Alex_Krycek

Any Sci-Fi people see Netflix's latest A.I. feature? It's called "I Am Mother". Synopsis: a young human girl "Daughter" is raised by A.I. "Mother" in a secure bunker after humanity has experienced an "extinction event". Things go awry when another human enters from outside, and tells the girl that all is not as it seems. Definitely worth a watch - lots of twists and turns and seamlessy produced. The film was also interesting because it's basically the movie version of Stuart Russell's TED talk: "3 principles for creating safer A.I" and his "fetch the coffee problem".

With all the gloom and doom surrounding global warming, sometimes there's a sliver of good news. Planting billions of trees across the world is by far the biggest and cheapest way to tackle the climate crisis, according to scientists, who have made the first calculation of how many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas. The analysis found there are 1.7bn hectares of treeless land on which 1.2tn native tree saplings would naturally grow. That area is about 11% of all land and equivalent to the size of the US and China combined. Tropical areas could have 100% tree cover, while others would be more sparsely covered, meaning that on average about half the area would be under tree canopy. “This new quantitative evaluation shows [forest] restoration isn’t just one of our climate change solutions, it is overwhelmingly the top one,” said Prof Tom Crowther at the Swiss university ETH Zürich, who led the research. “What blows my mind is the scale. I thought restoration would be in the top 10, but it is overwhelmingly more powerful than all of the other climate change solutions proposed.” Tree planting is “a climate change solution that doesn’t require President Trump to immediately start believing in climate change, or scientists to come up with technological solutions to draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere”, Crowther said. “It is available now, it is the cheapest one possible and every one of us can get involved.” Now, if indoor vertical farming can be mastered along with synthetic food production, there might be hope for the Earth yet. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

Perhaps, but the articles I linked to raise some interesting questions. Why would behavior be measurably affected in subsequent generations if the environmental stimulus that caused the behavior was absent? I find that interesting. Also: In a second study, researchers found that rats raised by stressed mothers that neglected and physically abused their offspring showed specific epigenetic modifications to their DNA. Incorrect. I understand Darwinian evolution full well. However, I question if there is a purpose behind it, and if the full story has been told. Again, incorrect. I studied the evidence in university like everyone else. Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that evolution occurs, of course, but little to no evidence for why it occurs. Causation of evolution is still firmly in the realm of speculation. You can posit that it's purely random and purposeless, but there is no proof of that. Unnecessary, as is your condescension. Like everyone else I learned about the theory of Darwinian evolution. I understand the premises being put forth, and like I said, I don't question that evolution is a fact. However I think Darwin's theory is incomplete. Why, and yes, in large parts, how evolution occurs is still open for exploration. You seem to be conflating these two issues. I don't read the bible, thanks. Funny thing is, your reaction reminds me of a lot of some of the religious people I know. They patronize, condescend, and then dismiss. Interesting.

These are the exact ideas proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Do you not recognize a direct contradiction with the precepts of Darwinian evolution? I disagree with your assumptions. Is that intolerable to you? Why evolution happens is still speculation. Your mental construct of what you think evolution is is subjective. You say it occurs by random chance with no purpose. Ok. Prove it.

There is emerging evidence in neuroscience to suggest that genetics can be directly influenced by the environment. That is, when an organism encounters certain environmental circumstances it's DNA begins to adapt in real time to that environmental stimulus. In one study, subsequent generations of mice were conditioned to fear a unique and synthetic olfactory stimulus that was not found in nature. The parents were conditioned to fear the smell, and subsequent generations also feared it: Studying the biological basis for those effects in humans would be difficult. So Ressler and his colleague Brian Dias opted to study epigenetic inheritance in laboratory mice trained to fear the smell of acetophenone, a chemical the scent of which has been compared to those of cherries and almonds. He and Dias wafted the scent around a small chamber, while giving small electric shocks to male mice. The animals eventually learned to associate the scent with pain, shuddering in the presence of acetophenone even without a shock. This reaction was passed on to their pups, Dias and Ressler report today in Nature Neuroscience1. Despite never having encountered acetophenone in their lives, the offspring exhibited increased sensitivity when introduced to its smell, shuddering more markedly in its presence compared with the descendants of mice that had been conditioned to be startled by a different smell or that had gone through no such conditioning. A third generation of mice — the 'grandchildren' — also inherited this reaction, as did mice conceived through in vitro fertilization with sperm from males sensitized to acetophenone. Similar experiments showed that the response can also be transmitted down from the mother. https://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272 Similarly, another study tested the genetic effects of environmental conditioning by the parents in relation to fitness and memory: In Feig’s study, mice genetically engineered to have memory problems were raised in an enriched environment–given toys, exercise, and social interaction–for two weeks during adolescence. The animals’ memory improved–an unsurprising finding, given that enrichment has been previously shown to boost brain function. The mice were then returned to normal conditions, where they grew up and had offspring. This next generation of mice also had better memory, despite having the genetic defect and never having been exposed to the enriched environment. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/ Epigenetic inheritance challenges the old paradigm of evolution and natural selection. Personally I think it's more plausible than the previous model of evolution. Why wouldn't organisms begin to adapt genetically in real time in response to their environment? It seems much more logical that direct interaction with the environment would be the true driver of evolution, rather than random chance.

That evolution is goal driven. There is a "point".

Sure, I understand this worldview. It's the mainstream scientific philosophical outlook at this point in time: everything is random, there's no point to anything, life and evolution happen by chance, etc. I'm just pointing out there is no evidence to support these assumptions. You can of course harbor such a philosophy, but it's not objective fact.

Stating that evolution exists without a goal is a bit of a non sequitur. The entire basis of evolution - in whatever form - is improvement upon past iterations, which is a goal driven phenomena. The underlying goal of adapting to the environment is so a species can survive and multiply, for example.

I don't think it's a question of "who". Personification of evolutionary processes is an inadequate lens to use (terminology that should be relegated to theism). Goal directed behavior (on various levels) is probably just an intrinsic part of an evolutionary universe. On the other hand, the idea that passing on one's genes is the ultimate purpose of evolution isn't supported by the evidence. It's an assumption.

This question falls into the realm of philosophy of science, hence your statement is more of a worldview; not an objective fact. The idea that all life occurs by the "chance happening of mutations and their subsequent selection", and the idea that there is no inherent goal is an assumption based on that worldview (mechanistic materialism). I tend to disagree with this perspective.

A main factor is the individual's perspective of whether or not fluidity is good or bad.

The drive to reproduce is one kind of evolutionary goal, and reproduction is a foundational goal linked to biology, but it is by no means the end all, be all of evolution. What's interesting is that evolution is replete with such a vast array of goal directed behavior, much of it divorced from reproduction, especially in our own species. A human being who is deeply interested in producing music, for example, because that person loves music - such a person doesn't play music to pass on his / her genes. Yes, some musicians play music for popularity (to make themselves more attractive socially), but many don't. Many play music for the intrinsic enjoyment of the art; such people are highly motivated and inspired in their day to day existence. The same goes for numerous other iterations of intelligent action, whatever they may be. So is all goal directed, creative behavior linked to the drive to reproduce? I think that is too simplistic of an argument.

I appreciate the general idea, but I would also question the physical size of the brain in relation to intelligence. If you use the analogy of a computer chip, computer chips have become exponentially smaller through their development cycle and yet they have become exponentially more powerful, such that computer chips in the future will be invisible to the naked eye. So physical size and computing power aren't intrinsically linked. I think the same could be said for brains - it's highly possible that other animals are equally as intelligent as humans (in terms of perception and cognition) with a much smaller physical brain. Some birds, for example, can percieve the Earth's magnetic field (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13811-birds-can-see-the-earths-magnetic-field/). Other animals have sensory abilities that far surpass those of human beings. Are they less intelligent? I don't think so. I think probably the main difference that separates humans from other animals is the ability to store memories and create technology, which is a major hallmark of what we consider to be "intelligence".

You need to be more specific. What do you mean by "not respecting different races and cultures"? I don't know where you live, but in a secular democracy where individual liberty is paramount we don't imprison people for not respecting other races/cultures. The concept of disrespect is entirely subjective and within the ego of the offended. And in the West we don't trample individual liberty for the sake of someone else's wounded ego.

Arrival is a terrific movie. The sequence where the helicopter first approaches the alien craft, and the subsequent entrance of the scientists into the craft, is one of the best in cinematic history, in my view. Another point about a potential alien presence is how sparsely populated most of the world is. The vast majority of people live in densely populated urban areas. If there were extra-terrestrials visiting us, it would be fairly easy to avoid people. This interactive map shows just how much unpopulated space there is on the Earth: http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#5/49.196/6.702

Well, think of it this way. Science is always evolving. Our understanding of the laws of physics is always expanding. 200 years ago the concept of air travel would have seemed ludicrous, due in large part to their limited understanding of physics and preconceptions about what technology is capable of. The idea of jet propulsion (or even the concept of lift) would have seemed impossible except to the imaginative few. I think it's the same way with space travel. We're stuck in the box of the combustion engine: burn fuel, move forward. But if our understanding of physics changed; for example, if we learned how to manipulate gravity (or even space-time itself), then this discovery would make the vast distances of space irrelevant. It would be a game-changer in the same way that the airplane revolutionized travel on Earth. I fundamentally disagree with your definition of intelligence. I see intelligence as something that trascends petty competition and animalistic aggression. Think of the most intelligent people on Earth: inventors, prodigious musicians, engineers, or brilliant architects. Are they driven by aggression and competition? At some lower level, perhaps - but most just want to pursue their art. At some point intelligence transcends the predator / prey dynamic that you described, becoming instead a benign creative mindset with the end goal of harmony and peace. Would an intelligent human being want to destroy the environment, for example? Or would they want to preserve it indefinitely? The aggressive, self interested humans are the ones destroying the environment, cashing in for a quick buck with no regard for the future. Is that intelligent behavior? I don't think so.

In my opinion Andrew Yang is the only one with viable solutions to the coming economic upheaval caused by A.I. and automation.

Carl Sagan once argued about the improbability of aliens having visited Earth. He cited two main reasons: 1. the vast distances aliens would have to travel to get to Earth would be an almost insurmountable obstacle 2. the vast amount of time that separates civilizations during their rise and fall would make it unlikely that any intelligent civilizations would exist simultaneously On the other hand, Sagan has argued that he believes alien life is inevitable due to the vast numbers of planets and star systems that exist in the universe; he just doesn't think that intelligent beings have visited Earth, for the aforementioned reasons. I propose a counter argument. First, to agree with Sagan's general view of extraterrestrial life, the vast number of stars in our own galaxy alone makes it likely that some form of life does exist. These star systems undoubtedly contain billions of viable exoplanets. Even in our own solar system, planets such as Mars have been found to have water, and Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, is thought to have subterranean frozen seas. Is our own planet special? Probably not. Second, Sagan's point that civilizations would exist at different intervals, divorced from one another over eons of time, assumes one thing: that all intelligent civilizations would behave like Earth's. That is, all civilizations would rise and fall, as those on Earth do, and would eventually end in extinction within a relatively short time. But what if this isn't the case? What if other intelligent species establish equilibrium or harmony on their planet and can exist indefinitely, through the wise marshaling of resources and lack of egoistic competition? Why should we assume that all intelligent civilizations behave as haphazardly and ignorantly as human civilization does? Continuing this idea, if another species did reach evolutionary equilibrium, where it continued to progress technologically (and perhaps biologically also) but without inter-species conflict or discord, then that species could theoretically exist indefinitely - for hundreds of millions of years, (barring the lack of some existential catastrophe like a meteor strike). Further, if the species was continuing to develop technological as human do, then their capability for traversing the vast distances of space would exponentially increase also. With each passing milenia of stable progress an intelligent alien species would be more equipped to traverse the galaxy. It has taken human beings roughly 250,000 - 300,000 years to progress from a nomadic state to that of (limited) space explorers, but what would our technology look like if we steadily progressed without self inflicted anihilation for another 250,000 years? So the idea that an intelligent species could only exist for a short time is an assumption I don't think is 100% true. And IF that species is able to progressively develop their technology over eons without interruption, then who is to say that the vast distances of space would be any barrier? Additionally, how many star systems are there in our galaxy alone? Dr. Sten Odenwald, astronomer for NASA, writes in the Huffington Post that there are between 100 billion and 1 trillion stars in the Milky Way. At least 100 billions star systems, right in our own galactic neighborhood. Finally, there is the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion year old, and has been inhabitable (with breathable air, water, and a viable food source) for 650 million years. Given these time frames, an alien species could definitely have evolved enough to venture out to explore its neighboring star systems and could have visited Earth already. So, while I agree with Sagan's view that alien life is more or less inevitable, I don't think that vast time or distance necessarily negate the possibility of aliens having visited Earth. Thoughts?

Appreciate beauty. Love. Feel emotion.. Be creative for its own enjoyment. The list goes on. Increased computational power doesn't make A.I. conscious. There is much more to consciousness than the mere processing of information ; computation is a rather superficial layer that provides the illusion of consciousness. Roger Penrose said it best on Joe Rogan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ReEPCpFWwE

On the one hand, yes, I agree that our imagination is immensely capable. But all of the examples you mentioned, the things that are supposedly so crazy, are already within our realm of understanding (the giant alien eyeball looking down from the sky, for example). I challenge you to articulate something that is beyond your imagination - it's impossible. The only way you can imagine something is if you have some frame of reference to build that "new" mental model on. That's not to say there are not things that are beyond our comprehension - which of course there are, we just have no way of imagining something that is totally alien. But I guess the heart of your question is: do human beings possess the cognitive faculties, tools, and methods to discover and understand ever more complicated phenomena? Scientific progress over the last few centuries would seem to indicate that we do, albeit how much progress we've actually made is another question entirely. If you take the caveman / Siri example, the caveman has no concept of computers / A.I / audio technology, etc. Perhaps the caveman could start to understand if you dissembled the device and showed him the components, but his puny neanderthal brain would lurch and struggle to grasp even the most basic idea before he became frustrated and clubbed you in the head. Could you explain to the caveman (let's say a Homosapien this time) about black body radiation, ultraviolet light, the atom, or anything that we take for granted now? Probably not. He would look at you in amazement and then worship you like a God, before changing his mind and thinking you're the devil and clubbing you in the head. There's a "curse of knowledge bias" happening. These concepts might seem easily imaginable to us, because of the centuries of scientific progress that humans have made and the education that we have received in our individual lives, but to others such ideas are outside their realm of understanding. Similarly, because humans now have some limited knowledge about the universe, we think we can imagine anything - but my view is it's still in the same limited sphere. There's also the problem with the instruments humans use to examine the universe. They're incredibly limited. On the other hand many scientific breakthroughs started first with the imagination. In Einstein's case it was doing thought experiments about the speed of light; Isaac Newton was living alone in the countryside to avoid the plague when he made many of his remarkable breakthroughs. Nikola Tesla was operating at a level that was unheard of during his time. Ultimately the question relates to the potential of the human imagination. Is the imagination fundamentally connected to the universe itself, and so has the ability to conceive of anything that exists within the universe that it is connected to? Or is the human imagination just an extension of what has been deduced scientifically over time, an extension of established knowledge, and thus it is limited by that knowledge to only imagining certain concepts that it has been preconditioned to understand? PS: Your post made me think of David Bohm's Theory of the Implicate Order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wy9kS8ob2Y

Don't think those groups have allies in the United States, especially the southwest? Think again. There's a logical fallacy in your argument. You're basically arguing that because some fringe groups vociferously support certain elements of Trump's policies (such as immigration reform), then such support is necessarily reciprocal, i.e. that Trump and Bannon support the right wing fringe groups in return. This isn't born out by the facts. 'Ethno-nationalism – it's losers,' he [Bannon] said. 'It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it.' 'These guys are a collection of clowns,' he added. - Steve Bannon, speaking to the Daily Mail SOURCE Bannon again denounces the white nationalists in his Oxford Union speech. Trump did the same with the KKK and David Duke. "David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now." SOURCE Just because white supremacist groups such as the KKK, National Vanguard agree with certain aspects of the Trump administration's policy, doesn't mean the Trump administration supports these groups, nor do establishment Republicans. Quote me one elected Republican who is on record supporting the KKK or David Duke. You can't. With policy it's always a question of nuance, and there are always extremist elements on both sides who will push certain reasonable policy proposals to places that most people aren't comfortable with. We can look to history to see many examples. Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas, for instance, were hijacked by the fascists in the 1930s, while Karl Marx's ethos was hijacked by the Communists. Are we to blame these two philosophers for the seizure and bastardization of their ideas at the hands of psychopathic megalomaniacs, and the resulting genocide that ensued? If you are willing to blame them then you're essentially supporting a ban on free speech. At the end of the day, both the right and the left have been vulnerable to extremist ideologies that seek power through violence. What if the shoe were on the other foot? Should Bernie Sanders be held accountable because radical leftist groups want to take his policy proposals too far? Should Ocasio-Cotez or Elizabeth Warren? There are plenty of Antifa members who support all three of these candidates, but want them to move their policy positions to the extreme. Should we call all Democrats radicals because a handful of card carrying communists want to take away private property in their name? No, of course not, that wouldn't be reasonable. And nor is it reasonable to do the same to people on the right.

Perhaps, but his opposition to legal immigration isn't happening in a vacuum. The downturn in the economy for working class people is the primary catalyst. You can argue against changing immigration policy but ultimately it will have to be settled at the ballot box. Not really. When considering the current polarized political climate you have to understand all the factions at work, on both the right and the left. You keep wanting to deny the existence of fringe groups on the left, because it contradicts your narrative perhaps? No, because again they operate as a violent mob, not a rational political organization with constructive policy a leadership hierarchy. At the grassroots level they are highly active. Elected Democrats prefer to tacitly accept them, choosing not to condemn their actions: Conservatives see the danger to the republic, but so do a few liberals who have been bold enough to warn against the hard, violent left. Alan Dershowitz, the former Harvard Law professor, is one. "Do not let the hard left, the radicals, represent the Democratic Party," Dershowitz warned recently. "There is an alt-left and we cannot deny it. The alt-left are radical people who want to deny us free speech, who want to close the campus to conversation, who want to stop people from having dialogue, who want to use violence… "Antifa is not our friend. They will not help us win elections. ... I do not want to give a pass to the hard radical left, which is destroying America, destroying American universities, destroying the Democratic Party," Dershowitz said. Aticle Here

"Well, actually..."

I think he opposes illegal immigration and certain aspects of legal immigration, which he thinks are too liberal, such as chain immigration. Certain groups are, such as Reconquista and the Nationalist Front of Mexico who want to retake the lands lost by Mexico in the Mexican - American war of 1846. No, because they operate as an anonymous mob. They can't put down their bongs long enough to muster a coherent strategy or run for political office. They'd rather just break things and assault people who don't agree with them instead. Just because they're not mainstream doesn't mean they're not dangerous.

I've tried. I've explained that those on the left want greater opportunity for the working class too. It's difficult when someone isn't interested in hearing another viewpoint. Also, this guy has violent tendencies which I try to circumnavigate. He once told a colleague of mine that he tracked down someone on Facebook whom he got into a political argument with and challenged him to a fight. I'd prefer not to be in the line of fire if he ends up going postal. Best I can do is be the non-threatening liberal whom he trusts to talk politics. That way I can subtly influence him over a longer period of time without direct confrontation.