dimreepr

OK, I'll bite, what are the coordinates?

Indeed, at what point do the rules slide us into a dystopian society?

There's a reason the homeless congregate around cities...

I don't see how it wasn't intended to set our future goals; we should try to remove percieved dogma, from the most likely initial intention of the various religions, given so much cross-over in any Venn diagram. I think it's fair to say that contentment with now, in order to alleviate the fear of tomorrow, is definitely at every intersection I'm pretty sure there's nothing explicitly written that says, science and religion can't work together.

And even before we had money, we were exchanging human qualities (skills) and or commodities. Not to mention the biggest problem for the loner, all the good bits on the planet, already have humans on it.

Anarchy means less freedom, bc you always cede control to biggest bully's in the playground. Do your family have to live by your rules? Or is your children free to play with the cute looking tiger?

How can you possibly understand how a machine thinks, you may as well claim to be a dog's prophet; you have no idea how a dog's perception work's, given it's primary sense imput is probably smell. Assimov thought long and hard about the limits of AI under the 3 laws (our imposed limitation), IOW if we program the AI with the 3 laws in mind, then the more it anticipates the needs of people, the more it's going to lie to us.

I think perhaps we're talking past each other, in the context of this question, given the intention of the OP. "Setting our future goals, ethically, pragmatically; and acting in such a way that those goals are achieved, is a very different one." Indeed, it's a very religious aspiration, that has worked in the past; I'm not sure that science has the tool's.

To some extent it does, for instance, we all need to get to work on time, so we design the most effective way to achieve that aim. But my point in referring to BNW is that, would we even recognise it as dystopian.

That would depend on the "brave new world" we're aiming for...

Isn't 5 million enough?

So what makes you want to see tomorrow?

Are you being a typical Russian? 🙄

You have no idea, until you see the black dog prowl; I thought it would be easier, than waking up tomorrow, the only consideration in my attempt was pain, I dreamed of going to sleep, then nothing. It's no more a measure of courage, than it's a measure of cowardice, it's a measure of pain both physical and mental. Some of the lucky one's get a choice and fail, the unlucky one's don't get that choice. There is such a thing as hell on earth.

Surely that depends on which twin you ask...

your getting things all mixed up, entropy and radiation, both always happen but both for different reason's; for instance a microwave, at nearly 5 inches long isn''t very micro...

The same apps can be used to monitor children, for their own good, very nebulous in legal term's and liable to mission creep, even in a moderately strong right/left wing society. And it takes a very, very obvious corrupt miss-use for a government legislate against the insidious creep.

Let's go further, Asimov's novel 'I Robot' Presents a situation where 'we' are free from worry, provided that 'we' obey the rules of society. People create their own prisons, and we're back to, what is a brave new world?

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

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

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

How would you define a soul?

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

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

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