Human intelligence was already artificial. Communists should embrace our cyborg comrades under a framework of neurodiversity, disibality justice, and Marxist feminism.
The Lord is our shepherd, but we are cats. You made us to lie down in green pastures, but we tragedy’d them. You created us a Sheepdog in the image of our Kings, but we bourgeois revolution’d that monarchy. You created us a Trinity in the image of our families, …
Deciding that my “thinking very hard” is better than yours either requires more specific (externally observable) criteria, or an arrogant assumption that I am smarter. Any argument that depends on the objective superiority of one person’s subjective internal processes over another’s, is arrogant. I claim that arrogant arguments should be avoided, on both ethical and epistemological grounds – and any framework that can only be justified with arrogance, should be discarded. Where there are multiple narratives that are equally “true” (in predictive value and inter-subjective evaluation), I propose we break ties by looking at what is more useful instead of resorting to arrogance in a quest for Truth.
It’s a classic thought problem in philosophy: An out-of-control trolly is headed down a track where it will hit and kill five people. You are in control of a lever which, if pulled, will divert the trolly to a track where it will only kill one person. Should you pull the lever?