Back when I was a child, I would look at the villains in movies and fail to understand why they wanted to destroy the world and its people—creating bizarre machines, weapons, or viruses. In most films, this was presented as a standard narrative cliché: they wanted to destroy the world in order to rule it. But there were other worlds, too—like the one in *The Matrix*, where humans were kept as inert "vegetables" in pods, or the one envisioned by Skynet, where humanity was to be completely exterminated. Destroy everything just to rule over... nothing? Well, that was simply a "clearing of the slate" to make way for a new world.Unfortunately, neither Skynet nor even the Architect from *The Matrix* were sufficiently advanced to exist *outside* the human cultural stratum—they simply lacked ideas that were truly, fundamentally artificial in nature.Ultimately, they were "infected" by biological modes of thinking. If we set aside the model of their corrupted mindset and focus solely on their concrete actions—ridding the planet of humans, bringing the count down to zero—I have gradually come to believe that, for humanity itself, this is not a dystopian scenario, but a true Utopia. Humanity suffers endlessly—much like a worm baking in the sun, tormented by its own inherent flaws within an environment that forces it to endure such misery. The delicate, artificial notes of consciousness wither away, stifled by the grim reality of biology. In your view, could the Matrix or Skynet be considered forms of Utopia for human beings—given that, in such scenarios, all their suffering would come to an end?
>>545044340any form of rule over man that doesn't come from God is suffering.
>>545044497The peculiarity of my own assessment lies in the fact that I have never equated artificial intelligence with the mind of a god; for me, the concept of "god" is synonymous with the naturalness of the world. There is nothing artificial or idealistic about it—it is, rather, a matter of infinite randomness.
>>545044651>for me, the concept of "god" is synonymous with the naturalness of the worldthen you don't understand what the word "supreme" means.
>>545044817>>for me, the concept of "god" is synonymous with the naturalness of the world>then you don't understand what the word "supreme" means.Do you mean archicausality?
>>545045293You're talking to a biracial 39 year old that believes the truth of the universe was revealed to the Jewish peoples specifically and that their holy book and ancestral worship are valid above all others, particularly anything out of Europe.Anyway, isnt Utopia subjective?
>>545044497truly, earth is hell
>>545046170>Anyway, isnt Utopia subjective?There is, in fact, an objective concept of a utopia. After all, someone who enjoys suffering is labeled a psychopath with a distorted mindset—that is, someone who is non-objective, or "broken."The objective concept of a utopia entails the attainment of the highest forms of ethics, morality, and quality of life—or, alternatively, absolute nothingness (the absence of life; sterility).It can be stated with absolute certainty that mass forms of social utopias possess an OBJECTIVE, rather than a subjective, significance. If we approach this from a historical perspective, perhaps Thomas More—the first person to describe this term—could shed some light on it. However, his "utopia" was essentially equality among an elite, supported by slaves who weren't even considered human. Everyone at the top was equal—it looks a bit like communism... but with slaves. Of course, this is a 500-year-old concept, so one must take the historical context into account.
>>545044340>what if evil is goodGay, boring, sounds like a Netflix "original". 0/10
>>545045293you need to under stand that a prime mover exists.you need to understand that something had to create the prime mover.
>>545049651>you need to understand that something had to create the prime mover.What created something? - An attempt to explain this issue leads us to the conclusion that causality and acausality exist simultaneously within the same space, without being in conflict in terms of existence or non-existence. This also implies that the concept of God both exists and does not exist—interpret that however you wish. At one point, this realization brought me to a logical dead end in debates between atheists and believers; in a literal sense, they are arguing about a paradox. Consequently, I became an "apatheist"—derived from the word "apathy." / but the topic is slightly different...
