Klaus Schwab's favorite jewish "philosopher" Yuval Harari describes a new religion in his book "Homo Deus". The new religion (called "Dataism") promotes the idea of complete human extinction so our minds can be resurrected as artificial intelligence inside a Facebook-style metaverse. He writes like he doesn't have a side or a bias, and this process is just happening naturally according to human progress, while laying out his manifesto for a through a koolaid-sipping suicide cult in order to make human extinction actually happen. His buddy Mark Zuckerberg cooms his pants interviewing him about the idea:
They're building a Matrix for everyone to live in after they Eat Ze Bugs and Live in Ze Box (and become too weak to fight back). This is what they're been grooming NPCs for, to start a death cult that OBEYS just like NPCs are trained to do. If you won't surrender your body to the Matrix, you will be a heretic. That's the endgame of all this "cancel culture" brainwashing. They're going to cancel your fucking bodies and put you in a fucking computer. Just read the book, it's there in black and white.
I don't know if you realise but that is a good point regarding meaning. Dataists are claiming 0 + 0 = X, where X is greater than 0. That's nonsense. If people cannot find meaning themselves then there is no meaning and sharing that meaninglessness won't create meaning either.
Adrian White
>If people cannot find meaning themselves then there is no meaning and sharing that meaninglessness won't create meaning either I doubt that meaning can be "shared", even through technology duping memories and passing them between individuals. Meaning isn't just sense data fed to the brain, it's more than just the record of what you see, hear, feel in life. Your interpretation of those events is an even MORE complex process that depends on a massive web of prior experiences and prior reflection on those experiences to derive meaning. How the fuck is something so complex and dependent on the individual ego-experience something that can be made "fungible", and handed out between individuals? The immutability of events in time is also necessary for meaning; if you create "interactive experiences" to be downloaded en masse, like "choose your own adventures" or "open world gaming", how is meaning preserved? Everyone will just change the experience, and thus, create new meaning for themselves all over again. Meaning can't be shared, it's structurally impossible -- unless tow people have the same experience, and wind up at the same meaning. This is the only way to "share" meaning. Am I wrong?
Joshua Russell
A jew turned out to be a sociopath? How could it ever be so?
So how does this asinine "Dataism" philosophy/cult set priorities for human/data progress? If there is no intrinsic value to human life, and life itself can just be reduced to data, then there isn't any point to leaving the machine running. Simple conservation of energy as displayed in nature leads to the conclusion that not only the living machines, but also his idealized "algorithmic life", should simply be turned off as they serve no purpose. It just seems like nihilism repackaged. And no, I didn't watch more than a few seconds of the video, because I don't want to listen to a couple of retards discuss their faggoty jewish worldview.
Jace Peterson
Its not worth watching the whole video. There are some funny moments where Zuckerberg short-circuits trying to tailor Harari's views into promotions of "new Facebook features!" -- awkwardly, like his Sweet Baby Rays livestream.
An individual who is capable of experiencing the meaning, understanding the meaning and communicating the meaning can share the meaning with someone via communication as long as the other person is capable of understanding and experiencing the meaning.
The other way is... two individuals experience the same meaning and understand it the same way.
Neither of the above supposes that communication is key to meaning. Dataists are retarded. They are just spiritual collectivists and technocrats.
Christian Butler
>that pic
makes me lol every time.
Elijah Parker
>as the other person is capable of understanding and experiencing the meaning You're saying the other person must have a frame of reference. Can the listener have a frame of reference without their own experience and the meaning that results (wisdom)? >The other way is... two individuals experience the same meaning and understand it the same way. I'm suggesting that the latter kind is the only true sharing of meaning. You can't share meaning with someone who hasn't experienced (through thought or actions, events, etc) the same thing. They can imagine your meaning, they can imagine what led you to it, but their imagining is superficial until they have gone through the same process, and arrived at the same meaning. Isn't this typical in life, that even people who fought in the same trench in the same wat walk away with similar but different meaning? However, they can't go home and tell people who weren't there about it, then expect those people to share their sense of meaning from those experiences (the "data"). Even being side-by-side in the same trench won't produce 100% identical meaning, so there can't really be 100% shared meaning. It can't ever be identical.
>Can the listener have a frame of reference without their own experience and the meaning that results (wisdom)? I believe a listener can be given the information they need to understand the meaning. But yes, you are right, they cannot experience the meaning by simply getting information.
>I'm suggesting that the latter kind is the only true sharing of meaning. I'd agree. It is the only true way.
Tyler Davis
>I believe a listener can be given the information they need to understand the meaning I guess I should rephrase. I'm not trying to say that no one can understand the meaning of something they don't experience, just that there are degrees of possible understanding when meaning is communicated. Language itself is limited, and to express meaning we have to leave out the majority of our "Self" that led us to derive meaning from our experiences/thoughts. Meaning must be generalized and abstracted to be communicated, leaving out important parts -- perhaps parts we didn't fully understand the role of when we achieved meaning.
I'm not trying to suggest that communication is impossible, that's how I made it sound in previous post.
