We agree that Being is Good by default, as seen when you say:
A lack of good is a real privation. In that sense, it is still being. For example, blindness is a privation of sight. A privation isn’t exactly “nothing”. However, it requires a default good (sight) in order to exist.
Being just is. Good just is. The explanation of its existence (or being, if you are one who insists that the difference between being and existence is beginninglessness and necessity, and beginning and contingency, respectively) is… rather than an external cause/command/creation (as contingent being/existence requires)… the necessity of its own nature. More: https://ichthus77.com/2014/06/29/leibnizian-moral-argument/
I agree. Stuff negative of the zero (default: rest being, or rest good) is a lack of zero & above (being/good)—but it is a REAL lack, like blindness is a REAL lack of sight, and there is NO SUCH THING as blindness UNLESS there is a such thing as SIGHT (the ground or launch point from which we either see MORE or LESS).
:^)
So there are things/goods that are unmade (one could call them unmade Being, &/or unmade Good, &/or unmade Beautiful), and they subsume the things/goods that are made (one could call them the made beings, made goods, made beautifuls—if they are “stuff in the positive numbers”).
Blindness could be considered negative and vision could be considered positive. The median being gradients of the ability:
Added a couple additional layers to the diagram including loss-tie-win.
Note “tie” appropriately falls under “holds together”.
Things are finite. Particular things are limited. Particular things have beginnings and ends, they are created or made. It is important to emphasize that particular things are limited in the created sense. Particular things are limited in extent.
Being or existence generally speaking is uncreated.
Existence just is.
Opinions, labels, narratives are constructed and attached to existence. They are used to describe existence, to explain existence, to navigate existence.
Existence is not necessarily beautiful, for example. That’s an opinion, a perspective. A label attached. As the saying goes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Existence just is. Narratives, opinions, labels, such as “beautiful”, are created and attached to existence.
Are you making -12 be complete/perfect blindness, and positive 12 be complete/perfect vision?
Are you saying there could be blindness without vision? Are you saying blindness is not a privation of sight?
Are you saying rust could exist on its own without, say, iron?
A loss of function implies a default function (tie) that is lost. If you build on that (win), you don’t add a different function, you just improve the function.
Whatever part removal causes a loss of function marks that part as part of an irreducibly complex function — a function that exists either by the necessity of its own nature/being or subsumed/sustained/concurred in an external (irreducibly complex) subsumer/sustainer/concurrer.
So.
Zero is basic function (the limit). Naked eye at 20/20. Win (unlimited) is microscope/telescope, xray, radio, yada yada. Negative numbers are blurring out into nothing. The black/white screen of death, so to speak.
There is obviously something other than the black/white screen of death, or we would not be having this conversation.
If all particulars with the ability of sight went extinct or stopped functioning, where (in somewhere else) would the function of sight be? If all instances of photosynthesis stopped functioning, what would the formula for photosynthesis describe?
There are some things that happen more times than others (some things only a one-off), and there are some things that happen at all times or at every time or at Time/Being (the father/condition for the possibility of every particular time/being).
How do you distinguish between a one-off & a One-Off?
But let’s say they did. Let’s say all particulars with the ability of sight went extinct. Sight or vision would still exist in [what we perceive as] the past. Or the future. Keep in mind existence concerns spatial location as well as temporal location.
Another big if.
Even if all instances of photosynthesis stopped occurring the formula for photosynthesis would still be the formula for photosynthesis. The formula would still be the formula.
Think of the dodo bird. The dodo bird is extinct but the description of the dodo bird is still the description of the dodo bird.
When the past becomes what we perceive as behind us (versus WITH or APPEARANT to us) what/where is behind us in order for what we perceive of it to be true of (correspondent with) something?
When the future is still what we perceive as ahead of us (versus WITH or APPEARANT to us) what/where is ahead of us in order for what we perceive of it to be true of (correspondent with) something?
Before the appearance/actuality & (hypothetically) after the disappearance/inactuality of humans/photosynthesis (or any other particulars/possibles), the stuff that is said of them is not said of their appearance/actuality, but only of their possibility/potential/capacity—and so (when not appearant/actual) is really only true of ________.
So you think/know/believe the whole timeline exists even if it is not actual. So you think/know/believe existence includes the possible that was or will be or is actual.
Hypothetically, once we have unlocked enough innate capacity (embedded higher/ground memes) with the formation of the right (or wrong) meme-ories… we level up (toward ground)… some unlocking the gift (heaven or hell on earth, depending on your perspective) of more appearance/presence… some bringing it down on our heads unexpectedly. Just like Spider-Man (2002) when he is trying to figure out how his new abilities work.
The easy way is to not kick against the goads or resist the yoke or quench the Spirit.
The hard way… well. It’s all hard, but the easy way makes you stronger, whereas kicking, resisting, & quenching leads to brokenness & death before dying. Count it all joy.
Will it? Your argument works only under the assumption that AI is a conscious being.
But last time I checked it’s not, it’s an electronic machine. It has no emergent properties.
So there simply exists no ‘some level’ on which it can realize such abstract concepts as you describe it.
In fact, AI can’t realize anything in strict cognitive terms.
We really don’t need a rough AI to bring the end upon us.
Greetings!
PS: It’s my first post on this forum! I’m glad I found this site!
Sentience is the capacity of a being to experience feelings and sensations, and suffering is a feeling or sensation. So, we have the capacity to experience suffering. But what is the cause of suffering? You don’t seem to address that question but are immediately concerned with avoiding it, which you can’t do if you don’t know the cause.
Buddhism says that 1) physical and mental pain from the inevitable stresses of life, 2) desire or craving (tanha) leads to suffering. But so does 3) impermanence and change cause distress, and 4) grasping at self in the cycle of existence (samsara) traps us in suffering. And then there are 5) mental hindrances like desire, aversion, lethargy, restlessness, and doubt that contribute to suffering.
Christianity may say that this is because of humanity’s fallen nature, whereas other sources may say that it is the natural development of awareness and imagination, which we have to learn to contend with.
No, this reductionist attitude may be programmed into AI, but it comes from a lack of competency. The way you consider the narratives shows how incompetent your approach is. You lack demonstrable characteristics and skills that enable and improve your efficiency in overcoming suffering, so you just eradicate life – which is the only reason you have the capacity to experience anything. Essentially, it is the coward’s way out.
As you conceive it, AI will find you superfluous. Then again, I do too. Goodbye.
