dimreepr

!0 scientific facts, that remain today is a question of time and we all know how unreliable time is...

This is where philosophy meets its children, science and ethics are guided by the same principles, and that's a deliberate seperation from a humanity. However the ethics "committee" has to be paid and that's humanity in a nut shell. IOW you can erase "ethics in" and the sentence has the same meaning.

Are you sure you want me to answer that? That is the point of a question mark, so yes please... I would define the soul as my personal god, it's a fragile entity that I can destroy by following a false morality. The thing about religions is that, they need to maintain a cultural context in order for the morality lessons to be properly understood. The adherence to a single religion, means that one is more likely to miss the point, read them all and you're more likely to understand why your OP is essentially meaningless.

How would you define a soul?

But the scope does focus on this, bc it's the first interaction that can be measured in a meaningful way, the greater 'we', are happy to accept AI is 'smarter than the average bear', if your a "professional chess player", but I'm obviously smarter than that bc they're just nerds. The AI's in my mates car always admonish him whenever he, or other's, breaks the rules... It's bloody annoying, but I've found a work-around... 😉 If I bounce on the seat a couple of times, it thinks I'm wearing a seat belt...

That reminds me of a Louis CK joke, where he claims Christianity won, and when challenged he simply asks, what date is it ? When we consider "far reaching" literally then sure that could be argued, but it's a waiting game and science is coming hard and eccelerating. How far reaching is science? He asked on a computer from a different countery... 🙄

The problem you are having is, imagining science has a soul and is an entity in and of itself. You've got that completely backwards, neither science or religion need ethics: Science, bc 'it' (not really a thing) has no interest in ethics. Religion, bc it has already decided the correct moral path. Philosophy is willing too challenge the correct moral path, with a mortality likelyhood score, which seems fair... 🤔 We're humans, and on average that's all we have, if we're lucky; I'd hate to live in Ukraine ATM... 🙄 But, if science is on our side, perhaps, it would mean less of 'us' would die... 😇

Isn't it strange how often the word 'path' appears in a Venn diagram of humanity and what we learned from history...

Capable of what? Please clarify your question. How does ethics differ from philosophy, in your question? Assimov's 2nd foundation was based on a sentient robot that was 'telepathic' and guided by the 4 law's of robotics in his action's, which would automatically lead to the fewest dead humans in any given scenario. Some of which maybe an unavoidable war.

Of course, but isn't that the problem...

People only really trust people who can help them make enough money to future proof their life, that's how con-artist's make a living. Trust in science only goes so far and even a scientist has a price they're willing to pay, in terms of trust. Why did you put this in the 'ethics' forum? I think @studiot point about Assimov's second foundation is a good example of an ethical solution; as AI gets more and more powerful at predicting humanities vagaries, an ethically bias free algorithm for it to run thing's for us, would be best for all of us, as it would remove the emotion from deciding the moral path needed.

What isn't? Good bye cruel world walk on bye...

What's the secret chord that makes people shit them selves? I'm pretty sure that would make it in a ballad, a thousand screaming berserkers in full retreat, doing the 'shit yourself waddle'...

Indeed, AI is bound to start doing the heavy lifting in building a legal case, it's much cheaper and more convenient for the culpable.

Good joke, hmmm 🤔. At least there's a point to mine, veganism, in this context, is an artificial human construct that isn't sustainable naturally. I can't help but think that vegans are taking Buddhism to far, like the monks who stay awake as much as possible, to avoid crushing an innocent tick.

It's like deciding to be a vegan, despite cheese...

Relevant to what? You seem to be missing the point of this thread, time is just an abstract number in terms of the fuel needed for the circadian rhythm to run smoothly.

Solipsism is where you start your philosophical journey, you being you is self evident. free will is a few steps up the ladder and you have to have stepped on each of those rungs to understand it well enough to take Pascal's wager seriously.

I often dream of an impossible destination, that's when I know it's a dream... Solipsismis just an excuse to deny reality...

At risk of another neg, are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you not realise that I'm drawing a distinction between time as we percieve it, and time that's imposed on us? One is healthier for the bank balance, of one's boss, and the other is healthier for one... Whatever floats ones boat... 😉

I'm not being dismissive of our biological clock, I'm suggesting it doesn't quiet match our quantum clock... Two points: You can't have it both way's, it's either time or culture that drive our need to eat; hunger seems to be a healthier approach. Breakfast has become a marketing exercise by the guy's that need to sell all the sugar (they don't need to grow), that's etymology for you... 😉 Just my personal evidence, but when I'm actually hungery, it's not a chocolate bar that I crave, it's a cooked horse... Why? What's your point? As far as I can tell, you've literally taken the title (of this topic) too literally, with all your naval gazing...

Who knew what a bleak expectation that would be?

Time-keeping is only for the worker's and the time and motion expert's. A rigid approach that seems to exclude half the population, good for the early bird a complete fail for the owl.

Who knew eating would evolve into such a precious etymology...

It's not 'really' there, if you can see this post... ☠️