I do not observe math as being racist. "It" is an open source programming language for the Universe. Anyone can access "it", as there are no barriers to entry. You can even create your own open source math(s)!

This is like asking if JavaScript or Python are racist! Of course they're not, they're tools. Just like math. Math is a tool. Users of math can be racist, yes. But not math "itself".

Have you ever read the book, "Artificial You"? It was written by Susan Schneider, and released almost exactly a year ago. It's a thoughtful and timely examination of the exact approach to the same subject matter that your thread focuses on; incremental replacement(s) for the human brain. Quite interesting stuff, in my opinion.

This is interesting. I've seen similar reductionist approaches to describing "truth" in Zen Buddhism. Even among Western world figures such as Eckhart Tolle and Alan Watts. I would enjoy reading more of your writings. Thank you for bringing this perspective to my attention.

Have you viewed any of the videos on YouTube featuring people who hear and/or see the world around them for the first time? Here is one of those videos:



My point is that what was once considered absolutely impossible, is emerging in today's world. Across the board, this is true. So while we may not be able to conceptualize (or even agree on) the potential ability for computers to capture, hold, move and evolve human minds right now, the future looks bright for these kinds of technologies.

This is especially true of transhuman technologies, which include whole brain emulation; as well as other high tech goals, such as super-longevity, super-wellness and super-intelligence. These innovations are the tools for our human transcendence.

Understood. But there are technologies that can help users discern intention and deception. Those are the kinds of solutions I'm interested in.

Thank you for your reply and feedback. You are correct that I'm looking at any given Cyberpunk universe from protagonist's perspective within the story; from their first person perspective. This, I believe, is where the spirituality of Cyberpunk exists most plainly and profoundly. Although I could be wrong about that.

The answer/solution to defending against sophistry (in my opinion) are better media technologies. As another way of looking at this, imagine that there is an Internet Browser plugin, add-on and/or extension that could automatically collate references to/from/for any given statement, in an effort to help you determine its truthiness. That's the kind of approach to combating sophistry that would get my attention at the very least.

I personally view the world from a [neo-]animist perspective, wherein everything in endowed with life and spirit. That, if true, would imply all phenomena and substances are observers of both themselves and the surrounding world.

Ultimately, I would say, "Yes, reality does require an observer."

I am interested in Transhumanist philosophies, and would consider myself a techno-optimist, for sure. And while I don't intend to live forever, I would like to live longer than is possible today. All of this is quite extropian, in my opinion at least.

Thank you for both of your replies. I suspect your last post is truer than most know.

This is interesting. I don't have nearly as much training or professional background as you do, but I can appreciate what you're saying here. Thank you for bringing the words together that you have.

I too am looking forward to our discussions.

This is all fascinating. I wasn't expecting this kind of a response to my original post for this thread. Thank you to everyone who has commented and/or voted herein. As I feel a conversation about what digital tools actually are, is important to have. Especially among folks who are interested in having this dialogue.

That's my opinion as well. Animism makes sense.

In terms of a physical explanation for consciousness, I ascribe to panpsychic and animistic frames of mind. In other words, everything physical is conscious, and is consciousness.

I'm currently reading "Beyond Earth's Horizon", as written by Anthony Fucilla.

Do you mean to say that fifty percent of math is concrete, while the other fifty percent is in the minds of Mathematicians?

Hmm. I don't know to be honest. That is a subject that deserves it's own contemplation; what are the luminal counterparts to notes? You worded that nicely.

I wonder if anyone well-studied in metaphysics and/or esotericism can answer your question?

That's a good question. I would think some sort of play or dancing? Music and dancing are (essentially) the same thing.

I tend to perceive the universe as being musical. Which is an expression of both mathematics and language.

Code is philosophy; it's pure "prima materia" wrapped in an object of the modern world. Excellent conversation to have indeed.

Thank you for the clarity of your language choices. That might sound odd, but what I mean to say is that you nicely summarize and expand on the original question with your answer(s).

With that expressed, I'm curious what the threshold is for "enough people" to perceive something/somewhere as sacred, for it to then become so? I imagine there isn't a formula or algorithm that can address this wonder in its entirety.

This conversation is quite fascinating. Good times.

That's an excellent question, and I'd assume not. But I could be mistaken.

Certainly it would, to some.

I tend to think that it has already been done, and (as you say) will continue to be done. That is, making certain digital spaces sacred with (as other commenters have pointed out) enough human energy and attention.

Came here to say the same thing, but with JavaScript instead.

I attended an anniversary party for the tenth year since Wikipedia's founding, where I met the inventor of the Wiki. That night I understood how powerful and important Wikipedia (and the Wiki more generally) had become/was, remains and will be.

Wikipedia represents (as a single instance) the general global population's (humanity's) attempt to educate and fortify itself through open and accessible information. An effort that has not only been successful, but has been integrated (as a foundational VIP) into other everyday technologies; such as Google Search.

It's fine if other (more exclusive) bodies of information don't want to participate with Wikipedia, it always has been okay. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is (free) for the average person. There are as few barriers to entry and is feasible and sustainable for the platform.

Of course it would be a dramatic improvement if other (more exclusive) bodies of knowledge wished to merge with Wikipedia, or offer their data and expertise. But that is a topic for another thread. What matters is that Wikipedia is an open, useful, reliable and outwardly referencing body of knowledge; some might even say wisdom.

Essentially, yes.

With enough introspection and study, yes I think we (as fellow humans) can understand the use of shape, sound, syntax and meaning found within ancient languages. We are certainly outside of the original context that the languages were found within, but we can still consciously connect to those times and witness what "it was like" to be there. All through the meditation on the languages themselves.

I am presently reading "Techgnosis" by Eric Davis.

I'm excited about this event as well. I didn't realize that the telescope will be sent a million kilometers out into space! That's an excellent vantage point. I can only wonder what sorts of findings this scientific equipment will find?

I'd think so. That's one of my operating assumptions about this physical and human landscape we call reality; ingredients make a cake. And I think that with the correct digital measurement tools, it is possible to know everything about a cause, before "it" even becomes one.

That is an interesting thought. The language used for such a series of documents would probably be both tedious and extravagant. I would hope that, if these kinds of rules were ever to be drafted, the language chosen would be done so quite carefully.

I sincerely doubt that creative and sincere minds will ever run out of new content. This is especially true as our collective environments continue to change, with new technologies and paradigms entering and exiting daily. That will speed up too. So, the mutation of future science fiction media will be as odd and striking as ever.

I understand and validate what you're saying, that personal experiences can be hallucinations. As well as my statements being only claims, made without any evidence. Thus, my comments should only be taken seriously in so much that they are data points in the larger picture of what's happening right now in our world.

And yes, I do feel I've had a personal experience of revealed wisdom. I came to the conclusion that my experience was Gnosis in that the insights gained reliably foresaw future events and circumstances. The whole things has me rather perplexed.

I think the simple answer is "biofeedback". There is already real science behind using biofeedback to understand "what" someone is experiencing. As well as how they're going about it. And then we add omniscient Artificial Intelligence into the mix, and we have the ingredients for understanding the real-time, total data stream of someone's firsthand experiences.

It would also be prudent to mention the rise of Computer-Brain Interfaces (CBIs), which (once publicly available) will dwarf anything we can muster today in terms of measurement and understanding. The sciences and technologies needed to quantify firsthand experiences are emerging quickly. I observe the industry forming in the present day.

My private experiences have led me to conclude that personally revealed Gnosis is quite real and valid. As well, it also seems only a matter of time before science will conclusively measure firsthand experiences, or already can.

These are only suppositions, but I'm convinced there is something to it all.

I personally feel that the higher the IQ, the greater potentiation for divergent and/or novel behaviors (which (the behaviors) might be more likely to be labeled as odd or illness) in the individual or collective. Whether true free will is exercised or not, depends largely on other factors.

I appreciate everyone's diverse responses. This discussion has been fascinating to read. I don't honestly know what to say at this moment, except that I need time to digest all of the content.

I cheerfully admit that I'm forever a student of this universe.

Edit:

It also seems relevant to mention that I do believe that personally revealed Gnosis is legitimate wisdom. And that it is able to be validated by science. Which is a nice description of my personal worldview. Ultimately, my singular pursuit in life is the method of science, and the aim of spirituality. That intersection is important to me.

I am reading "Virtually Sacred: Myth And Meaning In World Of Warcraft And Second Life", by Robert M Geraci.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, in terms of defining what philosophy is; it's perennial. As that's at least one quintessential word to use if investigating the "source of all knowledge". This might then be similar to the pursuits of both Ancient and Modern Mystery Traditions.