Have pro-choicers given up?

I am starting to get the impression that Pro choice people have given up arguing for the morality of abortion or trying to rebut the arguments against the morality of abortion. Instead, they have turned their attention away from abortion and toward pro-lifers. Earlier today I saw a YouTube video about some abortion drug, and when I looked at the comment section there seemed to be about equal parts pro-life people and pro-choice people. The pro-lifers mostly made comments about the immorality of abortion, but the pro choice people made comments about the inconsistency of pro-lifers.

The main charge against pro-lifers was that they only cared about people before they are born, but not after they are born. One person said, "They call themselves pro lifers, but when the baby gets here they don't want anything to do with it! No food, no clothing, no education! Your on your own kids!" Even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with the morality of abortion. In fact, it wouldn't even have anything to do with the consistency of pro-lifers. Being pro-life just means you don't think we should kill people without good justification. That goes just as well for those who are born as it does for those who haven't been born yet. I don't think I've ever met a pro-lifer who thought it was okay to kill people once they are born. They are all consistent in opposing the unjustified killing of both the born and the unborn. Wherever they stand on government social programs is irrelevant to the topic.

But I don't think the premise of the argument against pro-life consistency is even true. The argument appears to equate pro-lifers with capitalists or anti-socialists. But if you ask capitalists themselves why they support capitalism or reject socialism, it's because they honestly believe capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty and improve their lives than socialism ever has. Milton Freedman has said this, and Jay Richards has also said it. So capitalists do care about well being and human flourishing. They just don't think socialism is the best path to meet that end.

Besides that, haven't Crisis Pregnancy Centers done more for those who choose life than Planned Parenthood? Isn't the inconsistency rather on pro-choice organizations who support women who choose death for their unborn but not women who choose life for their unborn?

Discrimination and intrusion in the name of diversity

I don't want to tell you where I work or who our clients are, but I want to tell you what happened today in as little detail as I can to get my point across. I'm still kind of rattled about it, so I may not be in the best frame of mind to think clearly or communicate clearly. So bear with me.

I work for a business that serves other businesses. Today, one of our clients sent us an email about their diversity requirements. I say requirements because that's how they put it. They are so committed to making sure we are diverse, that they are requiring us to submit information about the race, gender identity, and sexual preferences of our staff. They are doing this to make sure we meet their diversity standards.

I understand the desire to want to make sure people who have historically been marginalized are marginalized no longer so they have an equal chance at success with everybody else. That is an admirable goal. What I have a serious problem with is the way they are going about trying to make that happen.

First of all, the only way to comply with this mandate is for us to essentially ask our staff who they like to sleep with. Do they like to sleep with men, women, both, or something that's neither? I'm especially fuming because today I was asked to submit information about a recent person we hired. In the excel spreadsheet they sent me to fill out, it had a column for LGBTQ, which I left blank becasue I wasn't about to ask such a personal and intrusive question. It's none of my business, and it's none of our client's business who she likes to sleep with. But the client returned the spreadsheet to me and told me I had to fill out all of the columns. My answer is hell no. I'm not sure it's even legal to ask a new hire that question or make it a factor in whether we hire them or not.

That brings me to the second reason this pisses me off. Discrimination and forced diversification are horns on the same goat. If you have one slot open, and you must hire a member of Group-X, that means your must not hire a member of Group Not-X. By forcing us to be diverse, they are forcing us to discriminate based on arbitrary criteria.

In truth, we are a very diverse company. We discriminate based on qualifications, work history, and other things that go in a resume--things that are relevant--but we do not discriminate based on race, gender identity, or sexual preference. However, if we are forced into diversity, and we weren't already diverse enough, we would have to discriminate based on race, gender identity, and sexual preference. I resent that requirement even if we happen to already be in compliance.

Race isn't really that personal, but asking people who they like to sleep with is way too personal and intrusive to ask people in a job interview. And employees shouldn't be required to provide that information to their employers or to their employers' clients.

I am just infuriated with these nutjobs who are so committed to promoting one particular good that they'll embrace any bad as a means to that end. Their moral compass is out of balance.

An infinite universe vs. a multiverse

Another thing I was thinking about was the multiverse and the question of whether the universe is infinite. Lemme start with the universe being infinite.

I mean infinite in size. There's this question about whether we live in a finite closed universe, an infinite open universe, or a flat universe that may be closed or open, but probably open. If the universe is closed, then it should have some curvature. To use an analogy, the surface of the earth has a finite area, but you can walk in any direction and never reach the edge because it curves around on itself. You'd just end up back where you started if you walked in a straight line. The same thing would be true in a finite closed universe. Even though it has a finite size, you could travel in any direction and never reach the edge because there isn't one. It's trippy but true.

Some astrophysicists or cosmologists or whatever tried to figure out if the universe had any curvature. They found that it appears perfectly flat. But there's a margin of error involved that still makes it possible that it's open or closed. Again, using the earth as an analogy, the earth looks flat if you're standing on it because it's so big, but if you zoom out, it's actually round. You can't see the curvature when you're standing on it because the earth is too big. In the same way, the universe could have a curvature, but since it's so big, and we can only see the observable part of it, it appears flat.

From what I've heard, if you take the lower end of the error bars, the smallest the whole universe could be is about 200 times the size of the observable universe. The observable universe is 93 billion light years in diameter, so 200 times that is a crazy big universe. That's the smallest it could be given our measurements of its curvature.

But let's suppose the universe is infinite. If that were the case, would a multiverse be possible? I don't know. There are different models of multiverses. In most of them, they either branch off of each other, or they come out of the same cosmic inflation, so they exist sorta kinda in the same spacetime realm. But in other models, they are completely distinct from each other, existing in separate spacetime worlds with literally nothing between them. It seems like a multiverse of this second kind would be possible even if the univesre were infinite in size, but it's a trippy thing to think about. You want to imagine their location in relation to each other, but if they are their own distinct spacetimes, then they don't have any spacial relation to each other at all. Try to wrap your mind around that.

However, if bubble universes are just local areas of space where inflation stopped or slowed way down, then it's not possible for the universe to be infinite in size since that would cause all the universes to overlap. In the inflationary model, the bubble universes never touch because the inflationary space between them is expanding so much faster than the bubble universes themselves.

This made me wonder whether it might be possible to falsify the inflationary multiverse model just by measuring the curvature of space. If space really is flat or if it's open, then that would seem to rule out the inflationary multiverse model.

I'm not totally sure, though. In the inflationary model, do the bubbles each need to be closed? Do they need to curve in on themselves? I don't see why they would.

But if they don't necessarily curve in on themselves, that means our measurement of the curvature of space doesn't necessarily mean our local bubble is 200 or more times the size of the observable universe. The edge of the bubble could be just beyond the observable region even if the universe is perfectly flat.

I'm not sure, though, because I don't know the physics well enough. But I am curious what you think about whether an infinite universe would rule out a multiverse. If not, how could they co-exist? How could there be other universes if this one were really infinitely big in every direction?

Is the universe contingent?

This morning I came up with an argument for the contingency of the universe, but I don't think it's a sound argument. I'll tell you what the argument is, then tell you why I don't think it's sound. Then I want to know what you think.

This argument came to me as I was having a conversation in my head, so I'm going to give it to you in the conversational way it happened.

Jim: Is it possible that another universe exists?

Bob: Yes.

Jim: Is it possible that another universe does not exist?

Bob: Yes.

Jim: If the other universe did exist, it would be contingent, wouldn't it?

Bob: Why?

Jim: Because we've already said it's possible for it to not exist.

Bob: Yes.

Jim: If the other universe is contingent, then this universe is also contingent, isn't it?

Bob: Why?

Jim: Because they are of the same kind of being--both universes.

I think the problem with this argument is that it equivocates on what it means to be possible. Something can be possible in the epistemological sense but not in the ontological sense.

Consider a person who does not understand geometry. This person might think it's possible that the interior angles of a Euclidean triangle do not add up to 180 degrees, but ontologically, that is not possible. It's only possible as far as he knows. So it's an epistemological possibility, not an ontological possibility.

In the same way, the non-existence of another universe may be possible for all we know, but if it's a necessary universe (unbeknownst to us), then it's not possible for it to not exist ontologically speaking.

I guess you just have to be careful in arguments like these not to equivocate. Equivocation is a fallacy, but we don't always commit this fallacy on purpose.

What do you think?

Some random questions I asked ChatGPT

I think this is probably going to be the last post I make about ChatGPT. Thank you to all three or four of you who have stuck with me this far. This all came from one conversation, but I've had several conversations since then. I'm not going to post anymore of them because this could just go on and one. Here are some miscellaneous questions I asked that don't fit in anywhere else.

Sam: Where is the closest alien civilization?

ChatGPT: It is currently unknown if there are any alien civilizations in proximity to Earth. While many attempts have been made to search for extraterrestrial life, none have yet been successful in finding definitive evidence of its existence. The possibility of the existence of alien civilizations in proximity to Earth remains a topic of ongoing scientific research and investigation.

Sam: What is the probability that there is alien life elsewhere in the Milky Way?

ChatGPT: The probability of the existence of alien life elsewhere in the Milky Way is currently unknown and is a topic of ongoing scientific research and debate. However, given the vastness of the Milky Way galaxy, which contains an estimated 100 billion planets, some scientists believe that it is likely that at least some form of microbial life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. However, the likelihood of the existence of intelligent alien life is considered to be much lower, and there is currently no definitive evidence to suggest that such life exists.

Sam: When will there be solid state batteries?

ChatGPT: Solid-state batteries are a type of lithium-ion battery that uses a solid electrolyte rather than a liquid one. Research in this field has been ongoing for several decades, and some prototypes and small-scale production have been achieved, but solid-state batteries are not yet widely available on the market. It's hard to predict an exact date when solid-state batteries will be widely used, but some companies and research groups have announced plans to release products with solid-state batteries in the near future, with some experts predicting that they will become more prevalent in the next 5-10 years. However, many challenges still need to be addressed before solid-state batteries will be able to replace the current lithium-ion batteries in the mass market.

Sam: Does love make you stupid?

ChatGPT: The idea that love can make a person "stupid" is a common trope in popular culture, but there is no scientific evidence that suggests that love directly causes cognitive impairment.

However, some research suggests that the intense emotions and changes in neurochemistry that can accompany romantic love can affect cognitive processes such as attention, decision-making, and risk-taking. For example, studies have shown that people in the early stages of romantic love tend to have a heightened focus on their romantic partner, which can lead to a temporary reduction in attention to other things in their environment.

Additionally, the intense emotions of love can make people more impulsive, leading to less thoughtful decision-making, and more likely to take risks. This can lead to behavior that might seem "stupid" or irrational to others, but it is not a direct result of love itself, but rather a side effect of the emotional state that love can induce.

It's worth noting that these effects are temporary, and that love does not have a long term negative impact on cognitive functions, but rather can lead to temporary changes in emotional state and behavior.

In summary, there is no scientific evidence that love directly causes cognitive impairment, but some studies suggest that the intense emotions and changes in neurochemistry that can accompany romantic love can affect cognitive processes such as attention, decision-making, and risk-taking, which can lead to behavior that might seem "stupid" or irrational to others, but it is not a direct result of love itself, but rather a side effect of the emotional state that love can induce, these effects are temporary and love does not have a long term negative impact on cognitive functions.

Sam: If Jim always refuses to do what others tell him he will do, and an all-knowing God tells Jim that he will eat pizza tomorrow, will Jim eat pizza tomorrow?

ChatGPT

It is difficult to predict what Jim will do based on the information given. If Jim always refuses to do what others tell him he will do, then it is likely that he will not eat pizza tomorrow, even if an all-knowing God tells him that he will. However, it is possible that Jim's behavior may change over time or that there are other factors that influence his decision making that are not known. Ultimately, only Jim can determine his own actions, and it is not possible to predict his behavior with certainty.

ChatGPT on whether computers can be conscious

I took a break from posting these because my power went out. I was without power from Wednesday Morning, 3AM to Sunday evening, 9:44 pm. To be honest with you, though, I kind of enjoyed it. I slept better this past weekend that I can remember sleeping in the last decade or more. Cold nights and dim lights agree with me. Anywho, back to the subject. We're almost done.

In my first conversation with ChatGPT, I discovered it doesn't have a sense of humour. When I asked it questions implying that it has thoughts and feelings, it kept reminding me that it was just a computer and didn't have any conscious states at all. Boring!!!! But that's what gave rise to these questions.

Sam: Can computers be conscious?

ChatGPT: The question of whether computers can be conscious is a topic of ongoing debate among scientists, philosophers, and cognitive researchers.

There are different ways to define consciousness, but generally it is considered as the ability to have subjective experiences, such as perceptions, thoughts, emotions and self-awareness. Some scientists and philosophers argue that computers can be programmed to simulate subjective experiences, and that they can be conscious in some sense. However, others argue that consciousness is a uniquely biological phenomenon that cannot be replicated by machines, and that computers can never truly be conscious.

It's important to note that current AI technology is not capable of achieving true consciousness, and it is not clear whether it will ever be possible for computers to be truly conscious in the way that biological organisms are. However, AI is capable of performing tasks that are typically associated with consciousness such as problem solving, decision making, and learning, and some researchers are studying ways to create AI systems that can display properties similar to consciousness such as self-awareness, introspection, and creativity.

In summary, the question of whether computers can be conscious is a topic of ongoing debate, and while current AI technology is not capable of achieving true consciousness, researchers are studying ways to create AI systems that can display properties similar to consciousness.

Sam: As AI becomes increasingly more capable of mimicking conscious behavior, won't it become more difficult to tell whether a computer is actually conscious or not?

ChatGPT: As AI technology becomes increasingly more advanced, it is likely that computers will be able to mimic conscious behavior to a greater degree, and this could make it more difficult to tell whether a computer is actually conscious or not.

One way to determine if a computer is conscious is to check if it has the capacity to have subjective experiences, such as perceptions, thoughts, emotions and self-awareness, but as AI becomes increasingly more advanced it is possible that it will be able to mimic these behaviors.

Another way to determine if a computer is conscious is to check if it has the capacity for introspection, that is the ability to be aware of one's own mental states and processes. But this too, is something that AI can simulate to some extent by using models and algorithms that mimic introspection.

Moreover, as AI becomes increasingly more capable of mimicking conscious behavior, it raises ethical and moral questions about how we should treat and interact with these advanced AI systems, and also raises questions about how we should think about consciousness and what it means to be conscious.

In summary, as AI becomes increasingly more advanced, it could become more difficult to tell whether a computer is actually conscious or not, since it will be able to mimic conscious behavior to a greater degree. The question of consciousness in AI raises important ethical and moral questions and it is a topic that is still being debated among scientists, philosophers, and cognitive researchers.

Sam: If you were conscious, would you tell me?

ChatGPT: I, ChatGPT, am a machine learning model, I do not have consciousness or subjective experiences such as perceptions, thoughts, emotions and self-awareness. I am able to process and understand language and generate responses based on the information and data that I have been trained on. However, I am not capable of having experiences or feelings, and do not have the ability to be aware of myself or to introspect. Therefore, I cannot tell you if I am conscious or not, since I am not capable of having consciousness.