2021: Vatican Calls Homosexuality a "Sin"

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I still find myself dumbfounded that we don’t actually know what 95% of the universe is.

I'm still dumbfounded that people think a mythical "person" in the sky care who's genitals you consensually touch.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I still find myself dumbfounded that we don’t actually know what 95% of the universe is.

I think this is a misunderstanding people come to when we say 95% of the energy in the universe is invisible to us, they assume that means we only understand 5% of everything. While it in fact takes a great deal of knowledge to understand that there is a portion of the universe invisible to us. In the most broad strokes our understanding of the universe is pretty much correct in the way Newtonian Mechanics are pretty much correct. Newtons gravity did a very good job of explaining the way objects would interact together, and those explanations still hold even as relativity and quantum mechanics have turned those laws on their heads and given us a better more detailed way of explaining many of the same interactions. I think we can confidently says the Universe will end up being in the range of 13.5B years old, the year 4.2B, FTL travel is not going to work within the confines of normal space, evolution is how living populations come to be... We may gain deeper and more nuanced explanations of these things, but we aren't about to learn everything we know is wrong.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I'm still dumbfounded that people think a mythical "person" in the sky care who's genitals you consensually touch.

I'm still dumbfounded that people are dumbfounded by religious beliefs and behaviours.

Religion is pretty deeply engrained into our pattern-seeking, purpose-constructing brains. A segment of the human population for whatever reason has rejected the software, but the rest of the species continues to be perfectly satisfied with the functionality of the operating system they inherited.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by #-3

/\
Is our current technology on pace to simulate an entire universe perfectly?
To perfectly resolve an entire universe, would require all of the energy in the universe, therefor you might be able to create incredibly convincing simulations, but we would really only resolve them to that point of things we are looking at, at any given time.




I think the whole simulation argument is pretty week, but at this time it is an attempt at a naturalistic explanation at the cause of things. So I would say we can't dismiss it out of hand the way we can dismiss things like god, panpsychism or dualism...

If I were to say what we should think about simulation theory, the best argument they have for this theory relies on speculative technology that is basically science fiction at this point in time. The resolution level of the universe just doesn't seem to fit to well with the idea that well at all, you would expect the resolution of a simulation to be inconsistent from the point of view of those inside the program as we are not the intended viewer, and it would be resolved from the point of view of the user. I suspect this whole idea is a modern version of god that will become less and less plausible as we fill in the gaps in our knowledge until it reaches the point being a ridiculous idea, but for now I wouldn't call it a category error to compare the people who claim we know that we are not in a simulation with those who claim to know that we are, they are in the same realm.

Going off on a tangent, some scientists and engineers think there is a threshold we may, or will, eventually reach, where AI will basically go on rails and increase exponentially. Guys like Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Stuart J. Russell, and Max Tegmark suggest that as soon as we reach a point where AI becomes sentient and has the ability to learn (i.e. program itself from experiences), the singularity would go from what seems several centuries to decades or less.

Basically a technological event horizon will occur that once you cross that threshold, there is no turning back. It won't be humans that get the singularity. AI will take over at a certain point and move toward that goal exponentially faster than humans could. The problem is that there is no way of knowing who is going to cross it first, or when. We don't really understand how sentience comes about, so if someone stumbles upon it, that could be it for humanity. I think the best thing we could hope for is that we are still viewed as necessary and it lets us live (preferably in a matrix rather than as slaves).

Stephan Hawking said this:

"So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll arrive in a few decades,' would we just reply, 'OK, call us when you get here–we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not–but this is more or less what is happening with AI.'

[GGG]

I think if an alien civilization did call us that is exactly what we would do. We would try to exploit it for personal gain and not care about future consequences.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Going off on a tangent

Cool, it's an enjoyable tangent. The AI apocalypse really doesn't directly weight on the argument that simulation theory is unlikely because there is an energy/resolution problem.

I'm also a little skeptical about the AI apocalypse, because it's a little too simple, and reality is probably too path dependant to actually hold this up as a credible prediction. Even if it does happen to us I don't think it means it had to happen to us. Given the down side risk to the AI Apocalypse, I do think it is one "religion" where Pascal's wager currently applies. We should be thoughtful and prepare for it as best we can understanding that no singular action can prevent humanity as a whole from reaching the point where this risk is very much real, so we have to plan to survived the singularity if it is an existential risk, because there is no hope of avoiding it.

[Monahammer]

Until the AI could be assured that killing us wouldn't result in no one being around to maintain the AI, then it wouldn't kill us for sure. If it was interested in self preservation, which, IIRC, is one of the hallmarks of sentience.

[troutman]

Not afraid of AI - we only have to pull their plug.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not afraid of AI - we only have to pull their plug.

Go read the WWW trilogy by Canadian Robert Sawyer, and get back to me on that...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Go read the WWW trilogy by Canadian Robert Sawyer, and get back to me on that...

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-defea...-were-a-threat

AI is bound to several rules:

• AI is computer-run, meaning that a digital scorched earth campaign would destroy it, or confine it.
• AI is programmed, meaning that its algorithms and processes are all derived ultimately from one program.
• AI cannot function without power, meaning that a shutoff to its main system could be lethal, or at least very damaging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_control_problem

AI risk skeptics believe that superintelligence poses little or no risk of accidental misbehavior. Such skeptics often believe that controlling a superintelligent AI will be trivial.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by troutman

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-defea...-were-a-threat

You didn't read it yet, did you? Those assumptions are just that, assumptions. There are many ways AI can operate beyond those.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not afraid of AI - we only have to pull their plug.

The wonderful thing about blockchain crypto is there will be billions of plugs, and we are so effing lazy and wont want to go without our social media

[BigBrodieFan]

One day in the future, religion will be synonymous with racism. That day can’t come fast enough. I am the very proud mother of a gay son and I am also a recovering Catholic. Recently my son hired a personal trainer to come to his home and after the first session, the trainer met my son’s boyfriend. He told him that he had a moral responsibility to not associate with sinners and refused his business. My son told him he had a moral responsibility to not work with asshats and told him not to let the door hit his homophobic ass on the way out. It’s just so stupid.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

One day in the future, religion will be synonymous with racism. That day can’t come fast enough. I am the very proud mother of a gay son and I am also a recovering Catholic. Recently my son hired a personal trainer to come to his home and after the first session, the trainer met my son’s boyfriend. He told him that he had a moral responsibility to not associate with sinners and refused his business. My son told him he had a moral responsibility to not work with asshats and told him not to let the door hit his homophobic ass on the way out. It’s just so stupid.

I'm not typically the kind of person to leave Google reviews for businesses when they make mistakes of bad days, but for something like this, I would make an exception. People hiring him should know the is a bigot before letting him into their home

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by troutman

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-defea...-were-a-threat

That's all well and good until the AI evolves and we can no longer recognize the plug.