Phi for All

Even on reality shows like Alone, the contestants enjoy challenging themselves and braving the wild by themselves for only so long. They all end up malnourished and craving human contact, and they start out with about 10 pieces of kit to help out. Humans were never made to be alone. The more people who live together, the more rules we need to survive, but one person alone will still have rules to follow. Even by myself, I'd impose them. Don't pee in the river, or at least upstream from where I camp. Don't make a bunch of noise so I don't scare game away. Never camp right next to the river in case of flooding. In fact, I'd argue that being alone actually means less freedom to do what you want. A person alone may be able to do many things they couldn't do with a bunch of people around, but they also CAN'T do many things they could do if there was a bunch of people around. Even simple things, like guarding your food from nighttime predators, become a nightmare without help from others.

Can you continue discussing this with AI by yourself? I'm more interested in what people who study science have to say about these things. We know the AI is more interested in pleasing you than it is using actual science. Even if it was short I wouldn't be interested. "Quite long" is probably a "framework" for obfuscation.

Imagine having your name in those files so much that an FBI team working for 11 months straight can't scrub your name out of it.

Moderator NoteThe AI makes things up to satisfy your requests, so we don't allow it to be used as a substitute for a good argument, Sam. That's the "tainted" part for us. Your idea, your beliefs, these need supportive evidence. Try another thread if you like, and perhaps show some science that supports your ideas. If you haven't used AI to build your foundation, and truly used it just as a language module, you should have this at your fingertips.

Moderator NoteDuplicate threads merged. Also, decide which of these accounts you want to keep. We don't allow sockpuppets.

It was definitely this part: You actually said this is what you meant, so I'm not sure why you don't recognize the words.

You earned that money somehow. You earned the compassion that led others to value you enough to give you food and shelter. I don't see how that could ever be considered weak. Perhaps you should learn gratitude rather than fleeing society. I'm sorry, but this seems like you want to throw away some of the most valuable human traits, like compassion, tool use, cooperation, and communication. Why on Earth do you think being solitary, with no claws or fangs, is the epitome of strength? Never, at any time, was this the hallmark of human behavior. We've NEVER been singular hunters. We lived and hunted in packs, we developed skills that took advantage of our strength in numbers. Again, I'm sorry, but it sounds like you don't much like people and want to live away from them. I'm sorry the people in your life are making you feel weak with their money and help.

I don't understand how you're weaker due to living in a society and following its rules. Isn't having money for essential needs better than having to hunt your meat, forage your grain, grind your flour, all while defending yourself alone from predation? Have you watched any of the survival shows? Then you're missing my whole point. Freedom is not the glorious state we're led to believe. The rules, good rules, can actually make us happier and more able to pursue happiness than any illusion of being free to do whatever comes into your head.

This is the false part. Trying to be free of human rules is ridiculous unless you want to live alone. It's the rules that make it possible for us to grow out of a naked, animalistic, solitary existence. The rules let us live together, work together, play together, with as little friction and as much freedom to pursue what makes you happy as possible, within those rules. And I would argue that the best kinds of freedom are the ones we can agree among ourselves are valuable. Until about 10 years ago, the vast majority of people accepted that vaccinating ourselves was a boon to all of us. Millions died of COVID unnecessarily because some questioned it. Even today, measles is on the rise because some people think the government is stepping on their freedom.

Would starting an LLC just for playing the lottery work?

Do I detect a bit of contempt for theory? Are you aware that, in science, theory is as strong as it gets? I agree that your concept is NOT a theory; it's not that well described or supported.

Moderator NoteI'm closing this since it's not Science News and you already have a thread on this in Speculations.

Your idea seems to revolve around the concept that the whole universe is conscious somehow. Can you focus on that and make a persuasive case?

Moderator NoteYou already have a thread on this: https://scienceforums.net/topic/136753-theory-of-everything/#comment-1297602

I moved this from Mathematics to Religion. I think it's criminal that the AI flatters the user with lies and inaccuracies. It reminds me of drug abuse, where the user seems to get a reward despite destroying their health. I'd be willing to bet using AI for questions like this is extremely addictive as well.

Oddly, the real power of religious teachings is their versatility, accumulated knowledge, and openness to interpretation, so insisting on a single meaning is inherently incorrect, the one thing you aren't supposed to do. I look at the Genesis story and I see that the Abrahamic god commits the first sin by lying to Adam about what will happen if he or Eve eat from the tree. The serpent tells them the truth, which they're so drawn to that they defy god and eat from the tree anyway. To me, it's supposed to be about rejecting authority if you want to set yourself above the rest of the animals. This god isn't infallible, omnipotent, or omniscient, it makes mistakes which we should recognize if we want to be considered higher beings. This is the god who would later flood the world, fill it with plagues, and kill its son so it didn't have to torture the rest of us eternally. Also oddly, I don't insist this is the only way to look at it. Huh.

Is this the purpose of this thread, to preach your polluted version of Christianity? I thought you were interested in science. This is just disgusting. Your hands wave too much when you're trying to use reason. Nobody here is interested in your preaching, only what you can support with actual evidence. Anybody can claim their interpretations on religion are the Truth.

From Evgen, who is only allowed 5 posts on their first day (I now realize): They should be able to respond themselves in about 3 hours.

Art doesn't create paintings or sculptures. Art provides a framework for creative endeavors, a methodology for mixing colors, using light and darkness, and how to choose media that best suit those endeavors. Artists and others use these tools to make what we call art. Similarly, science doesn't create computers, cell phones, or GPS. Science is the path, the way to organize a framework for technological or cosmological study and practice. I think it's important to distinguish between the discipline as a whole and the individual endeavors that use its methods to ensure success.

Moderator NoteThe following was mistakenly posted as a Reported Post by Evgen Ivashura:

@Cap'n Refsmmat should be able to do that for you via PM.

When I go into my profile, in the upper right corner of the picture I have there, there's an Edit Profile gear, but next to it is a pulldown for several options. At the bottom is Account Settings, which brings me to an Overview where I can supposedly change my Display Name.

I would call this approach technology, which is just more tools made from the knowledge science discovers. Science doesn't invent anything. One problem we have with technology is trust. We should be able to devise a voting system that is secure, scalable, and accessible. Since the start of the millenium, however, the voting systems in the USA have come under almost constant fire from accusations of fraud. It's gotten so bad in the last 25 years that I'm not sure there is any person or group who can offer a solution, no matter how plausible it is.

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious with this argument. Why would you expect political issues or psychological issues or legal issues to be solved by the process of science? We can use tools from psychology to help people understand, we can invent devices that regulate medicine intake or determine location or encourage certain behavior, we can even run complicated algorithms to determine the likelihood of various abuses or even voting outcomes, but ultimately the problems you list require more than one solution. And all of those problems are better addressed through regulation and political representation. Can you think of any way politics and the law can use scientific methodology to improve their systems?

What if MY mind is the generator and gives you just enough information to make you think you actually exist in my reality?