It's hard to engage with this comment because it feels like it was made by ChatGPT.

>Are we more than the electric and chemical signals in our brains?

Yes: speaking loosely, we have organic bodies with highly sensitive nerves and hormonal pathways. Those are the basis of emotion and sensation. That's the foundation of consciousness or awareness.

An AI without our organic pathways is categorically different. That's what makes it artificial.

At some point, if we combine an AI with organic sensitivity, we will be creating intelligence itself, not artificial intelligence. So we can't ever create AI with consciousness, but we could artificially create consciousness.

>Anger" isnt a primary emotion,

Just to make clear, anger can be and often is a primary emotion. If someone is rude to you or treats you unfairly or harmfully, anger is a primary (and justifiable, within bounds) emotional response.

It's sometimes a secondary emotion, too, if it arises because you don't know how to handle a different primary emotion, as you point out.

>While this a completely logical course, my argument is that the practice of constantly trying to subdue such feelings, in my experience, is in itself harmful.

It's not about "subduing" or "controlling" emotion. It's about accepting them. In other words, you don't stop your feelings - you let them run their course. BUT you grow your awareness of them so that your feelings don't immediately result in bad choices and harmful behavior. That's what stoics meant when they talk about the passions ruling you. It's not that the passions themselves (the feeling of them) rules you, it's that you let them dictate your behavior.

Instead of reacting to your feeling of anger by physically attacking something or someone, you pause and say to yourself "wow, I'm truly angry" and focus on processing that emotion. You acknowledge and analyze your feelings. The more you practice this, the more you're capable of riding the emotional roller coaster of life without jumping off or being paralyzed by fear.

>The main issue with humanity is, and always will be, tribalism. This is embedded in human psyche just as much as belief in god is. Dealing with this issues requires the art of self-contemplation...

It requires not only an individual response, but a commitment to building a society that actively educates for knowledge, tolerance, and common humanity.

>What potential does forced labor have?

The idea of "forced labor" (which doesn't mean actual slavery here) is so weird to me. Everyone who doesn't have a job is being supported by people who do. Maybe it's their spouse, their parents, their siblings, or the government, but the idea that people should be free to just quit work and expect other people to support them is odd. People have had to work to survive for the entire existence of humanity.

>I have postulated that information is in fact a fifth form of matter in the universe. I’ve even calculated the expected information content per elementary particle. These studies led to the publication, in 2022, of an experimental protocol to test these predictions. The experiment involves erasing the information contained inside elementary particles by letting them and their antiparticles (all particles have “anti” versions of themselves which are identical but have opposite charge) annihilate in a flash of energy – emitting “photons”, or light particles.
>
>I have predicted the exact range of expected frequencies of the resulting photons based on information physics. The experiment is highly achievable with our existing tools, and we have launched a crowdfunding site) to achieve it.
>
>There are other approaches too. The late physicist John Barrow has argued that a simulation would build up minor computational errors which the programmer would need to fix in order to keep it going. He suggested we might experience such fixing as contradictory experimental results appearing suddenly, such as the constants of nature changing. So monitoring the values of these constants is another option.

So you have to launch a crowdfunding site to get your research funded, and someone else proposes that universal constants aren't actually constant? This doesn't seem like legitimate science to me.