Just some guy who livestream political and philosophical discussions and debates online. I think last week they had someone on who talk about the same things you started with on your article. (Faith or religious existence from us) I think tho they can to a different conclusion that as humans expand their knowledge and evolve that we will replace or become god. So finishing the article answers my question thanks tho good read.

Are you the person who was on Destiny’s stream?

Now your getting into the Phil of mind (my bread and butter) I will say I don’t necessarily think AI will bring the question of animal intelligence much more into light than it already is. What I typically hear as a rationale for AI intelligence over animal intelligence is that because we created it, it can have equal to our intelligence. I could see it bringing the question of animal intelligence a bit more into the discussion, but honestly I think it’s already is pretty prominent in the discussion.

Yes that would more or less be the assumption. The function that was likely being referred to in the article was rational thinking. And some people with mental disabilities are impaired or sometimes unable to rational think, and likely they would say that it is not a life worth living. For me I feels that is incorrect, however I do know this idea of there theory is to exclude certain people from having a life worth living, so maybe that exclusion is ideal for them. Or maybe they can just set the bar of rational thinking super low and include these mental disabled as fulfilling there function.

Depends who you’d ask. Some say there are other animals that are able to rationally think, typical the example given is crows or chimpanzees. Other people don’t like the idea as that would somewhat dehumanize people with mental disabilities who are unable to rationally think at times.

They want it to apply for all people, most ancient western philosophers thought what separates all people from animals is our capacity for rational thinking.

Always nice to hear what the ancient philosopher thought. The idea that a human worth living is one that can fulfill its function is an interesting one. I appreciate its avoidance of the extremes on either side of the argument but I don’t think it’s quite enough as it could exclude the disabled from having a life worth living.

Sure we are omnipotent in this scenario, but I feel there’s ways to put us into the hypothetical. Perhaps later reports come out to show the president actually was in New York. I feel it irksome to say Norman knew the president was in Florida until the evidence pointing to him being in New York out weighed it, when Norman also had that clairvoyant feeling. But I do think the notion of reasonability is getting somewhere, I just still feel the pull of truth being necessary.

We agree on the issues with coherentism, and I think the idea of taking the position that accepts the apparent evidence is a good one. But even when using that I still think the “fact of the matter” holds importance in us having knowledge. Let’s take a modified case of Norman the clairvoyant. If Norman were to have for the first time the clairvoyant feeling that the president is in New York, and that turns out to be true (the fact of the matter). But he had more evidence pointing to the president being in Florida say there were news reports and others testimony to the president being in Florida. I feel it would be better to say Norman knows the president is in New York and not Florida. Rather than to say Norman knows the president is in Florida.

I’m sympathetic to this view, as I feel knowledge should be decoupled from certainty. But I still think truth has a value. While I say we can’t be certain about the truth of any of our beliefs I still think that there is something that is a fact of the matter about the world. And if someone were to fall onto a belief that lines up with the true fact of the matter, then I think if we were to put our selfs into the boots of an all knowing deity then we’d be more inclined to say the person who stumbled onto the truth has something more than the person who’s beliefs are completely mistaken even if equally justified. The article seem to more or less be making an argument for coherentism (we know something based on how well it coheres with our other beliefs) and I feel this notion of knowledge has practical problems as you can just crate another factious belief to justify your belief in anything. It’s what conspiracy theories come from and it’s why they are often so hard to argue. Furthermore if we were to settle on this as knowledge (the best justified belief) then when it comes to education it will become incredibly hard to choose what we should and shouldn’t learn in schools, where as for now we have value in truth and try to teach what we are most likely to know.