I just finished the tome that is "The House of Government" - a look at the founding, arrangement, and domestic habits of/in the Soviet House of Government across from the Kremlin. It's a really fascinating look into Bolshevik psychology/culture at the highest level and shows how it really was practically an atheistic religion at that level. So much of the framing is centered around what books people are reading, how they are living (and indulging in the petty comforts of "bourgeois domesticity"), and so on. It has some sections that are a bit of a slog, going into boring details of domestic routine, but needless to say it picks up as it progresses into the late 1930s...
His encyclical on AI goes into his position in a lot more detail and is a pretty interesting read (except for a couple lengthy institutionally in-the-weeds sections).
Sometimes, yes. In the case of bankings systems combined with payment systems you could end up reliant on both. If the US sanctions you only people using a Chinese OS to make payments through a Chinese payment system will be unaffected and vice-versa. Either will be able to take your economy down.
That’s Italian futurism, which was a specific movement. I think the term was being used more broadly here.
Go find some Soviet space art, or mid century American “space age” stuff, or less dark forms of cyberpunk / cyber culture from the 80s and 90s. None of that is fascist yet all of it is popularly called “futurism.” I’ve even seen the term associated with solarpunk.
As popularly used it means more or less the idea of trying to use human intellect to build or create something fundamentally new, or roughly that. It’s not a precise term more of a vibe.
Mid century American and Soviet space art had transparent political purpose, as does solarpunk. Futurism is rarely if ever just "it's the future, and that's neat!". It comes with the inherently political baggage of "We got from where we are to the glorious future, by way of (ideology)". Star Trek is a great example of this.
That could be said about everything including things usually not associated with futurism like romanticism. Everything carries at least a little political baggage.
I was responding to what seemed like the implication that futurism was fascist.
The answer to what consciousness is does not come from anything yet known so it is natural to hope it exists somewhere just beyond what we know well. There is nothing wrong with this.
I would say it is, you shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims based on gaps in our shared knowledge, that's very unscientific. Just because we don't understand something very well, doesn't mean we can just attribute other unexplained phenomena to it.
As for quantum effects in the brain being responsible for consciousness, there is very good reason to think it is false, no matter how much Penrose insists.
I’m not sure why you willfully misinterpret my post. What’s unscientific is to positively assert unsubstantiated claims, not to posit a theory. You also inserted Penrose out of thin air so I’m not sure you’re even engaging with anything I’ve written.
