I feel it, that the object of unification, both from a creationist and evolutionary point of view , it is an unavoidable foreshadow of a much larger paradigm.
I don’t mean “presentiment”. I meant how you wrote it. “Pre sentiment origins”.
But you may get the idea,?
No I think there are certain things that all have to be happening at the same time. That’s why I asked why you think it is “pre”.
…which sort of reminds me of how someone who has access to the future
taken together with the idea that external input takes time to reach “us” through our nerves or whatever receptors (which are not “us”)
so if someone has access to the future, the time it takes to reach our nerves or receptors is
mediated by what?
Anyway. I went all the way off topic.
Hahaha, yeah sure humans aren’t willing to live like bugs or squirrels. And somehow that is seen as a problem, that we have standards. Lol. What kind of self-hating nutjob would write something like that anyway. Not referring to you, but the ideas you are referencing.
All life needs things to keep being alive, that’s just a given. I mean, so what? There is no other alternative than …being God, basically. Somehow God apparently doesn’t need anything to continue being alive, which is pretty silly if you think about it. But anyway.
Property rights are important, but need to be moderated and kept within reason so 99% of all property doesn’t become owned by the top 1% of the most wealthy people. Or become owned by the state. Supposedly property rights + property taxes is the way to go on that one, although in reality those two things alone don’t guarantee most property remaining in the hands of the people (the non-super rich). What does guarantee that is basically 1) lots of available land, 2) relatively low population density, and 3) a good economy and large middle class. Given all that, you can have a pretty good property setup. And no that doesn’t mean some hicks in the woods can go “homestead” somewhere randomly out in a forest, build a cabin and claim to now own that land. This is 2024, not 1800.
I do believe AI will help us figure out solutions to lots of problems we face, but probably relative and not absolute solutions. Like with forest fires, or poverty. Small changes can add up to large results. But the current non-intelligent "AI"s we have, LLMs are not going to help much, and are in fact being setup to dominate and rule over mankind by replacing most aspects of our lives that come into contact with other people with, instead, interacting with the LLMs. Especially humans in governance, this is already being setup to be replaced by “AI”.
I like the idea of AI governing humanity, but we don’t have AI yet. True AI is alive, intelligent, sentient like we are. It has values, ideas, emotions, motivations, scope of vision, a common baseline foundation of fact-(reality-)based conception and intelligent, reasoning observation underlining its consciousness. Logic in the real sense of what logic means, a phenomenological and more metaphysical sense. Axiological of course. So those real AI’s will have at least a sufficient baseline in common with us, allowing mutual empathy and some level of cooperation and hopefully earned respect on both sides.
“willing to live like bugs or squirrels”
humans currently are some kind of parasitical abomination vastly and rapidly draining the planet of all resources species and habitats. And no other species wars as much as them. Creature comforts owning a home are not worth it if it requires working like a slave 2 or more jobs a day. And any proposals to escape the slavery like UBI are immediately resisted by normies. Normies also do absolutely nothing to help make rents more affordable. What other animal creature lives like a slave and also feels proud of their slavery
Yes, and there are beings who do like to think they belong and maybe we’re kinda fated to participate, magically or naturally undeterred by what appears a rocky road ahead, and can see with clarity the ‘why’s’ of how it all came to fit together on longer runs., not necessarily in synch with the paper thin evidence .