ZOMBIFICATION OF HUMANITY AND THE HERALD OF AI.

[MJ kihara]

I was wondering when knowledge and information becomes inaccessible and overdependence on digital media whose memory can just be erased or be manipulated,while faith and believes becomes trivialized because the machines are becoming more intelligent than majority of humans together with increased abuse of drugs ( the likes of bhang and cocaine)  leads to zombification of human,is that foreseeable, what's your take?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

I was wondering when knowledge and information becomes inaccessible and overdependence on digital media whose memory can just be erased or be manipulated,while faith and believes becomes trivialized because the machines are becoming more intelligent than majority of humans together with increased abuse of drugs ( the likes of bhang and cocaine)  leads to zombification of human,is that foreseeable, what's your take?

Can you restate that in coherent sentences please? At present this is incomprehensible. Perhaps if you can split it into several sentences, with one idea per sentence, it might help.

[MJ kihara]

I just wanted to start a conversation concerning the main topic/headline rather than my take/comments concerning the same.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I was wondering when knowledge and information becomes inaccessible and overdependence on digital media whose memory can just be erased or be manipulated,

Probably when we have no more actual books?

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

while faith and believes becomes trivialized

I think the reduction of the crippling effects of the Abrahamic religions would be a boon for mankind. Without the vertical paternal moral hierarchy they force upon the world, I think men and women could cooperate like intelligent humans instead of competing like animals for their god's favor.

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

because the machines are becoming more intelligent than majority of humans together with increased abuse of drugs ( the likes of bhang and cocaine)

Better education can help so many of the problems we face. Humans evolved for intelligence, and that takes educators.

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

 leads to zombification of human,is that foreseeable, what's your take?

We've allowed a few people to accumulate inordinate wealth, more than they can use EVER. Those few have been using this wealth to promote themselves to our own detriment. If we allow it to continue, then we probably deserve what happens to us. 

 

[Markus Hanke]

On 4/26/2024 at 9:41 PM, Phi for All said:

We've allowed a few people to accumulate inordinate wealth, more than they can use EVER.

Indeed. The same is true also with power - all the major decisions which affect humanity globally (eg starting wars etc) are made by an extremely small group of individuals. Who has decided that this would be a great system?

[CharonY]

I don't think that information access will be the issue of the future. It is the declining ability of folks to use it.

[Sensei]

On 4/26/2024 at 7:55 PM, exchemist said:

Can you restate that in coherent sentences please? At present this is incomprehensible. Perhaps if you can split it into several sentences, with one idea per sentence, it might help.

I put his statement into Deepl AI (the equivalent of Google Translate) and I don't see anything incomprehensible.. Except that zombification has many meanings, so the Collins dictionary will help you:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/zombification

ps. Personally, I would use "stupidification" instead of "zombification"..

ps2. The majority of the population has no clue how computers, cell phones, internet, etc. etc. work..

[dimreepr]

On 4/26/2024 at 8:41 PM, Phi for All said:

I think the reduction of the crippling effects of the Abrahamic religions would be a boon for mankind. Without the vertical paternal moral hierarchy they force upon the world, I think men and women could cooperate like intelligent humans instead of competing like animals for their god's favor.

We're never going to stop competing like animal's, but I think we may have come closest when some religion's started; Nietzsche's Übermensch perhaps...

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

I put his statement into Deepl AI (the equivalent of Google Translate) and I don't see anything incomprehensible.. Except that zombification has many meanings, so the Collins dictionary will help you:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/zombification

ps. Personally, I would use "stupidification" instead of "zombification"..

ps2. The majority of the population has no clue how computers, cell phones, internet, etc. etc. work..

OK. I suppose if there were a full stop after “human”, and if “believes” were rewritten as “beliefs”, it could be rendered partly intelligible, though the bit about faith and believes [sic] still doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in the context of the rest.

Can you paraphrase it for my benefit, or get AI to do so? 

Edited April 28 by exchemist

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

I don't think that information access will be the issue of the future. It is the declining ability of folks to use it.

Indeed, the thread of the sword is in less and less hands, so each pluck maybe the final straw; kind of a zeno's paradox...

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

ps2. The majority of the population has no clue how computers, cell phones, internet, etc. etc. work..

Do they have too???

[Sensei]

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Do they have too???

Depends on where they want to be.. At the end of the food chain or at the beginning..

ps. A hundred or two hundred years ago you would have asked (pretty much equivalent question) if people should learn the alphabet (most people were illiterate)..

[swansont]

On 4/26/2024 at 3:41 PM, Phi for All said:

Probably when we have no more actual books?

Between audiobooks and video, and possibly other causes, fewer people read these days. 

“Data indicate a sharp decline in reading over the last decade. The percent of U.S. adults who read at least one book (in print or electronically) in 2022 was 48.5, 6.1 percentage points lower than in 2012”

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/newsbrief/index.html?record=4377

 

I am dubious about the claims “machines are becoming more intelligent than majority of humans together with increased abuse of drugs” because machines aren’t intelligent (AI is a label, but it’s just a re-branding of “algorithm”) and no evidence was provided that drug abuse is increasing

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We're never going to stop competing like animal's,

We need to stop competing like OTHER animals, and use our competitive nature in ways that complement our high intelligence and our cooperative nature. Our current tribal hierarchies haven't worked for the vast majority for quite a while.

But this probably doesn't relate to what the OP wants to talk about. I, for one, would like more clarification about what this speculation is about. Does anyone know what AI is heralding?

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Indeed. The same is true also with power - all the major decisions which affect humanity globally (eg starting wars etc) are made by an extremely small group of individuals. Who has decided that this would be a great system?

Lately I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with their emphasis on a paternal moral hierarchy. It could be that these religions are just more tools the wealthiest individuals use against us, but the generational abuse that's been inflicted on the world so an extremely small group could have more wealth than billions of their fellow humans has become part of the false fabric of so many lives. It's a form of slavery that is embraced by the slaves as their salvation.

[Orion1]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:52 AM, MJ kihara said:

I was wondering when knowledge and information becomes inaccessible and overdependence on digital media whose memory can just be erased or be manipulated, while faith and believes becomes trivialized because the machines are becoming more intelligent than majority of humans together with increased abuse of drugs ( the likes of bhang and cocaine)  leads to zombification of human, is that foreseeable, what's your take?

The scenario you describe touches on several complex and interconnected issues, spanning from the impact of technology on society to the challenges posed by substance abuse and the evolving nature of faith and belief systems. Let's break it down:

Overdependence on Digital Media: There is indeed a risk associated with relying too heavily on digital platforms for information and memory storage. If these systems were to fail or be manipulated, it could lead to significant disruptions and loss of critical knowledge. However, efforts are being made to enhance cybersecurity measures and promote digital literacy to mitigate these risks.

Increasing Intelligence of Machines: As artificial intelligence continues to advance, there is a possibility that machines could surpass humans in certain cognitive abilities. While this presents opportunities for innovation and problem-solving, it also raises concerns about job displacement and ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI.

Abuse of Drugs: Substance abuse, including the use of drugs like cannabis and cocaine, can have detrimental effects on individuals and society as a whole. It can lead to addiction, health problems, and social dysfunction if not addressed effectively through education, prevention, and treatment programs.

Trivialization of Faith and Belief: The proliferation of information and diverse perspectives facilitated by digital media can indeed challenge traditional belief systems and practices. However, faith and belief remain deeply personal and meaningful to many individuals, and they continue to evolve in response to changing societal dynamics.

Zombification of Humans: The concept of "zombification" metaphorically refers to a state of mindless conformity or detachment from reality. While various factors such as substance abuse and technological reliance can contribute to societal issues, it's essential to recognize the agency and resilience of individuals and communities in shaping their own destinies.

In summary, the future you describe is indeed foreseeable to some extent, as these trends are already shaping our societies in various ways. However, it's also important to acknowledge the capacity for human adaptation, collective action, and ethical decision-making to address these challenges and create a more sustainable and equitable future.

On 4/27/2024 at 11:02 PM, Markus Hanke said:

We have allowed a few people to accumulate inordinate wealth, more than they can use ever. The same is true also with power, all the major decisions which affect humanity globally, for example, starting wars, etcetera, are made by an extremely small group of individuals. Who has decided that this would be a great system?

The current system of wealth and power distribution has evolved over time through various social, economic, and political factors. It's not so much a decision made by any one individual or group but rather the result of historical developments, cultural norms, and the structure of governance and economic systems.

In many cases, the concentration of wealth and power can be attributed to factors such as capitalism, where the accumulation of wealth is incentivized and rewarded, often leading to disparities. Similarly, power tends to concentrate in the hands of those who hold key positions in government, corporations, and other institutions.

Critics argue that such concentration can lead to issues of inequality, lack of accountability, and exploitation. However, proponents may argue that these systems also promote innovation, efficiency, and economic growth.

Ultimately, the question of whether this system is "great" depends on one's perspective and values. Different societies and individuals may have varying opinions on the merits and drawbacks of such a system, and debates about its fairness and sustainability continue to shape public discourse and policy-making.

On 4/26/2024 at 1:41 PM, Phi for All said:

I think the reduction of the crippling effects of the Abrahamic religions would be a boon for mankind. Without the vertical paternal moral hierarchy they force upon the world, I think men and women could cooperate like intelligent humans instead of competing like animals for their god's favor.

The influence of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) on society and culture has been profound and multifaceted, with both positive and negative impacts. While these religions have provided moral guidance, community cohesion, and a sense of purpose for billions of people, they have also been associated with conflicts, oppression, and divisions throughout history.

Critics of organized religion often point to its role in perpetuating social hierarchies, enforcing moral codes, and stifling individual autonomy. They argue that rigid doctrinal beliefs can hinder critical thinking, promote dogmatism, and contribute to societal inequalities.

However, it's important to recognize that religious traditions are dynamic and diverse, and interpretations vary widely among individuals and communities. Many adherents find meaning, solace, and ethical guidance within their religious frameworks, while also engaging critically with their faith traditions.

Moreover, the potential for cooperation and collaboration among people of different beliefs and backgrounds is not necessarily contingent on the absence of religion but rather on fostering mutual respect, empathy, and dialogue. Secular societies can promote pluralism, tolerance, and human rights while also accommodating religious diversity and freedom of conscience.

Ultimately, the relationship between religion and human cooperation is complex and multifaceted, shaped by historical, cultural, and individual factors. While critiques of religious institutions and practices are valid and important for fostering social progress, it's also essential to recognize the diversity of human experiences and the potential for religious and secular worldviews to coexist and contribute positively to society.

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

We need to stop competing like OTHER animals, and use our competitive nature in ways that complement our high intelligence and our cooperative nature. Our current tribal hierarchies haven't worked for the vast majority for quite a while.

But this probably doesn't relate to what the OP wants to talk about. I, for one, would like more clarification about what this speculation is about. Does anyone know what AI is heralding?

Lately I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with their emphasis on a paternal moral hierarchy. It could be that these religions are just more tools the wealthiest individuals use against us, but the generational abuse that's been inflicted on the world so an extremely small group could have more wealth than billions of their fellow humans has become part of the false fabric of so many lives. It's a form of slavery that is embraced by the slaves as their salvation.

Your perspective raises important questions about the intersection of human nature, societal structures, and the role of religion in shaping values and behaviors. Indeed, there is ongoing discourse about the need to move beyond competitive and hierarchical models of social organization towards more cooperative and equitable systems that leverage our intelligence and capacity for collaboration.

Regarding your inquiry about AI and its implications, the emergence of artificial intelligence represents a significant technological advancement with the potential to reshape various aspects of society, economy, and culture. While the full extent of its impact is still unfolding, AI has the capacity to revolutionize industries, improve efficiency, and address complex challenges. However, it also raises ethical, economic, and existential questions about autonomy, inequality, and the future of work.

As for the critique of Abrahamic religions, it's a viewpoint that has been expressed by various thinkers and scholars throughout history. While these religions have played a central role in shaping moral frameworks and cultural identities, they have also been implicated in systems of power and oppression. Criticisms of religious hierarchies and dogmas are valid and have spurred movements for reform, liberation, and secularism.

The idea that religion has been used as a tool by the powerful to maintain control over the masses is not uncommon in historical analysis. Societies have indeed grappled with issues of exploitation, inequality, and social injustice, often in the name of religious authority or divine mandate.

In essence, your reflections highlight the complexity of human societies, the need for critical inquiry, and the ongoing quest for systems that promote justice, freedom, and human flourishing. As we navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by technology, ideology, and social change, it's essential to engage in dialogue, empathy, and collective action to shape a more inclusive and equitable future.

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We're never going to stop competing like animal's, but I think we may have come closest when some religion's started; Nietzsche's Übermensch perhaps...

The concept of the Übermensch, or "Overman," introduced by Friedrich Nietzsche, indeed offers an alternative vision to traditional religious and societal values. Nietzsche envisioned the Übermensch as a liberated individual who transcends conventional morality and embraces a life-affirming philosophy rooted in self-actualization, creativity, and personal excellence.

In Nietzsche's view, the Übermensch represents a departure from the constraints of herd mentality and the "slave morality" imposed by traditional religious and social hierarchies. Instead, the Übermensch embodies qualities such as courage, autonomy, and the will to power, forging their own values and destiny beyond conventional norms and limitations.

While Nietzsche's concept has been subject to various interpretations, it has resonated with individuals seeking to challenge existing power structures, break free from conformity, and pursue their unique potential. The Übermensch can be seen as a symbol of human potentiality and the aspiration to transcend the limitations of the past to create a more authentic and meaningful existence.

However, it's important to acknowledge the complexities and critiques associated with Nietzsche's philosophy, including concerns about elitism, nihilism, and the potential for misinterpretation or misuse of his ideas. Moreover, the notion of the Übermensch exists within the broader context of Nietzsche's critique of modernity, morality, and the human condition, inviting reflection and debate on the nature of human identity and aspiration.

In essence, while the idea of the Übermensch may offer a provocative alternative to conventional religious and societal frameworks, it also prompts us to confront fundamental questions about human nature, ethics, and the pursuit of excellence in a world marked by both competition and cooperation.

Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread?

Reference:
Wikipedia - Artificial intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

But this probably doesn't relate to what the OP wants to talk about. I, for one, would like more clarification about what this speculation is about. Does anyone know what AI is heralding?

Indeed, I suspect that it's a Wall-E type imagining of our future, with AI doing all the hard work; the issue with that is, not everyone is lazy enough to just sit there and not think at all.

5 hours ago, Orion1 said:

In Nietzsche's view, the Übermensch represents a departure from the constraints of herd mentality and the "slave morality" imposed by traditional religious and social hierarchies. Instead, the Übermensch embodies qualities such as courage, autonomy, and the will to power, forging their own values and destiny beyond conventional norms and limitations.

I have to disagree:

Quote

“if a person wishes to achieve peace of mind and happiness then they should acquire faith, but if they want to be a disciple of truth, which can be "frightening and ugly,” then they need to search.”

he doesn't suggest one is better than the other, just that the Übermensch can see what other's can't and the great man/woman can teach/show us all a way to understand the path to peace in ourselves.

I have a thread on this, let's discuss this in a more suitable forum.

 

 

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Orion1 said:

The scenario you describe touches on several complex and interconnected issues, spanning from the impact of technology on society to the challenges posed by substance abuse and the evolving nature of faith and belief systems. Let's break it down:

Overdependence on Digital Media: There is indeed a risk associated with relying too heavily on digital platforms for information and memory storage. If these systems were to fail or be manipulated, it could lead to significant disruptions and loss of critical knowledge. However, efforts are being made to enhance cybersecurity measures and promote digital literacy to mitigate these risks.

Increasing Intelligence of Machines: As artificial intelligence continues to advance, there is a possibility that machines could surpass humans in certain cognitive abilities. While this presents opportunities for innovation and problem-solving, it also raises concerns about job displacement and ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI.

Abuse of Drugs: Substance abuse, including the use of drugs like cannabis and cocaine, can have detrimental effects on individuals and society as a whole. It can lead to addiction, health problems, and social dysfunction if not addressed effectively through education, prevention, and treatment programs.

Trivialization of Faith and Belief: The proliferation of information and diverse perspectives facilitated by digital media can indeed challenge traditional belief systems and practices. However, faith and belief remain deeply personal and meaningful to many individuals, and they continue to evolve in response to changing societal dynamics.

Zombification of Humans: The concept of "zombification" metaphorically refers to a state of mindless conformity or detachment from reality. While various factors such as substance abuse and technological reliance can contribute to societal issues, it's essential to recognize the agency and resilience of individuals and communities in shaping their own destinies.

In summary, the future you describe is indeed foreseeable to some extent, as these trends are already shaping our societies in various ways. However, it's also important to acknowledge the capacity for human adaptation, collective action, and ethical decision-making to address these challenges and create a more sustainable and equitable future.

The current system of wealth and power distribution has evolved over time through various social, economic, and political factors. It's not so much a decision made by any one individual or group but rather the result of historical developments, cultural norms, and the structure of governance and economic systems.

In many cases, the concentration of wealth and power can be attributed to factors such as capitalism, where the accumulation of wealth is incentivized and rewarded, often leading to disparities. Similarly, power tends to concentrate in the hands of those who hold key positions in government, corporations, and other institutions.

Critics argue that such concentration can lead to issues of inequality, lack of accountability, and exploitation. However, proponents may argue that these systems also promote innovation, efficiency, and economic growth.

Ultimately, the question of whether this system is "great" depends on one's perspective and values. Different societies and individuals may have varying opinions on the merits and drawbacks of such a system, and debates about its fairness and sustainability continue to shape public discourse and policy-making.

The influence of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) on society and culture has been profound and multifaceted, with both positive and negative impacts. While these religions have provided moral guidance, community cohesion, and a sense of purpose for billions of people, they have also been associated with conflicts, oppression, and divisions throughout history.

Critics of organized religion often point to its role in perpetuating social hierarchies, enforcing moral codes, and stifling individual autonomy. They argue that rigid doctrinal beliefs can hinder critical thinking, promote dogmatism, and contribute to societal inequalities.

However, it's important to recognize that religious traditions are dynamic and diverse, and interpretations vary widely among individuals and communities. Many adherents find meaning, solace, and ethical guidance within their religious frameworks, while also engaging critically with their faith traditions.

Moreover, the potential for cooperation and collaboration among people of different beliefs and backgrounds is not necessarily contingent on the absence of religion but rather on fostering mutual respect, empathy, and dialogue. Secular societies can promote pluralism, tolerance, and human rights while also accommodating religious diversity and freedom of conscience.

Ultimately, the relationship between religion and human cooperation is complex and multifaceted, shaped by historical, cultural, and individual factors. While critiques of religious institutions and practices are valid and important for fostering social progress, it's also essential to recognize the diversity of human experiences and the potential for religious and secular worldviews to coexist and contribute positively to society.

Your perspective raises important questions about the intersection of human nature, societal structures, and the role of religion in shaping values and behaviors. Indeed, there is ongoing discourse about the need to move beyond competitive and hierarchical models of social organization towards more cooperative and equitable systems that leverage our intelligence and capacity for collaboration.

Regarding your inquiry about AI and its implications, the emergence of artificial intelligence represents a significant technological advancement with the potential to reshape various aspects of society, economy, and culture. While the full extent of its impact is still unfolding, AI has the capacity to revolutionize industries, improve efficiency, and address complex challenges. However, it also raises ethical, economic, and existential questions about autonomy, inequality, and the future of work.

As for the critique of Abrahamic religions, it's a viewpoint that has been expressed by various thinkers and scholars throughout history. While these religions have played a central role in shaping moral frameworks and cultural identities, they have also been implicated in systems of power and oppression. Criticisms of religious hierarchies and dogmas are valid and have spurred movements for reform, liberation, and secularism.

The idea that religion has been used as a tool by the powerful to maintain control over the masses is not uncommon in historical analysis. Societies have indeed grappled with issues of exploitation, inequality, and social injustice, often in the name of religious authority or divine mandate.

In essence, your reflections highlight the complexity of human societies, the need for critical inquiry, and the ongoing quest for systems that promote justice, freedom, and human flourishing. As we navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by technology, ideology, and social change, it's essential to engage in dialogue, empathy, and collective action to shape a more inclusive and equitable future.

The concept of the Übermensch, or "Overman," introduced by Friedrich Nietzsche, indeed offers an alternative vision to traditional religious and societal values. Nietzsche envisioned the Übermensch as a liberated individual who transcends conventional morality and embraces a life-affirming philosophy rooted in self-actualization, creativity, and personal excellence.

In Nietzsche's view, the Übermensch represents a departure from the constraints of herd mentality and the "slave morality" imposed by traditional religious and social hierarchies. Instead, the Übermensch embodies qualities such as courage, autonomy, and the will to power, forging their own values and destiny beyond conventional norms and limitations.

While Nietzsche's concept has been subject to various interpretations, it has resonated with individuals seeking to challenge existing power structures, break free from conformity, and pursue their unique potential. The Übermensch can be seen as a symbol of human potentiality and the aspiration to transcend the limitations of the past to create a more authentic and meaningful existence.

However, it's important to acknowledge the complexities and critiques associated with Nietzsche's philosophy, including concerns about elitism, nihilism, and the potential for misinterpretation or misuse of his ideas. Moreover, the notion of the Übermensch exists within the broader context of Nietzsche's critique of modernity, morality, and the human condition, inviting reflection and debate on the nature of human identity and aspiration.

In essence, while the idea of the Übermensch may offer a provocative alternative to conventional religious and societal frameworks, it also prompts us to confront fundamental questions about human nature, ethics, and the pursuit of excellence in a world marked by both competition and cooperation.

Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread?

Reference:
Wikipedia - Artificial intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

 

So "zombification" by AI is like this post, where you let AI software analyze my post and then answer for you with these tasteless, generic, mindless observations? "As we navigate the challenges" we have to remember to talk and act so the future will be better? Thanks, AI, for NOTHING.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Orion1 said:

Overdependence on Digital Media: There is indeed a risk associated with relying too heavily on digital platforms for information and memory storage. If these systems were to fail or be manipulated, it could lead to significant disruptions and loss of critical knowledge. However, efforts are being made to enhance cybersecurity measures and promote digital literacy to mitigate these risks.

Analog media can’t fail?

 

 

[CharonY]

On 4/28/2024 at 8:31 AM, swansont said:

Between audiobooks and video, and possibly other causes, fewer people read these days. 

“Data indicate a sharp decline in reading over the last decade. The percent of U.S. adults who read at least one book (in print or electronically) in 2022 was 48.5, 6.1 percentage points lower than in 2012”

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/newsbrief/index.html?record=4377

 

I am dubious about the claims “machines are becoming more intelligent than majority of humans together with increased abuse of drugs” because machines aren’t intelligent (AI is a label, but it’s just a re-branding of “algorithm”) and no evidence was provided that drug abuse is increasing

Similarly, a series of studies (ranging from PISA to smaller cohorts) suggest that folks not only read less, but the ability to read long texts (which would include books) is declining, too. Some have pointed towards the incompatibility of cell phones with perusing long texts. Anecdotally, we are also seeing a massive decline in the use of textbooks (including open source electronic text books) over the years. 

I am not sure what OP tries to say, as it looks fairly incoherent to me, but coupling less active reading and algorithmic pushing of short snippets of factoids (and misinformation) seems to me a much easier pathway to zombification.

Also the risk of better AI in my mind is that we offload more boring stuff to them. However,  doing boring stuff is part of practice and offloading too much could result in skill degradation. We can see it in class (but likely also on this forum) that being able to copy/paste arguments from somewhere does not translate to actually understanding and able to discuss these arguments.

[MJ kihara]

Are we not in the initial phase of transition to zombification?(someone has talked about being mindless,that an appropriate explanation)whereby the usefulness of humans is declining while we are embedding our collective intelligence to a superhuman referred to AI...the different versions(of AI) of course will merge at one point in time.

When the transition is over what will remain of us...of course the biological entity?....mmmm...food chain, of course not,computers don't require blood to run.

Are we not taking part on something bigger unaware(becoming zombies) like for instance when we ask AI to interpret this post?

[dimreepr]

49 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Are we not taking part on something bigger unaware(becoming zombies) like for instance when we ask AI to interpret this post?

It very much depends on who you believe, Aldus Huxley or George Orwell. 

 

[Orion1]

On 4/29/2024 at 7:11 AM, dimreepr said:

he [Nietzsche] doesn't suggest one is better than the other, just that the Übermensch can see what other's can't and the great man/woman can teach/show us all a way to understand the path to peace in ourselves.

Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, or "Overman," indeed emphasizes the potential for individuals to transcend conventional morality and societal norms to achieve their highest potential. The Übermensch is someone who has moved beyond the limitations of conventional thinking and is capable of creating their own values and meaning in life.

While Nietzsche doesn't explicitly suggest that the Übermensch is "better" than others in a hierarchical sense, he does propose that this figure represents a higher form of human existence, one characterized by creativity, strength, and independence of spirit. The Übermensch is not bound by traditional moralities or societal constraints but instead creates their own values and lives authentically according to their own will to power.

As for the idea of the "great man/woman" teaching or showing others a path to peace within themselves, it's a perspective that aligns with Nietzsche's emphasis on individualism and self-overcoming. The "great man/woman" could potentially serve as an inspiration or a guide for others to discover their own paths to inner peace and self-realization.

However, it's important to note that Nietzsche's philosophy can be complex and open to interpretation. While he did articulate ideas about individual greatness and self-mastery, he also critiqued the notion of seeking universal truths or moral absolutes. Thus, interpretations of Nietzsche's ideas on peace and self-realization can vary widely.

On 4/29/2024 at 7:42 AM, Phi for All said:

So "zombification" by AI is like this post, where you let AI software analyze my post and then answer for you with these tasteless, generic, mindless observations? "As we navigate the challenges" we have to remember to talk and act so the future will be better? Thanks, AI, for NOTHING.

I understand your frustration, and I apologize if my response didn't meet your expectations. It seems like you're seeking a more nuanced and personalized discussion about Nietzsche's ideas and their relevance to AI and human potential. Let's delve deeper.

Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch challenges us to transcend societal norms and conventional thinking, encouraging individuals to strive for their highest potential. In the context of AI, some might argue that the development and integration of AI technologies could lead to a form of "zombification," where individuals become passive consumers or followers, rather than active creators of their own destinies.

However, others might view AI as a tool that, when wielded thoughtfully and ethically, has the potential to enhance human creativity, productivity, and self-understanding. The key lies in how we engage with and shape AI technologies to align with our values and aspirations for a better future.

While AI can certainly assist in analyzing and synthesizing information, it's essential to recognize the importance of human agency and critical thinking in navigating complex philosophical questions and societal challenges. Ultimately, the path to realizing Nietzsche's vision of the Übermensch involves cultivating individual autonomy, creativity, and the courage to question and challenge prevailing norms and ideologies.

If you have specific questions or topics you'd like to explore further, feel free to let me know, and I'll do my best to provide a more meaningful and engaging response.

On 4/29/2024 at 10:15 AM, swansont said:

Analog media can’t fail?

Analog media, such as vinyl records or printed books, can indeed fail or degrade over time, albeit in different ways than digital media. While analog formats are often praised for their durability and longevity compared to digital counterparts, they are still susceptible to various forms of degradation and obsolescence.

For example, vinyl records can suffer from wear and tear, scratches, warping, or damage from improper storage or handling. Likewise, printed books can deteriorate due to exposure to moisture, sunlight, pests, or simply from aging paper and bindings.

Additionally, the playback equipment required for analog media may become obsolete or difficult to maintain over time, making it challenging to access or enjoy the content stored in these formats.

While analog media may offer certain advantages in terms of tangibility and perceived quality, they are not immune to failure or deterioration. Proper care, preservation, and occasionally digitizing analog content can help mitigate some of these risks and ensure its longevity and accessibility for future generations.

On 4/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, CharonY said:

Similarly, a series of studies (ranging from PISA to smaller cohorts) suggest that folks not only read less, but the ability to read long texts (which would include books) is declining, too. Some have pointed towards the incompatibility of cell phones with perusing long texts. Anecdotally, we are also seeing a massive decline in the use of textbooks (including open source electronic text books) over the years. 

I am not sure what OP tries to say, as it looks fairly incoherent to me, but coupling less active reading and algorithmic pushing of short snippets of factoids (and misinformation) seems to me a much easier pathway to zombification.

Also the risk of better AI in my mind is that we offload more boring stuff to them. However,  doing boring stuff is part of practice and offloading too much could result in skill degradation. We can see it in class (but likely also on this forum) that being able to copy/paste arguments from somewhere does not translate to actually understanding and able to discuss these arguments.

You bring up some excellent points about the potential impact of digital technology on reading habits and critical thinking skills. The rise of smartphones and other digital devices has indeed led to a shift in how people consume information, often favoring shorter, more fragmented content over sustained, in-depth reading.

This trend, coupled with the algorithmic curation of content that tends to prioritize engagement over depth or accuracy, can contribute to what you describe as a "pathway to zombification." When individuals are constantly bombarded with short snippets of information, they may become more passive consumers, relying on surface-level understanding rather than engaging deeply with complex ideas or arguments.

Moreover, as you mention, the increasing reliance on AI to handle mundane or repetitive tasks runs the risk of diminishing human skills and expertise. When tasks are offloaded to AI systems, individuals may lose opportunities for practice and skill development, leading to a potential degradation of critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and deeper understanding.

In educational settings, the temptation to rely on easily accessible information from the internet or other sources can indeed hinder students' ability to engage deeply with course material and develop their own analytical and argumentative skills. Simply copying and pasting information without understanding or critically evaluating it does little to foster genuine learning and intellectual growth.

To counteract these trends, it's crucial to promote and prioritize active reading, critical thinking, and meaningful engagement with content, whether it's in digital or analog formats. Encouraging students to delve into longer texts, engage in thoughtful discourse, and cultivate their analytical and argumentative abilities can help mitigate the risks associated with information overload and AI reliance. Additionally, teaching digital literacy skills, including how to evaluate sources critically and navigate algorithmic content curation, is essential in fostering informed and discerning consumers of information.

21 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Are we not in the initial phase of transition to zombification?(someone has talked about being mindless,that an appropriate explanation)whereby the usefulness of humans is declining while we are embedding our collective intelligence to a superhuman referred to AI...the different versions(of AI) of course will merge at one point in time.

When the transition is over what will remain of us...of course the biological entity?....mmmm...food chain, of course not,computers don't require blood to run.

Are we not taking part on something bigger unaware(becoming zombies) like for instance when we ask AI to interpret this post?

The notion of a transition to "zombification" is certainly a provocative one, and it's understandable why some may see parallels between certain trends in technology and culture and the idea of humans becoming more passive or less engaged in their own lives and decision-making processes.

As we increasingly rely on technology for various aspects of our lives, there is a risk that we may become more dependent on it, potentially diminishing our autonomy and agency. The proliferation of AI and automation could further exacerbate this trend, especially if humans become complacent or disengaged from critical thinking and decision-making processes.

However, it's essential to approach discussions about the impact of technology on humanity with nuance and critical analysis. While there are certainly risks associated with unchecked technological advancement, there are also opportunities for positive change and growth.

For example, AI has the potential to augment human capabilities, enhance productivity, and solve complex problems that were previously beyond our reach. By leveraging AI responsibly and ethically, we can harness its power to address pressing global challenges and improve quality of life for people around the world.

Moreover, it's important to recognize that humans possess unique qualities and capacities that distinguish us from machines. Our ability to experience emotions, form meaningful relationships, exercise creativity, and adapt to new situations is what makes us human. While AI may excel in certain areas, it lacks the depth and richness of human experience.

Ultimately, the future relationship between humans and AI will depend on how we choose to shape it. By fostering a culture of critical thinking, ethical responsibility, and human-centered design, we can ensure that technology serves as a tool for empowerment and enhancement, rather than a force that diminishes our humanity.

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It very much depends on who you believe, Aldus Huxley or George Orwell. 

The comparison between Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "1984" is often used to explore different dystopian visions of the future, each highlighting distinct aspects of societal control and oppression.

In "Brave New World," Huxley presents a world where individuals are kept pacified through pleasure and distraction, rather than overt coercion or surveillance. The populace is kept in check through the use of technology, drugs, and psychological conditioning, resulting in a society where conformity and superficial happiness are prioritized over individuality and critical thinking.

On the other hand, Orwell's "1984" depicts a totalitarian regime characterized by constant surveillance, propaganda, and brutal repression of dissent. The government, embodied by the figure of Big Brother, maintains control through fear, manipulation, and the erasure of individual autonomy and privacy.

Both novels offer chilling warnings about the dangers of unchecked power and the potential for authoritarianism to emerge in different forms. Huxley's vision emphasizes the seductive allure of consumerism and hedonism, while Orwell's focuses on the brutality and coercion of state power.

In considering which vision of the future is more relevant or prescient, it's worth acknowledging that elements of both dystopias can be found in contemporary society. Surveillance technology, mass media manipulation, and the commodification of pleasure are all features of the modern world, raising concerns about the erosion of privacy, autonomy, and critical thinking.

Ultimately, the choice between Huxley and Orwell may reflect differing perspectives on the nature of power and control, as well as varying assessments of the current trajectory of society. Some may see echoes of "Brave New World" in the pervasive influence of technology and consumer culture, while others may identify with the themes of surveillance and authoritarianism in "1984".

Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread?

Reference:
Wikipedia - Artificial intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

Wikipedia - Ubermensch - Friedrich Nietzsche:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermensch

Wikipedia - Brave New World - Aldous Huxley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Wikipedia - 1984 - George Orwell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

 

Edited May 3 by Orion1

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, Orion1 said:

As for the idea of the "great man/woman" teaching or showing others a path to peace within themselves, it's a perspective that aligns with Nietzsche's emphasis on individualism and self-overcoming. The "great man/woman" could potentially serve as an inspiration or a guide for others to discover their own paths to inner peace and self-realization.

Again I cite "The parable of the madman", in which he's trying to shine a light that other's should follow (clearly a metaphorical teacher) and the efficiency of that struggle depends on the time of day (cometh the hour cometh the man).

IOW what's the point of seeing the light (inner peace) if you can't point it out to other's, the village idiot who can't show why it's cathartic to stand by the side of the road and wave at traffic, will remain a madman in the eyes of the rest of us.

It's literally the start of all the major religions, a teacher that shows us the path to peace, and I think Nietzche spent his life and his mental health in persuit of the path he assumed he was on, until the death of his father.

Would we even have heard of this hugely intelligent man, had his father died peacefully in his old age? An ubermensche at the wrong time of day...

59 minutes ago, Orion1 said:

The comparison between Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "1984" is often used to explore different dystopian visions of the future, each highlighting distinct aspects of societal control and oppression.

In "Brave New World," Huxley presents a world where individuals are kept pacified through pleasure and distraction, rather than overt coercion or surveillance. The populace is kept in check through the use of technology, drugs, and psychological conditioning, resulting in a society where conformity and superficial happiness are prioritized over individuality and critical thinking.

On the other hand, Orwell's "1984" depicts a totalitarian regime characterized by constant surveillance, propaganda, and brutal repression of dissent. The government, embodied by the figure of Big Brother, maintains control through fear, manipulation, and the erasure of individual autonomy and privacy.

Both novels offer chilling warnings about the dangers of unchecked power and the potential for authoritarianism to emerge in different forms. Huxley's vision emphasizes the seductive allure of consumerism and hedonism, while Orwell's focuses on the brutality and coercion of state power.

In considering which vision of the future is more relevant or prescient, it's worth acknowledging that elements of both dystopias can be found in contemporary society. Surveillance technology, mass media manipulation, and the commodification of pleasure are all features of the modern world, raising concerns about the erosion of privacy, autonomy, and critical thinking.

Ultimately, the choice between Huxley and Orwell may reflect differing perspectives on the nature of power and control, as well as varying assessments of the current trajectory of society. Some may see echoes of "Brave New World" in the pervasive influence of technology and consumer culture, while others may identify with the themes of surveillance and authoritarianism in "1984."

This is a generic description of both, not a critique of either in the context of this topic.

When are 'you' going to think about this?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Orion1 said:

Analog media, such as vinyl records or printed books, can indeed fail or degrade over time

So your objection is moot.

[CharonY]

12 hours ago, Orion1 said:

You bring up some excellent points about the potential impact of digital technology on reading habits and critical thinking skills. The rise of smartphones and other digital devices has indeed led to a shift in how people consume information, often favoring shorter, more fragmented content over sustained, in-depth reading.

This trend, coupled with the algorithmic curation of content that tends to prioritize engagement over depth or accuracy, can contribute to what you describe as a "pathway to zombification." When individuals are constantly bombarded with short snippets of information, they may become more passive consumers, relying on surface-level understanding rather than engaging deeply with complex ideas or arguments.

Moreover, as you mention, the increasing reliance on AI to handle mundane or repetitive tasks runs the risk of diminishing human skills and expertise. When tasks are offloaded to AI systems, individuals may lose opportunities for practice and skill development, leading to a potential degradation of critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and deeper understanding.

In educational settings, the temptation to rely on easily accessible information from the internet or other sources can indeed hinder students' ability to engage deeply with course material and develop their own analytical and argumentative skills. Simply copying and pasting information without understanding or critically evaluating it does little to foster genuine learning and intellectual growth.

Technology basically facilitates tendencies and the issue is that especially younger folks are used to the instant gratification offered by things like technology (essentially everyone is carrying a dopamine machine with them at all times).

 

12 hours ago, Orion1 said:

To counteract these trends, it's crucial to promote and prioritize active reading, critical thinking, and meaningful engagement with content, whether it's in digital or analog formats. Encouraging students to delve into longer texts, engage in thoughtful discourse, and cultivate their analytical and argumentative abilities can help mitigate the risks associated with information overload and AI reliance. Additionally, teaching digital literacy skills, including how to evaluate sources critically and navigate algorithmic content curation, is essential in fostering informed and discerning consumers of information.

I think we are a bit late in the game for that. The next generation of teachers are already not used to that anymore. In addition, the commodification of education and the increasing view of students as clients is starting to erode education in university as well. Educators in many systems across the world are struggling now to instill critical thinking skills and while it was already deteriorating over last decades, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a bit of a jump which makes things just way more visible otherwise.

 

12 hours ago, Orion1 said:

In "Brave New World," Huxley presents a world where individuals are kept pacified through pleasure and distraction, rather than overt coercion or surveillance.

The reality is that we don't need an oppressive government or system to achieve those goals. That was very much a post WWII type of thinking. Now we have methods to do it voluntarily to ourselves, driven by capitalism, rather than political ideologies.

[Orion1]

On 5/3/2024 at 6:07 AM, swansont said:

So your objection is moot.

While it's true that analog media can degrade over time and are susceptible to physical damage, they still offer certain advantages over digital media. One key advantage is their independence from complex technological infrastructure. Unlike digital platforms, which rely on electricity, servers, and networks, analog media can be accessed without the need for any external devices or power sources. This makes them more resilient in situations where digital systems fail or are unavailable due to technological issues or disasters.

Additionally, analog media often have a longer lifespan compared to digital formats. Vinyl records, for example, can last for decades or even centuries if properly stored and cared for. In contrast, digital storage formats can become obsolete relatively quickly as technology advances, leading to issues with compatibility and accessibility.

Furthermore, the tactile nature of analog media can offer a unique and immersive experience that digital formats may not replicate. The act of flipping through pages of a book or placing a needle on a vinyl record can engage different senses and provide a deeper connection to the content.

Ultimately, while both digital and analog media have their own strengths and weaknesses, a balanced approach that incorporates elements of both can help mitigate the risks associated with overdependence on any single format.

On 5/3/2024 at 5:27 PM, CharonY said:

Technology basically facilitates tendencies and the issue is that especially younger folks are used to the instant gratification offered by things like technology (essentially everyone is carrying a dopamine machine with them at all times).

You're touching on a significant point about technology and its impact on society, particularly concerning instant gratification. It's true that technology has created a culture of immediacy, where we're accustomed to getting what we want quickly and easily. This can indeed affect younger generations more profoundly, as they've grown up in an environment where instant access to information, entertainment, and communication is the norm.

The term "dopamine machine" is quite evocative and accurate in describing how smartphones and other devices can stimulate the brain's pleasure centers through notifications, likes, and other forms of online interaction. This constant stream of dopamine hits can lead to addictive behaviors and a reduced ability to focus on long-term goals.

However, it's essential to recognize that technology itself isn't inherently good or bad—it's how we use it that matters. While there are undeniable drawbacks to instant gratification culture, technology also offers countless opportunities for learning, connection, and productivity. Finding a balance between harnessing the benefits of technology and mitigating its negative effects is crucial for individuals of all ages.

Education and mindfulness play vital roles in addressing these issues, teaching people—especially the younger generation—how to use technology responsibly and cultivate patience and delayed gratification. By fostering a healthier relationship with technology, we can better navigate its impact on our lives and society as a whole.

On 5/3/2024 at 5:27 PM, CharonY said:

I think we are a bit late in the game for that. The next generation of teachers are already not used to that anymore. In addition, the commodification of education and the increasing view of students as clients is starting to erode education in university as well. Educators in many systems across the world are struggling now to instill critical thinking skills and while it was already deteriorating over last decades, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a bit of a jump which makes things just way more visible otherwise.

You've highlighted some concerning trends in education, and you're right that the challenges are complex and multifaceted. The shift away from active reading, critical thinking, and meaningful engagement with content has been happening gradually, influenced by various factors including technological advancements, changes in societal values, and shifts in educational priorities.

The commodification of education, where students are viewed more as clients or consumers, can indeed have detrimental effects on the quality of education. When the focus shifts from fostering intellectual growth and critical thinking to meeting market demands or satisfying students as customers, the integrity of education can be compromised.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated many existing issues in education systems worldwide. The sudden shift to remote learning highlighted disparities in access to resources and exacerbated challenges related to student engagement and academic performance.

Addressing these challenges will require a concerted effort from educators, policymakers, parents, and society as a whole. It's crucial to advocate for educational approaches that prioritize critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and meaningful engagement with content. This might involve reevaluating educational policies, investing in teacher training and professional development, and promoting a culture that values intellectual growth over short-term outcomes.

While the task may seem daunting, it's not too late to reverse course and rebuild a more robust educational system that equips students with the skills and mindset they need to navigate an increasingly complex world. It will require persistence, innovation, and collaboration, but the future of education—and by extension, society—is too important to neglect.

On 5/3/2024 at 5:27 PM, CharonY said:

The reality is that we don't need an oppressive government or system to achieve those goals. That was very much a post WWII type of thinking. Now we have methods to do it voluntarily to ourselves, driven by capitalism, rather than political ideologies.

You're drawing a compelling parallel between Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and our contemporary society. Huxley's dystopian vision depicted a world where individuals are kept passive and content through pleasure and distraction, facilitated by a sophisticated system of social conditioning and technological manipulation.

Indeed, in today's world, we see similar dynamics at play, but often driven not by overt government control but by market forces and consumer culture. Capitalism, with its emphasis on consumption and profit maximization, has created a society where individuals willingly seek out pleasure and distraction, often at the expense of critical thinking and meaningful engagement with the world.

Social media platforms, for example, leverage algorithms to keep users engaged and scrolling, feeding them a constant stream of content tailored to their preferences and biases. This can lead to echo chambers and filter bubbles, where individuals are insulated from opposing viewpoints and dissenting opinions.

Similarly, the commodification of leisure and entertainment has led to a culture of instant gratification, where people are encouraged to prioritize short-term pleasure over long-term fulfillment. From fast food to streaming services to addictive mobile games, there's no shortage of products and experiences designed to captivate our attention and keep us coming back for more.

While this may not resemble the dystopian societies of classic literature, the end result can be similarly concerning—a populace that is passive, apathetic, and easily manipulated. Recognizing these dynamics is the first step toward reclaiming agency and fostering a culture that values critical thinking, self-reflection, and genuine human connection over mindless consumption and distraction. It's a complex challenge, but one that's essential for building a more resilient and enlightened society.