AtheisticNonduality

Nope, trees extend their branches to the sunlight. On the other hand, animals have no choices because they are slaves to their emotions.

@thisintegrated Trees perform processes that have logic in the sense they must do things that make sense regarding their environment, but that I not how people define logic. The "logic" that insects have is just mindless impulsions.

@thisintegrated Animals don't have higher-order Human Reason like complex logic or symbols that make up concepts in language, mathematics. But they have emotions that are primal, which of course have a logic to them since they have to recognize and respond to things of causality, of the outside world of patterns that the instincts must make sense of.

Emotions help you do things better. An enraged cat will claw better. And awakening does not remove suffering from existence. It actually increases it at first! And sadness is a positive emotion for me.

@Someone here The trinity is composed of God in heaven, as a transcendental aspect; God as a human form, Jesus; and God as a spiritual force in the world (the Holy Ghost/Spirit). But they are all the same entity, the same God. Think of them as body parts of the same person.

@Akashic Nah, there are psychopaths who are benevolent just because they don't want to go to prison, hell, social condemnation, etc. Also, I have heard from Christians that you should give charity and volunteer to help people because of God, because of God's will and moral stricture, rather than because of empathy and you feeling good from doing something. Empathy there is selfish because it is about how you feel in relation to other people, rather than what God feels. Obviously, that is a bad view in terms of accuracy, but it proves morality need not come from empathy.

That actually would be helpful, though a bit debilitative for the average person. That's where deontology and moral codes come in.

Suffering becomes identical to bliss at a certain point.

538 5w6 3w4 8w7

@Gesundheit2 I didn't know we value people based on physical strength? Are we supervisors at a gulag with people hauling grain? You are reminding me of art history class.

Push your mind, body, and soul to their breaking points. Then rest. Then do it again. Over and over as a cycle. Until one day you have the mind of an omniscient machine, a body of strength, and a soul that has seen many traumas and healings and is now complete.

@Carl-Richard Basically the point is that environmental factors play a large role because of how twins might turn out completely different based on what they develop in themselves because of their separate situations. But there is some internal genetic component that it is crucial, so the only way you were wrong was not by emphasizing the external factors enough like Joseph was.

Duh, you be wrong.

@thisintegrated @Carl-Richard Identical twins have different personalities, interests, inflections even though they have the same DNA.

Another issue I noticed with them is that their algorithm is really horrendous, so good shows get buried. Really, the best TV shows I've ever seen have all been on Netflix, and they've been nowhere near the most accessible sections of the platform except for the moments of their releases when they were in the little "trending" category.

Some.

Netflix is the only legitimate streaming service. All else is basically just a waste of time. The government should nationalize and dismantle all the "alternative" streaming services and offload their contents to Netflix.

So it makes sense to start with machines that are already at these level of sophistication: organisms. Genetic engineering is the field of conscious development rather than machines dissociated from how consciousness actually works. Now make a distinction between Consciousness and consciousness to not make conflations here. @thisintegrated

@thisintegrated You're trying to turn technology into a mirror of humanity, which is difficult enough, but you're also attempting to make a mirror of humanity that reflects images of forms faster than humans give such images.

Really? A paint brush is creative? I would never believe that. Also the existence of material beings like complexities that led to humans having special traits are not "materialistic" in reasoning of their realness. There is a creative capacity in humans which does not reside in human instruments.

Basically, because humans possess a will to power, we may discern of them that they've passed all the proper examinations to reach this level of development and therefore are awarded creativity as a principle, more or less in certain individuals. First, they had to pass the great leap of abiogenesis from non-life, the dead matter of old, into microscopic primordiality of the earliest lives: the lives closest to pre-lives/deaths. Then they ascended through various taxonomical orders and gained complexity along the way, going from mere matter to formed matter as body and body to soul and then soul to mind. All of this is made of countless billions of molecules that make up more billions of organelles that are integral to billions of cells that create great organs and organ systems and organisms and societies. This level of complexity cannot be accounted for by copying certain elements of the human mind like "raw logic" since that just results in dissociative nonsense and hideousness devoid of all the stepping stones like body, soul, and the fullness of the mind. A specific sliver of the mind copied into algorithmic insanity is a failure of life.

@thisintegrated Human's will to power.

That's the logical synthesis I said. It is limited to what instructions it receives. So far it does not have a consciousness of its own that arose out of eternities of evolutionary complexification; it has no mind of its own to create its own worlds. It's still a set of pathways that mesh different human-given "datas" together and is not able to survive outside the womb so to speak, is still dependent on instruction and then reassembling data points. It has no creativity since what it creates is essentially nothing, worthless, bad, so it cannot be said to be a creator but rather an ungodly stagnation. It cannot have any existing reference for what a dolphin wearing a space helmet looks like exactly, but it still has the proper parts given as "dolphin" and "wearing" and "space helmet" and such. It may "understand" what a dolphin is, what pattern that a dolphin's nose has, what it means spatially/dimensionally to wear something, that a space helmet adheres directly around an object's boundaries rather than ten feet from it, etc. It's just basic logic skills, like how machines play chess. But it's not creative in the slightest, since to be a creator requires agency, and nothing has less agency than something that literally requires programming to function.

They attempted to distinguish it from random images, from the cut-up technique, by pointing out how it has a sort of logical synthesis to it and how they pull from "aesthetic" data. And yet, so far, I remain unimpressed. The images are missing something: they all look the same and feel the same. There's no element of creation, just of computing something that was already created in the text into a factory-type process. New creations are not existent in those programs, solely hogwash that allows programmers' self-aggrandizement.