dimreepr

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... 😇

Isn't it strange how often the word 'path' appears in a Venn diagram of humanity and what we learned from history...

Capable of what? Please clarify your question. How does ethics differ from philosophy, in your question? Assimov's 2nd foundation was based on a sentient robot that was 'telepathic' and guided by the 4 law's of robotics in his action's, which would automatically lead to the fewest dead humans in any given scenario. Some of which maybe an unavoidable war.

Of course, but isn't that the problem...

People only really trust people who can help them make enough money to future proof their life, that's how con-artist's make a living. Trust in science only goes so far and even a scientist has a price they're willing to pay, in terms of trust. Why did you put this in the 'ethics' forum? I think @studiot point about Assimov's second foundation is a good example of an ethical solution; as AI gets more and more powerful at predicting humanities vagaries, an ethically bias free algorithm for it to run thing's for us, would be best for all of us, as it would remove the emotion from deciding the moral path needed.

What isn't? Good bye cruel world walk on bye...

What's the secret chord that makes people shit them selves? I'm pretty sure that would make it in a ballad, a thousand screaming berserkers in full retreat, doing the 'shit yourself waddle'...

Indeed, AI is bound to start doing the heavy lifting in building a legal case, it's much cheaper and more convenient for the culpable.

Good joke, hmmm 🤔. At least there's a point to mine, veganism, in this context, is an artificial human construct that isn't sustainable naturally. I can't help but think that vegans are taking Buddhism to far, like the monks who stay awake as much as possible, to avoid crushing an innocent tick.

It's like deciding to be a vegan, despite cheese...