The way i understood it was that it’s a difference in organization of society. Some people can find meaning themselves, without needing somebody else to tell them what to do. Some people just need to be told what to do.
I think zealot answered that. It seems that people who can’t manage themselves and their worst impulse want to manage others.
Grimes and musk believe the AI is God. So there’s a good chance context is missing here on purpose because she’s aware enough to not go full crazy.
Bring back God = build the AI.
they don’t believe in god, so there’s no belief in AI.
let me sum it up for you in a few words imagine they are the thoughts of our oppressors.
I am a god.
The archetypes, best, worst and middling, are those parts of ourselves, so I can kind of see that. I’m fairly sure that’s not what they mean by it, but I could be wrong. People can agree on basic premise and have wildly varying ideas of the implications, such as regular people who hi to church, temple and mosque and basically try to be decent to everyone, and those who wield religion like a cudgel.
Eta, just saying I’m fairly sure i don’t agree their implications, maybe not the actual premise. I realize it was murky.
If we can kill God, then it wasn’t God that we killed…
This is the fact that is so often overlooked because its too goddamn inconvenient for them to acknowledge.
manic nazi dream girl
I think her argument was that religion offered an easy way to make moral choices.
There was just a case where a woman gave birth to a baby in the woods, left it there and left for a vacation. If it weren’t for the family dog desperately trying to save the baby and getting noticed by a stranger, nobody would have ever known as even the rest of the family was defensive of the woman.
This shows morality is not only not an exclusively trait but not even an exclusively human trait.
Do you have source?
I am not sure that I agree that the dog’s behavior necessarily demonstrates “morality.” You might be anthropomorphizing a bit. I am not a biologist or anything, so I could be way off base… But is it not possible that the dog was acting on instincts to protect newborn offspring? Similar to when animals “adopt” babies from other species as their own?
Morality implies that the dog did a thing because it’s “the right thing to do,” when in reality, it might have just been a self-preservation instinct kicking in. Dog sees newborn that’s clearly the offspring of the being that takes care of it, dog tries to preserve that newborn’s life in order to keep the gravy train going.
Just my (again, non-expert) thoughts.
You can remove the argument from morality safely from your answer just by stating the dog acted upon instinct, based off the notion dogs are pack animals, that have a closely knit symbiotic relatioship with human, which can be used to in favour of the dog finding a newborn activated the instinct of preserving their pack.
The way you approached the subject can be easily side tracked through arguing you are atributting self interest to the animals actions, as in, it keeps the newborn alive, thus, their own preservation is assured.
If acting on true self interest, the dog should have allowed the newborn to die.
Side note: who discards a newborn in such calous way? How unbalanced is the person?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If fear of divine retribution is your only reason for being a good person, then you are not a good person.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Emphasis my own. Yes there is a self evident morality, you don’t need God to tell you what’s right and wrong.
To be fair, they’re also saying that it’s self-evident that our rights are given to us by a “creator”. Which isn’t true.
Your mama didn’t give you rights?
Someone that fucked Elon should really keep ideas about morality out of their fucking mouth
Elon doesn’t fuck, his dick is a bent twig. He has them fucked by mail order.
There are good things that are less intuitive about eg. Christian values such as forgiveness. You get as many chances as you need and are still worth saving no matter what you have done wrong.
I mean sure, but that’s not exclusive to Christianity; forgiveness can be learned anywhere, including through lived experience. Yes Christianity features forgiveness prominently, but it also prominently features fish and certainly you don’t think you can only acquire seafood from the pious.
So practically you can appreciate and accept the philosophical lessons offered by Christianity while still rejecting the Christianity of it all in the same way that you can appreciate and endorse live music by buying tickets through Ticketmaster while also criticizing Ticketmaster for all of the awfulness they unnecessarily bring into the concert-going experience.
Faith without world is dead, according to James.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish
No matter what?
Yes.
Separate the deed from the dude. Provide psychological help and enable them to be better.
Did you read the letter he sent?
Having a god reign over some heads is a useful tool against those who don’t share the same values, but fear the existence of a higher power.
As always, it’s about lacking control and the frustration that comes with.
Shame and peer pressure are outsourcing ethics and never independently developing character.
