dimreepr

Nothing is more important for teaching us to understand the concepts we have than to construct fictitious ones. Ludwig Wittgenstein

@Phi for All is right, you lack the pyramid of knowledge needed to understand the subject at hand, essentially all you do is quote. and Wittginstien took a dim view of that.

My point...? Hmm, isn't it strange that we're so willing/determined to accept that 'utopia' is, no place and impossible, yet we seem so eager to accept that 'dystopia' is everywhere and imminent.

That's how one teaches someone to understand a complex issue, you remove layers of complexity in order to build understanding, in a pyramid of knowledge. When one understands the fundamental's it just adds complexity, like learning a different language in which to express one's thought's; it's an unnecessary distraction. A machine is binary, 1 and 0, life contains a third term...

How?

In the context of this thread (Does evolution evolve?), "No shit Sherlock"...🙄

There's a reason I just pointed and laughed at you... 😪 You can't possibly have any understanding of the reasoning behind this/any feeling/decision, unless you're one of them...

Because I don't have a USB port, let's not get into a semantic argument, it just muddies the water; which is my point about machine's. You're introducing an unnecessary level of complexity, which is essentially the antipode of philosophical thinking; what you're suggesting is like asking someone to learn a different language before expressing you're thoughts about our own society...

But I'm not a machine...

Yes, that's a good synopsis of the problem, the reason is more global than you think; we all think we can ring-fence 'our property' and protect it from the future, but "one often meets one's destiny on the path we chose to avoid it"

So, the best we can do is a ticket to nowhere? I'm currently alive, isn't that somewhere?

I was just pointing and laughing...

What's your point?

To what end? How does this help me think about reality, better than I do now? This is a backward step, a machine is a simple object and doesn't think, at least not in a way that we could understand; you may as well ask us to talk to an ant hill, bc the average ant colony has roughly the same number of neurons as that of a human.

Utter bollox (pun intended), this isn't like deciding to be <insert intolerance> bc the Jones' make it sound cool. If someone decides to cut off an appendage to release themselves from themselves, then it's a much deeper process than what's available on daytime TV. Imagine if the world could see your deepest and darkest cultural shame, whatever that is; and someone like you comes along and with no understanding of the pain involved, just point's and laugh's at you... So, how does it feel?

Perhaps, though I doubt they will be found in time... 😉

I missed this, it's seems to add weight to my initial argument: I've got my fingers crossed, "BNW" without the genetics, I think it's best we can hope for... I'm not convinced that Huxley wrote it as a dystopia.

It's just a switch away from being gallows humour...

This is what started this 'discussion'. I hesitate to reply, bc you don't seem in the mood to discuss anything. This is worth a look, if you can (give it 10 mins and you'll probably see it through). I think BNW is a fairly accurate analogy of the western world ATM, I wonder how many of us think we're living in a dystopian novel?

Only, if we can get back on topic, if you want a pension... 😉

Present your evidence, if you can... 🙄 "1984" didn't seem that funny... 😉

No, he clearly said that it began as that and then it turned into something else, ergo not a parody... Thank you for your concerns, but I've never suggested that "BNW" was a utopia, the best you'll get, is my suggestion that if AI replaced genetics, as a source of workers, then "BNW" is the closest we'll get to that no-place. You have yet to pursuad me that the novel is entirely (your word) dystopian...

No he didn't, he said (I'm paraphrasing) "it gets very nuanced, the more you think about it"... 😉 What he didn't say is, it's a satirical novel. You're not addressing my point, your hiding from it...

The point I assumed we were (just about on topic/relevant) discussing, i.e. the motivation and meaning behind Huxley's novel "BNW". What were you discussing? I'm sorry but that green 1 is undeserved, it's gotta go. Did 'he' tell you that? I'm struggling with the concept of a satirical take on a science fiction novel.