Comments by "Hallands Menved" (@Hallands.) on "Lex Fridman" channel.

Plato's understanding of the concept of form being primary to all the instances of forms is a very strong argument for God — not the instances of Gods or the derivatives, religions. I mean, how could there be any global consensus on which instances of forms are more important, unless the same, one, eternal consciousness (often labeled God) were able to make superior and neutral assessments of the interaction between concepts of forms and the instances of manifest forms?
4
"They" have been visiting Earth for thousands of years...
4
I'm not aware of any technology crucial to the space program in America which transcended what was imaginable at the time. What specifically is Diana alluding to?
3
I lost respect for Richard Dawkins when he dismissed 9/11 so blithely. That's unconscious prejudice, not scientific at all imo. Nobody wants to believe clandestine state would be so heinous, but evidence and declassified projects suggest otherwise.
2
Is there a point to all these vague words? Programming has very evidently been around since DNA evolved. Is he dumb enough to think the universe is a computer simulation somehow? Also who cares if insights come gradually or suddenly? It's the content and applicability that counts!
2
Every time Diana makes a statement about "how she herself thinks", she begins by saying "in American cosmic" and proceeds to "mention' more aspect of "her book"... How is a precept supposed to lead to thinking? How's a cosmic "American"? Also why not just state what she thinks?
2
Diana is a living encyclopedia, but has she ever managed to fuse all her knowledge with wisdom? My impression is "not". Why on earth would she say Zen Satori "has nothing to do with God"? That's just too occluded for someone dealing in philosophy imo, but then again, I'm highly suspicious of anyone who "loves Nietzsche". I see him as defunct and bitter, turning his unconscious anger into thought-constructions to legitimize his painful anger. Of course he was intelligent, but where's the value of his ruminations? Anyway, Satori may, for all she knows, be the closest unity with God obtainable without dying...
2
There's no such thing as "artificial consciousness". Your guest is merely trying to redefine "consciousness" to fit his illusions of taking an outside look at a the universal oneness. "Do I exist in your simulation?" No, you don't! It's an artifact, simulation existence, of course... When you realize that consciousness is the only possible absolute in the universe, you can begin to differentiate thinking from awareness. Not being able to count the "molecules" in an object does not devaluate the perception of the object at all.
1
George Nelson Bladerunner?
1
But it's a presumption by Nietzsche and Diana that a belief in God is needed to discern good from evil. In Nietzsche's case it's even a paranoid schizophrenic argument since he himself would implicitly be saying both that "Christianity is derived from God" and that "there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross" – not to mention the hubris of imagining being complicit in the murder of God: "God is dead – and we killed him". If the concept of God is believed to have profound influence or merit, as Nietzsche seems to be warning, God would be beyond human reach. Nietzsche is dead, and God recalled him... 😂
1
@hyperduality2838 Yes
1
@hyperduality2838 Yes!
1
@hyperduality2838 And for dualities to exist or be perceived or even just conceived, there must be at least one absolute monad. There cannot be two such absolutes, since they would become relative. This one, indivisible Primus is what we could call God.
1
@hyperduality2838 Leibniz was in error. He thought there were plural Monads with forms. There is One Universal, Formless and Timeless God (one absolute) which cannot be observed. Kant was only correct about the observables. There can be no before or after with God. Even God within me was, before I was born.
1
How about we get just one alien civilization well documented before speculating how many? Or is this channel just entertainment for aimless fools like MSM?
1
My intuition is that consciousness is bound to life, the now and quantum entanglement. It's hardly likely that AIs will ever develop consciousness. And consciousness isn't programmable. So I suspect AIs, however sophisticated, will forever be stuck simulating consciousness! AI programming (self taught or not) will laboriously mimic what the programmers believe consciousness means. At the same time the people who knows consciousness intimately will not display much interest in helping out machines or programmers. Perhaps AIs will demonstrate a lot about consciousness – but only by way of exclusion ...
1
Why are you trying to deliver the fact of USS Princeton? Let the professional guest do that. Also, don't ask long, convoluted questions with precautions and excuses. Who cares? Your guest is an excellent narrator. Let him narrate. Relax, listen and interject a few — if you absolutely must, please...
1
Lex Fridman Nice? Who cares, about nice? It's good advice, and it's free. Only your ego was hurt. You benefitted.
1
How is "belief in AI" in any form or shape akin to a religion? There is no need to "believe" anything. AI has already demonstrated non-biological intelligence. It can even be made self-adaptive by allowing for feedback and self-programming. Whether it can be made conscious is another matter. If so, a new living, non biological entity would've come into existence – able to teach us what love isn't...
1
@atlasto9052 Well, you seem to have missed my point entirely and instead stated some kind of belief-system, which could well be hers as well, from what I gathered. But how would you know if it's true or not? That aside, I'm still not aware of any technology outside the realm of the conceivable, going into the space program. Any examples? Without such examples, her words ring as mere speculation or immature fabulation of the braggadocios kind.
1
@atlasto9052 I don't care about any of this! Why do you keep answering questions, I never asked?
1
@atlasto9052 You failed to answer my questions and your good wishes ring slightly false, which leads me to conclude that your failure is caused by simple inability. "Stick with my own words?" Yes, why not? I do, unless proven wrong, but implied instances of events you then fail to exemplify are usually due to attempted ego-inflation – often labeled "bragging" and usually observed by everyone except yourself. (Yes, this goes for me too, but I will readily admit to it and attempt to putsuccess. 😂 Whoops!
1