It's a very interesting article to think about. But I think if it comes to a point where the general population becomes almost unnecessary in the eyes of the big capitalist giants, then the economy too will collapse because they still need us as consumers. Also It's probably very unlikely to happen in my opinion because they will always need people for some tasks, even if it's just to create, repair, and maintain those systems, which needs people with the right skills and education. Otherwise, it wouldn't take many generations before those capitalist giants also collapse.

If we, however, take a bunch of other modern technologies, like genetical engineering and artificial wombs, in addition to this, I can see a more likely scenario that resembles Huxley's book "Brave New World" (also made into a movie in the early '90s). In which "modern civilization" is kept running by literally breeding and conditioning people with certain genetic qualities each for their specific functions.

I think the biggest concern about the impacts of AI is also one often used as inspiration in many sci-fi works. That it somehow develops a consciousness and its own morals and decides to turn against us. And this might become a more serious threat if they start running these things on quantum computers. These are very early in development and still have limited usability, but a few working models already exist. It also shouldn't be a surprise that the owners of these machines, which can pose many threats or be weaponized on their own, are also multi-billion dollar companies like Google or IBM.

I think we should worry more about the possible dangers of how this technology could be used as a weapon between nations, and be cautious with how we further develop and where we implement this tech. It would also probably be wise to start making regulations about this and think about ways to control if someone breaks those rules before it is already creating big problems and might already be too late, like we mostly seem to do.

I would say there is no need to assign a negative connotation for us to suffer. A meaningless universe goes against our instincts. For example, for many people, one big part of universe not having meaning is we are going to completely cease to exist, that goes against our survival instinct. Also we have instinct to try to improve the situation, but we will grow old and all we do will dissapear eventually.

Yea that's kind of what I'm trying to get at, except I would ask why the perceived objectiveness of a goal has any bearing on the chemical-emotional reward we get for pursuing said goal. I think this is done at a cognitive level and we don't actually suffer from the realization that the universe has no meaning until we assign the negative connotation to that fact manually.

I asked A.I. to write a dialog in the style of Plato on the nature of beds. I found it amusing.

​

>Socrates: What is a bed?
>
>Glaucon: A bed is a piece of furniture that we sleep on.
>
>Socrates: But is that all it is?
>
>Glaucon: What do you mean?
>
>Socrates: I mean, is there not some deeper essence to a bed? Something beyond its function as a place to sleep?
>
>Glaucon: I'm not sure I follow.
>
>Socrates: Think about it. What makes a bed a bed, and not something else? Is it the wood it is made of, or the shape?
>
>Glaucon: I suppose it is a combination of those things.
>
>Socrates: But if we were to change the wood or the shape, would it still be a bed?
>
>Glaucon: I don't see why not.
>
>Socrates: So then what is the essence of a bed? Is it its function, or its form?
>
>Glaucon: I don't know.
>
>Socrates: Perhaps the essence of a bed is not something we can see or touch, but something more abstract. Perhaps it is the idea of a bed that defines it, rather than any particular example of one.
>
>Glaucon: I see what you mean. So then, if we were to imagine a perfect bed, what would it look like?
>
>Socrates: That is a question for another day, my friend. For now, let us simply ponder the nature of the bed, and all that it represents.

if we define "universe having meaning" as something like " there is some goals we objectivly should follow", well, the brain has many innate goals, it evolved to pursue those goals. so when we are realize the universe is actually meaningless it goes against our intincts

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I don't understand how you came to that. The last sentence seems like a non-sequitur.

From the perspective of the punished, it may be unpleasant, unwanted. But as a society, we should never take action against someone with the aim of inflicting those feelings. They may be a side effect of whatever method is required, but never should it be the goal to do more harm. Even if someone thinks it is deserved.

Because it is never deserved. Because we're all here unwillingly. Because under determinism, even the worst murderers and tyrants didn't choose to be pitiful, terrible creatures that will never know our happiness. In a sense, they are the lowest of us, and even if all we're capable of giving them is pity, then we should still give.

I want to take a step back and hear your definition of punishment (of “law breakers”); I apologize if I misinterpreted.

Do you more so mean punishment as far as “society getting revenge on an individual for a bad act they committed”? Because I believe that concept is definitely worse than the rehabilitative approach. I know this sort of contradicts my previous post, but I understand that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement, so punishment should be more of a last resort, and reward should be a more helpful frame to work off of.

I do not agree with the death penalty in many cases; I’d say I’m 30-70 in favor of it (or 7/10 disfavor). Once I heard the argument that a death sentence should only be given in a situation proven “beyond the shadow of a doubt”, which is nearly impossible to achieve (some say fully impossible because minute doubt can always exist), then I was swayed to disfavor the death penalty all around.

Still, I have to wonder if there are certain cases where we might feel obligated to go further than a life sentence, such as when [warning, they will be harsh] a rapist would receive a life sentence, but if they killed their victim, they would receive the death penalty.

I’d say I am a rational actor and a reasonable person, so my motives for not hurting others, stealing, killing, etc come from a personal moral compass of “doing the right thing” or “do unto others as you’d have done to yourself”. Even so, I know there are some absolute animalistic people who just do not think that same way, and are entirely out for their own benefit, fuck everyone else. They would just as easily hurt you severely as I might run a stop sign, EXCEPT for the thought of their own self preservation: a person who is “sane” but violent will not act with extreme violence toward somebody they perceive as a massive threat to their existence (in a way this is a very instinctual level of “respect” toward the superior force, where they know they would be vested and do not act with violence unless they think they can get away with it).

Aha, there it is in my mind: getting away with it. The lack of perception of punishment! That’s my definition: punishment is the imposition of something unpleasant or unwanted as a result of someone’s actions. A speeding ticket is a monetary punishment. A jail sentence is a punishment restricting your freedom. Solitary confinement punishes further (not sure if it’s ethical!) Would love to discuss more.

Our brains do have an original "purpose", it was an evolutionary advantage that evolved to make more efficient the genes replication. Brain is a machine of solving problems towards a goal. So it seems normal that we deeply feel bad at realizing universe has no meaning.

If im not wrong that is only proven for irrelevant decisions as choosing what object to take. I tend to think free will doesnt exist but as far as i know its not proven.

Evolution is not a hypothesis lol, also it CAN be tested in a lab, not only that, it is the basis for pretty much all modern day biology. Saying it doesn't exist to a biologist is like saying a hammer doesn't exist to a builder, they use it every day.

Also I do not need to prove God doesn't exist, the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim.

I think one thing that makes people confused is the term theory of evolution. The word "theory" when used in a scientific context has a completely different technical meaning from the coloqual use of the word. A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data.

Here is a video of the principle of evolution in action right before your very eyes: https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8

All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.

Pot meet kettle; your existing belief structure makes you think that.

Evolution is a hypothesis, btw, given that it can't be tested in a laboratory to confirm it. The evidence is the same for everyone; interpretation is subjective, conforming to prior beliefs that we have. You have zero evidence that God doesn't exist, so my interpretation should be just as plausible as yours in your mind.

Right after graduating college a few years ago, I had a dream about a blonde woman in her 20s. I memorized her face that day, as I had never seen her before. Months later, hundreds of miles away, I walked into one of my graduate courses and there she was... The bible talks about God's foreknowledge, which makes sense if everything is determined. I believe it is all determined based upon this: if you were given two choices and it was 50/50 whether you choose one or the other, then you wouldn't choose either because nothing *convinces* you to choose one option over the other, whether it be a pro, a con, or an innate proclivity. Thus, we are determined in every decision by the aforementioned variables.

That's because you have a preexisting belief structure that makes you think that.

A much more sound reason for this was that morality was selected by evolution in our human ancestors in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. Aka- if u go around killing people or being dishonest or perpetrating other "immoral" behavior's it would impact your chances of reproducing. Evolution often has the appearance of intelligent design untill you learn the mechanisms behind it and you realise that the aperant design is an illusion. Too many people think they know how evolution works but they dont, so they are confused as to why it wasnt "designed" by a God.

​

Here is a good explanation of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmjHMbkOUM

What are the other methods?

We certainly can't run controlled experiments on everything in our lives. But I think that even with the limitations of reality, our best ways to gain knowledge will resemble science, only with some looser restrictions out of necessity.

>New models will inevitably come up, but that doesn't mean they will be deterministic.

You asked for the confounding factors of the experiment and I provided them from the paper authors themselves. I don't see any point in discussing this further. See ya.

[deleted]

That paper's finding still appears to confirm the original Bell experiment though. So that's still evidence against that position.

There's always the potential for other models, but you argue as you expect further research to overturn these interpretations.

New models will inevitably come up, but that doesn't mean they will be deterministic. A deterministic model has a higher burden of evidence because it would still have to explain these experiments.

>It's just an explanation of the experiment

In my experience, Veritasium loses accuracy in his effort toward simplicity. I watched the video and learned nothing new and rolled my eyes on a few parts. That's why I prefer just reading the paper.

If you're genuinely interested in the paper, here it is with confounding factors included.

>Strictly speaking, no Bell experiment can exclude all conceivable local-realist theories, because it is fundamentally impossible to prove when and where free random input bits and output values came into existence13. Even so, our loophole-free Bell test opens the possibility to progressively bound such less-conventional theories: by increasing the distance between A and B (for example, to test theories with increased speed of physical influence); by using different random input bit generators (to test theories with specific free-will agents, for example, humans); or by repositioning the random input bit generators (to test theories where the inputs are already determined earlier, sometimes referred to as ‘freedom-of-choice’9). In fact, our experiment already enables tests of all models that predict that the random inputs are determined a maximum of 690 ns before we record them (Supplementary Information).

Can you prove science is the only way to truth via the scientific method?

Uh oh…

It's just an explanation of the experiment, it's not like it was his research. Do you have an actual criticism of the experiment or my interpretation of it?

A book called "Fabulous Rebels" covers them decently enough, book review here https://archive.ph/sKHKH