Nilsi

The more developed you are, the more mature you are. To use a crude example: a human at a worldcentric level of development is more mature than one at an egocentric or ethnocentric level of development - no matter how many "self-referential thoughts" this human has. Lets not reinvent the wheel here - these models are the best thing we have to define maturity.

My point is that self-referential thought serves a purpose. Compulsively regurgitating episodic memories is not the same thing as delibeately reflecting on yourself for whatever purpose.

If you sometimes experience yourself as the "ego" and sometimes as the "no-self self," yet the you remains constant, then what are you really?

Calling self-referential though "always a problematic process" is itself a problematic process. I like Zak Steins metapsychological framework of transcendence (firstness), ensoulment (secondness) and development (thirdness). Self-referential thought would be in the domain of development - and thats precisely where its useful; in being able to idealize oneself. There is a time and place for being as well - of course. As far as Im concerned, framing self-referential thought as "something to get rid of" is quite reductionist and not mature. This is fundamentally very much escapism and an unwillingness to accept the human condition for what it is.

I agree with this as well.

In your dreams kid.

Just goes to show how ignorant you are.

Red hates the status quo and will rebel for the sake of rebelling. So depending on who's in office, Red might vote conservative/liberal/socialist - whatever goes against the grain. Red doesn't really give a shit about politics, unless it serves itself (as in the case of some infamous dictators).

The whole thing is out of key, what are you talking about? You dont help the guy by endorsing his shitty creations, but by pointing out what makes them shitty.

Fair enough.

Thats why we talk about how to use and build AI ethically. There is no problem. If humanity is nothing but an evolutionary dead-end, so be it. But this philosophy is not condusive to living a meaningful life and oganizing a society. Is this something you would tell your children? If not, whats the point of postulating it?

Learn music theory. The chords are completely out of key. This is like using language without grammar. No matter what profound thing you have to say, no one will take you seriously. After you know the rules and have mastered them, you can go break them - with intent. Good prose and poetry plays with grammar - again, with intent.

We are co-evolving with AI now, which means a lot of our fat is getting trimmed. Thats fantastic. The single most important skill you can cultivate right now is open-mindedness and flexibility - spirituality is not looking so stupid after all, huh?

Why should I calculate gas prices in my head, when the computer can do it faster? You shouldnt - thats precisely the insight.

It doesnt though. Which only goes to show you who made the more intelligent decisions in their lifes. Life will punish you for being stupid, thats nothing new. If you bet on the wrong horse, you always lost your money for that. If you build your life on scribbling lines with a pencil, you deserve a hard lesson - welcome to the jungle my man.

Everything is nature. Duhh. We are already merged with all sorts of technologies (including AI). If AI starts to undermine our innate humanity though, I would consider it pathological (which it does in the case of say Facebook feed curation). Cells merge into humans, yet are not negated in their cell-dom in the process. This is fine and absolutely natural.

It should go without saying that we need regulations and that AI can potentially become extremely despotic - not to mention the potential existential risks of a superintelligence with access to all of the worlds information infrastructure. If AI is really better at everything that humans do, then we are just evolutionary bootloaders anyway. This is a pretty bleak assessment of human nature though. Humans have some intrinsic human capacities like empathy, creativity, self-directedness, sexuality and many more (and of course some nasty ones as well), which simply do not get better with increasing computing power. AI being able to do all the things we are not unqiuely adept for is the best news ever. If we dont fuck this up (which admittedly is a big if), the world will become a better and more humane place in every meaningful metric for it.

You are God, so whatever you imagine to be true will become true for you.

Im sorry, but this sounds like "mom its not a phase" for overly cerebral kids. Its good music though.

You forgot the most important one.

I dont see it. It is literally Eros - consciousness blossoming into ever greater complexity and intimacy (which is the correlate of complexity in the interior domain).

In my estimation it is a myth that suits mankind as a whole and is neccessary to cope and effectively deal with the world we currently inhabit. I dont see anyone articulating this worldview here, besides some rough intimations of it.

You keep deconstructing everything we bring to the table and you are obviously extremely knowledgeable and well versed in the history of philosophy, but youre not offering anything constructive. "Evolutionary progressivism" works very well in the real world it is adept at explaining every phenomenon in the universe it offers an ethical imperative and thus meaning and social coherence in becoming responsible stewards of evolution; it offers a sophisticated and open-ended aesthetic exploration of the universe through emergence - so I dont see any reason to replace it with some obscure archaic topsy turvy involution worldview. This is why I keep calling you a postmodernist or nihilist.