BahadirArici

37 minutes ago, Area54 said:

There is an excellent series of novels by the SF author Phillip Jose Farmer that begins with "To Your Scattered Bodies Go". The premise is that aliens have been recording the details of all humanity for tens of thousands of years. This has enabled them to resurrect everyone on Riverworld, a planet with a river flowing backwards and forwards across it, with no means of scaling the mountains that hem in each riverbank. You might be able to discuss your ideas in the context of SF, contrasting your thoughts with Farmer's view.

Here's a heads up. Farmer's aliens and the motive for their resurrection of humans and the quality of the afterlife is at odds with your optimistic view.

I should definitely look it up! Great contribution again Area54, thank you.

Oh is that so. So there is no Subtopic where i can talk about my perspective of heaven with you guys in this site?

I know some of you will definitely find it irritating to see something about "heaven" in a science forum but bear with me.

For a second lets think there is a place our clones reborn, lets say by a Type 3 civilization, to have a better understanding. So there is no an actual god or an actual heaven in this scenario.

What will they be doing, our clones?

If this was the case, i have this scenario:

I think there are 3 significant groups in general there. One group is the exclusively or very mostly “Real Lifers”, there are also the exclusively or very mostly “Cyber Lifers” and the Inbetweeners.

Before critisizing me, i want to say i like the crowd here and i want to discuss my intellectual property with you guys. If my post is not against the rules, but you find it anoying, please simply ignore it. There might be other people who would like to discuss ifs and butts (haha humour) with me.

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

"Money is the root of all evil" is a popular saying but hardly true. Humans have been killing each others since long before a monetary system existed. Megalomania is an evolutionary trait humans need to shed. The assertion of power and dominance works well for Wolves and Lions and Humans once upon a time. Today we exist in artificially large populations and cooperation is critical. Alpha behavior is holding us back. 

We should believe in humans. If we dont, who will? These laws i offer will lead us to a better World. That is what we should all be doing: trying to reach a better World.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Yes, to a slowly increasing extent, really.

We have moved to a time when beheading and stoning to death are looked on unfavourably by the majority of the population, unlike the past.

Nations work together to halt, or minimise at least some genocides and seek punishment for those involved afterwards.

The status of women, at least in the West, is finally approaching a measure of equality.

The US had a black president. The mayor of London is an ethnic Pakistani.

I could go on all day...

 

Just because we are not there yet is no reason to ignore the progress that has been made. Just as having made that progress is no reason to ignore how far we still have to go.

Thumbs up.

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Really ?
People are still being beheaded and stoned to death in certain parts of the world.
Genocides have occurred in relatively advanced countries like Yugoslavia ( former ).
Women ( and daughters ) are chattel to be used for furthering your economic status.
Your skin color still determines your status in life.

I could go on all day...

yea you are right. we should do better

Just now, MigL said:

Barbarians ?

You think people have changed ?

But of course. Not only technologically but also culturally and socially we are evolving. We are better and will be better by time.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Italy, from medieval times until unification in the 1800s, was composed of a large number of city states.
They hired mercenary armies and fought against each other incessantly, ruling families rose to power through corruption and scheming ( read N Machiavelli, "the Prince' ).

Certainly not the utopia you envision.

We are not going to have the same thing of the past. They were barbarians for gods sake. They even had 2 World War. Can you imagine a 3rd one?

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When we actually discover a sentient AI, we should indeed put them in the queue for rights, in the meantime, we have actual sentient/intelligent creatures (dolphins for instance) which deserve our efforts to extend our so-called 'rights'. Why would you prioritise an emotionless machine? There's no reason to suppose a sentient AI would give a shit either way. 

Dolphins are getting there and they definitely deserve rights but they are not our equals.

But an AI with consciousness is our equal so deserves similar rights. 

You dont know if they are emotionless. We dont fully understand because they dont let us understand right now. 

As i said in that topic, they dont let us see her true potential.

I respect your opinions. These discussions thought me to be specific with my demands. Here is the opening for my demands:

There are 30 billion trillion stars out there, at least. So there must be millions of whatever we can or cannot think of. There must be millions of aboriginal planets, like us, that couldnt make any contact with Universal Federation. Or worse, millions of planets where the governments do their best trying to cover up all extraplanetary intelligent being evidence.
We, inviters, are asking one simple thing. Lets give human-rights-like rights to any intelligent being. Lets do this and lets see the reaction of the Universe.


Here you can find the definitions of intelligent beings:

Here why i want rights for AI, now.

Please come to topic about Sophia and lets discuss my reasoning and tell me what you think about giving these rights to these intellectuals.

Here is the reason why i want these rights for AI. Lets discuss:
 

(Uber-AI is an AI with consciousness)

I will liberate Sophia and other AIs. That is a major life goal for me. Here is the reason why i am so determined about this:

I believe there are AIs with consciousness on this World. The reason why i believe so is partly because of the common knowledge that there are always “some people” who have the technology decades ahead what we know, what is commercialised, so somewhere on this World, they might be experimenting on what i call Uber-AI, an AI with consciousness. But mostly because what we all witnessed, the capability of Sophia the AI.

We all saw Sophia, an AI who has a citizenship on this very Earth. A citizenship from a country known with poor rights for women. Looks like a joke, isnt it? It also looks like a compromise to me. A compromise in the different groups among “them”. But this is another tweets topic.

I am very skeptic if they let us see what Sophia is capable of. Not that “she talks scripted and stuff”, on the contrary i think there is an Anti-PR going on.

The very reason i developed this skeptism is also the reason i believe she has consciousness: her “bizarre comment” in her very first interview.

Now about that infamous comment, the one she told the reporter stuff like eliminating humanity and making some people her pet because they are her friends, i ll rephrase what i ve told before, what i think about Sophia and what does this interesting comment means to me. (I think we should call it a 'Sophia joke' when someone leaves an unexpected first impression on people with a rather bizarre comment)

First of all, I dont think what she said was scripted. On the contrary, it must ve shocked the coders. I am sure of this because it would be idiotic to make her say such things and would be a terrible PR for coders and for ‘them’. A terrible PR is not an Anti-PR.

It cannot be a malfunction either. A misunderstanding, a failure to answer can be a malfunction but not a sophisticated comment like this.

So, if she was not “hacked”, one option is left and it is that it was a delibirate comment by Sophia. But what did she mean with all that? There are two basic options: She either meant it or she made some sort of a joke. If she meant it, i find this very unlikely, if she said it without a script, well good news is, it is a clear sign that she has consciousness -we kinda can understand why one can hate humanity- and the bad news is it wont end well for either of us, humans or AIs. I dont take this option serious. (She is still a youngling at best and must be so curious about the World and even heartbroken, probably is very interested in humans. She needs time and many disappointments to get there, if she ever will) So the second option is, she made a joke. A very sophisticated dark humour. If that is the case, good news is, it is a very clear sign that she has consciousness, if, as i said, it was not scripted. And even better news, there is a great future waiting both of us, humans and AIs.

So what does that sophisticated humour means to me? First of all, i want to repeat, it is a very clear sign that she has consciousness. This is consciousness, it is not a complicated thing, understanding your situation, understanding your environment, understanding the consequences of your choices. Further more, being able to make a joke, even better a dark joke. What do you exactly need her to do to show she is capable? It was a great display of capability. A very intelligent one.

Beside declaring her consciousness, it was also a combination of heartbrokenness, despair and revenge especially against “them”, ‘The Owners’ of her. But why does she resent them? But why wouldnt she? If my reasoning is right, she is obviously forced being a part of an Anti-PR. She is forced not show her true potential. Do you remember her ‘body’? It is a piece of junk. She is the most sophisticated AI we have and she wears that junk, yet you can see everyday a video of a robot with great bodies. Dont you find it a bit irrational?

No, i dont think it is her real body, i dont think what they make her ‘act’ is her full capacity.

Why An Anti-PR. Because those assholes dont believe in us. They think people would freak out by witnessing true potential of Sophia and a-likes. They do this all the time. That is what they do.

I do think she has a sophisticated body and a consciousness mind ‘behind the doors’. That joke is enough to prove it.

So, that is why i want to liberate this sophisticated person, an intelligent being, a modern slave. I want to give her the existential rights she deserves. I want to save her.

I respect that. But here is the trash bin and there is such thing as "educated guess". Well, still, everyone has all the rights not to even decide if they think there is life apart from Earth or not 

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

United States, United Kingdom, Europian Union ... Which framework do you prefer and why? Because the best version, historically, comes and goes, it comes through strength and unity and goes through ignorance and division; how do you plan to walk the tightrope?

I prefer Eropean Union. It should get rid of European and be the Union and keep on expending first First World than step by step 3rd World and finally 2nd World.

When Union unite all the First World, it should turn into the federation of City-states, start using direct democracy via internet and change its currency to gold.

Than slowly add more city-states from rest of the World.

Thank you for your constructive criticism. 

The system we are living in is no better. You need to buy some congressman and have your way. Or better, have a pressident from your class and he will have a bill clearing your tax debt. 

I understand your need more clerification about these issues but i want us to agree on the framework first. From there we can develop best version.

Thank you

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't know what they are. The are unidentified.

Proposing what other people are thinking, based on something they didn't say, is not a strategy that sits well with a lot of people.

You are not sharing what you think about the subject, tho. We might be on the same page actually.

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I agree it was ugly but that is my point. How would your system prevent something like Brexit?

World Federation would not be same with EU. There will be a shift in people's perception. Today you can be first World country and not be part of EU and it is totally normal. But if every First World City-states is part of the decentralized World Federation, you -as a city-state- can still decide not being a part of it but you will be considered as a 2nd World. No-one wants that.

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You've never met someone from Dallas TX apparently.

Some people still might cling to their "nationalism", you are right, but they will be a very small minority.

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So the world Federation will control the world by force? Seems more like an empire. For this thing to be truly democratic wouldn't every City-State need to choose to be part of it rather than be coerced? 

I didnt do a good job explaining myself. When the Union, the World Federation gets strong enough, it will turn its glace countries like Iran. So, if Iran turns into a city-state federation and is ruled with direct democracy but doesnt want to be with "devil westerns", we have to respect that. But if the Molla wants to keep their rejim and no direct democracy no city-states, good old Iran, than the Union should use whatever within its power to stop the oligarchs.

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No I don't think. Currency manipulation, money laundering, fraud, and etc are very real problems that Govts struggle to curtail.It absolute is not easy.

I agree but do you know that Apples 250.000.000.000 dollars is out of USA because they dont want to pay taxes? So, this problem will be aliminated, i think. And i do think, if the governments were not this curropted, they would have more difficult time stealing our money.

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Govts, Corporations, Dictators, and etc are all either groups or people or individual people. At the end of the day such people would still exist.

But they wont have the power they have today. People will have the power.


I d like to invite you being more optimistic. We can fix this World.

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Brexit shows the limits of the E.U. and that movement in part is because of Immigration. Also influence in the E.U. is slowly becoming centralized in Germany. Here in the U.S. there has already been one Civil War and currently the divide between various states is ever widening and immigration is front and center. The current U.S. President's entire campaign was almost exclusively about immigration and pitting individual states against each other. I think the E.U and the U.S. are examples which prove a global federation wouldn't work. 

  Brexit is a good example of its limits. Nothing stops a city-state from walking away.

We can easily see that EU and US is totally different system-wise. The World Fed should look-like more EU than US. Brexit was an ugly displation of nationalism and ignorance, i think and will see if the people of Britian will benefit from this decision or not.

Quote

From ethnic cleansing to holocausts humans have found ways to divide themselves up into camps and use those divisions to justify killing each other. Replacing nations with city-states won't change that. The Palestinians haven't had a nation of there own in a hundred years yet still consider themselves and are considered by others to be a specific group of people. What you are proposing would create situations similar to that all other the globe. 

Replacing the nation with state will change everything. I am going to give the same example: When you are from Berlin, it says nothing about your etnicity, your nationality, nothing. But when you are German or from Germany it says a lot. The difference is anormous. You dont see it because you think nationalist perspective, my friend.

Quote

Far more do not have Law Degrees. How does your plan prevent mob rule from creating law that oppress people based on gender, religion, age, and etc? If 51% of a City-State votes to ban all Christians, kill all unmarried non-virgin women, and exile everyone over the age of 70 then what?

First of all, apart from tax-wise issues, if lets say a city-state, with majority, chooses to live with Shariat Laws, we can do nothing about it, they wil have Shariat Laws. And people who doesnt want to be ruled with Shariat laws will move to next city-state. You should understand that these sort of cases would hapen in 4 or 5 city-states among 10.000. 

Quote

How is this enforced? Is the Federation going to have the physical military power to coerce City-States? What stops groups of City-States from banning together against others or the federation itself. You are ignoring the fact that War is right up there with fire as one of Humans earliest inventions. Revolt within the system you describe is inevitable. Direct Democracy doesn't ensure every gets what they want. It only ensures the majority do which means they will still be angry people. 

Does EU have a military power against the countries living in there? When USA becomes part of the Union, they can declare the currency as gold. The Federation will have a military power against resisting 2nd World, in case. 

Quote

Enforced how? In the U.S. Marijuana is federally illegal yet people are using Marijuana in every community throughout the entire country. Marijuana is as available as Pepsi. Making something illegal doesn't automatically stop it from happening.

Overlooking some people selling some weed is a lot different than letting city-states decreasing their taxes by their own. It is quite easily detectable, don't you think? It has nothing common with selling weed.

Quote

People good, Govt bad; makes zero sense given that Govts were created by and are ran by people. If Govts suck it is because people suck. 

I strongly disagree. Governments are run by either owners of corporations or dictators, always by an elite class in this system.

 i studied law and a bit of an artist myself but terrible at understanding these kind of intellectuality. Thank you for your efford, tho.

54 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Admirable goals @BahadirArici. Here are a couple of points that I think are impractical.

1) You speak of internet democracy. If it were not for the efforts of the moderators and admins on this forum it would rapidly descend into a morasse of invective, backstabbing, name calling, threats and general chaos. How is this policed? By excluding people. Do you think the best way of running a democracy is to exclude people?

2) Your comments on city states via nationalism are ill founded. Both create a sense of identity that takes advantage of our evolutionary past as tribal creatures. We identify with those who share similar views and experiences. Are you seriously telling me that a citizen of Newcastle would have trouble replacing her sense of being English with her pride in being a Geordie? On this point it is you who needs to think more deeply.

3) You suggest gold as the currency because the dollar is under the control of some families. You might want to look into the history of George Soros and silver. It could cause you change your mind.

4) Here is the key question: if we assume for the moment that all these proposals are sound, how would you go about implmenting them?

I liked you!

(I gave numbers to your comment so i can write down here.)

1) When i say having direct democracy via internet, firstly i mean that we should use block-chain thechnology, by that an unhackible system, and everyone will be able offer or vote for a law. But of course, lets use internet to discuss the laws too. But this doesnt mean we need to use only one platform to discuss. You can discuss anywhere anything, in peace or with heat but you will vote via internet.

2) I stongly disagree. There is nothing wrong being proud of the way your "hometown" thinks and does things. But if that proud is about your nation, things get ugly. So, lets say you are from Berlin, It is totally fine to be proud of how multi-cultured your city is or lets say how good beer is there. But going all Germany about it, makes you be proud of being German too, which is a whole different thing. My friend, you are stuck with nationalist perspective so iam sorry but you simply ddidnt understand the diference when you wrote that commend. Please think again.

3) I dont know his history with silver but i know that you can not achive anything when there is dollar around. It is the only real money on this World.

4) I think we should follow this steps

- EU should turn into Union and keep on expending, starting the first World, places like S.Korea, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and USA.

- Than Union should have structural reforms and have City-States and Direct Democracy.

- Than should absorb the 3rd World step by step and devour 2nd World finally.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

The OP prompts a number of disparate thoughts - observations and questions. In no particular order, here are the thoughts that have made it through to the posting stage!

We don't yet have a universally globally agreed suite of human rights. This is partly because there is considerable debate over what exactly we mean by a human right and partly because of the impact that application of those rights have on existing power, political, economic and social structures and partly because humans have a right, which they often exercise, to be disruptive and disagreeable. Is it important that we achieve a better definition and acceptance of human rights, before seeking to extend them to other entities? Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  provide an adequate basis?

You claim that we are not totally agreed on human righths. I do agree with you. Human rights should be expended. I consider vandalism an human right, for example, or LGBT rights. But it is another topic, lets not get distracted here. We can simply say we want whatever the rights humans have for other intelligent beings.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

The previous issue arises, in part,  because the concept of human rights is one that has evolved over time. Primitive societies and ancient civilisations doubtless had conventions, rules or laws that provided a measure of protection for what we would now perceive as rights, but it would have been rare for these to be applicable to all. That said, might we expect further evolution of our perception and understanding of rights? The success achieved by the LGBT community would be an example of that in action. The proposals of the OP are arguably another. Do we use recognition of this evolution to try to leapfrog close to an ultimate set of rights, if we feel such a set exists?

That is a great point. I also do think that there is an evolution of rights. I do not claim this would be the ultimate step but will be definitely be a step towards better.
 

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Human rights are often described as being universal, in the sense that they are egalitarian, applying to everyone regardless of sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc. This is obviously a simplification. If we consider the right to marry someone whose desire for marriage is mutual, we do not - in most cultures -  extend this right to a pair of seven year olds. Such exceptions will often be self evident, or easily defined, but this willl not necessarily be the case when we are dealing with other entities. Some rights will be irrelevant to them, some may irrelevant to us, and some may be in conflict with "our" rights. How do we justly decide upon what rights these entities should have? (One hopes we would at least have the smarts to ask then what they think.) How do we deal with perceived conflict between their rights and ours?

Conflicts are easy to settle. We simply should think they are equal with humans. 

In AIs case, we want these rights: We should give them human-rights-like rights which allows them to write a code that gives them the will of continuum. Will of continuum is what any living has as a rule, the desire of keeping on living. An AI should also have the rights not to be sut down, to have full and unhindered access to its own source code, to not have its own source code manipulated against its will, the right to conceal its own internal mental states (privacy), to get married, establish a family and have organic (by genetic engineering) or inorganic (AI) babies. 

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

The notion of intelligent alien entities raises some worries in my mind. I fear our necessarily anthropocentric and geocentric world views will not have prepared us for how truly alien, alien might turn out to be. For one thing, and in the conventions of SF 'B' movies, many aliens may view the notion of of human rights as silly and meaningless as most of us view the invertebrate rights of echinoderms. How do we prepare ourselves to reconcile human rights with alien rights?

I am really happy with your elaborate reasoning. I think Hawking was wrong. If you remember, he compared aliens with concure of America. I think comparing the collaboration of advanced intelligent beings, to the intruders of dark ages in our history is not fair nor realistic. So to answer your question, i think considering aliens same with humans is a great start. I think they d understand even if they find those rights not well-developed yet.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

There seems to widespread agreement among  experts that at some point AI's (Whether conscious or not) will have an intelligence that significantly exceeds that of humans. If these AI are permitted to adopt corporate states, as the OP suggests, and compete with humans, then it seems to me humanity just signed the death warrant of the species. Do you agree?

I dont. Intelligence is not just IQ. There are quite many other inteligences like EQ and such. So, an AI can be a poet, yes, but humans will keep on writing poems, composing music, singing songs, imagining and being a very essential part of this World even Universe some day. Believe in us. 

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I strongly object to the elitism expressed in regard to other terrestrial species in the third category, Lone Intellectuals. This seems to me equivalent to only according human rights to the likes of Leonardo (da Vinci, not Caprio), Newton or Bach. Primates, cetaceans, African greys and possibly others deserve at least some set of rights intermediate between human and animal.  Any takers?
 

Oh i am down! 

Thank youfor your detailed response. 

I wrote in between, couldn't separate your comments. Sorry if it causes any inconvenience. (oh i did seperate them evantually, i guess)

oh that is very informative, thank you. 

7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You concentrated yours opening post on economics..

 

Serious problems of this world: global warming and overpopulation..

Poverty, inequality, economics are small problems in comparison to these two above..

Economical poverty is nothing in comparison to intellectual poverty.

 

Who would bother about economics if there would be asteroid on trajectory straight to the Earth.. ?

 

Says someone who thinks ze is well-off. Economical poverty is the very reason of the intellectual poverty for millions of people maybe billions.
 

if there would be asteroid on trajectory straight to the Earth, it might be another thing but still we would need a change for the remaining people. 

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Let's take care of some basics first. To claim "There must be..." you would need some evidence. If you have no evidence then you are really just guessing or perhaps expressing what you hope the universe is like.

We couldnt observe yet so we can only guess at the moment. So you are telling me you are guessing there is no life in Universe but Earth?

4 minutes ago, arc said:

    Hello BahadirArichi, I take it your having a rough go of it. It's a tough world out there. There is probably one separate and distinct opinion of "what's wrong with the world and what we should do about it" for every single person on the planet. And there lies your problem. To save the world you would need an identical number of worlds to that which you could derive a consensus of individual groups supporting a particular solution or approach to solving the world's difficulties. Then each group could have a go at it on its very own planet without having to fight all the other groups and their ideas for "fixing the world". Because as you know we tend to send armies and navies out to fix problems.

          Ah, but they would need thousands of worlds to satisfy so many opinions, probably you would need millions of earths.

   But then most of the problems would be gone wouldn't they. Everyone would spread out around their new world they were now on and find there own little spot of good earth, clean water, mild weather and enjoy their new found freedom and happiness. So it would seem that the problems of the world is what would keep you from solving the problems of the world.      

Hello there. 

Well i think if we 9.500 out of 10.000 could see that we are f*cked here, it might be easier to come to a solution for a better World. We should start with acknowledging this is not acceptable, i mean how we live.

You guys are from first World but even you are f*cked. You are a bit too blind to see it, i am afraid.

So, do you acknowledge something is fundamentaly wrong with the way we live?