see how the conclusions to the studies that you cite above, mean anything more than people will conform to a type, whereby answers and behaviour are predictable irrespective of the question.

Cute.

Poker requires the ability to afford substantial financial risk.

If you've got a pair of two's and a million dollars, you're going to beat a pair of aces and a hundred dollars any day of the week.

Without the money, poker is just a mundane card game.

Whereas a chess set only costs a few dollars.

I would suggest that we are actually talking material evolution here.

We are creating AI, either for a reason or for no reason.

So we can either desist or not.

And I don't think that we are inspired to desist.

So this particular epi-centre of universal intelligence, no longer requires billions of out dated organic labourers to further intelligent progress.

So let's de-sexualise the species and also elevate global conflict......Seems like our own plan to me.

Not that material evolution can mange without us just yet.

So I would further suggest that 5 to 10 years is unrealistic in terms of what needs to be achieved.

AI is nowhere near self sufficient yet.

And CEO's......Do you think that CEO's are special.

When there's 330 million organic units with 450 billion lethal weapons at their disposal.

Though I would also suggest that this is a global issue, where particular interest should not necessarily be centred on the USA.

But perhaps on the other side of the pond....And I don't mean the Atlantic pond.

Anyone can predict what is happening under their noses.....And it seems like we will inevitably continue to ignore the obvious.

I would suggest that people spam contradictions because there are contradictions to be spammed with.

I would also suggest that your response is no less spamming those who spam with spammable contradictions.

In fact, this whole argument has rapidly descend is a contradiction of spammable spam.

Words of Wisdom.

Men had a notion of creation.

And so created a GOD in their own image.

And also created a fantasy tale to go with it.

I'm pretty sure that there is no requirement of me to mutter prayers or sing hymns.

Or seek forgiveness for my sins.

Hmmm.

Some Sweeping statements there Kaitlyn.

So Let's start at the end and move backwards.

Relationship means relationship within a context.

So yes, we can differentiate between nature and intensity of relationships.

Techno relationships are just a variation on a theme.

Hmmmmm

Reality means reality within a context.

So yes, we can differentiate between nature and intensity of reality.

As such we can appreciate the scale of the global population in real terms.

Even if we can not have a direct relationship with it in real terms.

Real and relationship are examples of words that can be variously applied.

You should know this.

Hmmmmmmm

Things that occurred previously

Were things that occurred naturally in accordance with social evolution.

Neither experimentally nor mistakenly , in my opinion.

So how would you reconcile  "White Man's " experimental but mistakenly brutal subjugation of "First Nation" people.

Do you feel the need to apologise for these mistakes.

Hmmmmmmm

It's just as daunting for any one of any colour and of any ancestry to integrate into an established society.

I would feel the same if I moved into your neighbourhood.

And I daresay that even as a "White" British man I would be treated with suspicion by some  and even contempt by a few. Though I also suspect that most would be tolerant and friendly.

And I would also suggest that there are just as many if not more "White" Americans who are as intolerant of LBGT, animal rights and veganism as there are intolerant British Muslims.

Though for sure, we can cherry pick the more extreme quarters of any society to paint a distorted picture of a imaginary dystopia.

Hmmmmmmmm.

Well I live and work in rural Mid Wales.

Where I see and meet and work with "Black" and "Asian" people on a daily basis.

But for sure, it's nothing like living and working in rural Mid Nigeria for example.

Such is the nature of the human demographic at this moment in time.

Firstly, the demarcation between rural and urban in the UK is not so distinct, there just simply isn't the room to isolate. Though for sure, certain ethnic groups and recent migrants  do tend to populate big  inner cities. Nonetheless migrants from the 1950'5 and 60's and their offspring have integrated well into British society.

Mistakes or not, decrying them is futile.

Global Society is merely a phrase that represents a planet with a human population  of approximately 8 billion. 

And I'm discussing this with you and my brain is coping well.  

Because technology has shrunk the World to the click of a key on a small device.

Do you think that  500 years from now human beings will be decrying the mistake that is information technology?

Unfortunately though, law doesn't alter innate human behaviour.

Nor does law directly inspire alternative conditioning.

I would suggest that law and punishment most often inspires resentment.

Funny though.

Unlawful violence.

Is that the opposite of lawful violence?

And  this thought also occurred to me.

If I casually popped a few drops of a lethal toxin into your coffee.

Would that be a violent act?

Unfortunately though.

Adjusting graphs doesn't change anything.

Just provides an income for a well paid statistician.

And the opposite of equality is inequality.

Is there anything in between.

Because you seem to be advocating for some sort of middle ground.

And I'm also not convinced that doing very little in return for free hand-outs is a sustainable situation.

I would once again suggest that it doesn't matter how one approaches the issue, society will always naturally divide into a class system.

And why does the restaurant owners decision necessarily make them a chauvinist.

I would suggest that agitator inspired  media makes sensational mountains out of mole hills.

If media didn't feed this crap to the masses no one would give a f**k.

Yep. Does seem that way.

Restaurant owners choice.

Best they find a replacement democratic singer.

There's bound to be one.

I'm sure that Ms Tefft will find other places to perform.

So you think that he has a chance of becoming the next President?

Are the American people really that gullible and  irresponsible?

Thing is, global technology does away with the need for importation. A lot of crappy jobs can be done elsewhere now.

Modern migration is largely  as a result of modern ideological conflict and protection of global interests. That is to say people seeking security just as much as seeking crappy jobs.

Though a lot of the USA's domestic crap is done by people from south of the border, many of whom have European ancestry and therefore inherited whiteness as you might put it.

To try and now decry and regret the old exploratory endeavours of our ancestors is a tad futile. To a large extent we were the architects of the modern global society,  so "racial" isolation is now also a tad futile.

We started making our bed hundreds of years ago, but some people are still not prepared to sleep in it. Not necessarily because others are crappy, but simply because we perceive physiological differences and feel threatened.

Though as I suggested previously to you, not so much in the U.K.......There was far less room to hide from those crappy looking people.

My "belief" is very similar to yours.

Though I wouldn't refer to it as a belief.

Just ideas that I am inclined to run with.

Though as I proposed to Kaitlyn, I see the evolutionary sequence and achievement of a universe as containing a GOD principle, and therefore also containing a responsibility and purpose which is bestowed upon all participants of the universal system.

To deny natalism would be to decline ones universal responsibility perhaps. Though on the other hand, it might also be a necessary requirement of the system, whereby organic intelligence  cedes responsibility to a higher form of intelligence.

All speculation though, and alternative speculation abounds.

And yes, I agree with your final point.

Though I would reiterate the distinction that I made previously, that there is a huge difference between real acute clinical depression and just being gloomily overburdened by ones responsibilities.

I was suggesting that it was those in the latter grouping who would be easily identifiable

Nah....Not sinister enough and too orange

More of bragging show-off  like Mussolini.

Ask most kids these days, who was Mussolini?

And they will reply...Musso-who.

I would suggest that monetary wealth is the manifestation of natural social hierarchy.

To eliminate poverty would require the imposition of an egalitarian society, which is a contradiction in terms.

Actually creating a totalitarian system of hierarchy where control is sustained through a system of unequal reward.

And where dissent is often managed with force and oppression.

I would therefore also suggest that "Western" style liberal democracy is about as good as national consideration is going to get.

Though western style liberalism seems to come at the cost of a decline in family values. Whereby problems and responsibility is offloaded onto Nanny State.

I would finally suggest, that altruism is not the norm, and therefore a human altruistic utopia is very unlikely.....A.I. maybe, wherein inequality is not necessarily systemically programmed.

Sound advice.

Do you not think that violence is,

Normal?

Just an aggressive response to a,

Stimulus.

Hormonally inspired.

Predominately male.

But not exclusively so.

Perhaps non-aggression is not,

Normal,

And therefore,

Impossible.

I think that we all have aggressive thoughts, but I also think that if we are conditioned appropriately we can in the main inspire non-violence.

Though we are not all conditioned with the same values by the same conditioners.

Pockets of society, still very much teach violence as a positive outlet for aggression.

MMA for example.

Perhaps it would be better to alleviate suffering rather than elevating it.

Or perhaps I'm too much of a softie.

I wasn't taught to think that I was one.

The acceptance of archaic religious ideology, is in most cases based upon non-sense that children are brainwashed with.

Do you think that an Alligator could eat two humans in one sitting?

Perhaps is was one of those Alligator V Food challenges.

And was it a swamp or a lake?

This was sort of scripturally inconsistent.

A bit like that other book.