Pure change can change/act upon everything else except itself. It is a constant - the speed of light. — Benj96

It's interesting to note in reference to the quote that the photon is the only boson that does not interact with itself (all other bosons do self-interact). Photons interact with all fermions except for neutral leptons or neutrinos. I'm still trying to work out what that might mean.

I imagine time as one fundamental cycle of an Inconceivably large magnitude, one you could easily assume will never repeat and is thus linear. — Benj96

That is what i call the "prime soliton".. one wave the size or amplitude of the entire universe. All other waves fit inside this one wave (the universal carrier wave) in half multiples resembling a fractal structure of smaller and smaller waves of higher frequencies but lower amplitudes.

I think evolution mimics the form of its underlying rules, as fractals do. — Benj96

In the same way that the dunes of the desert can tell you about the wind (the name of the wind is written in the sand), or a foot print in the sand can tell you much about who or what stepped on that spot. Time is the wind and we are the dunes. Everything evolution does is written on the "wall" so to say, just not everyone can see the wall, and yet others who do see the wall can't read the writing. Only a few can read what evolution is trying to say.

Yes.

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - Nikola Tesla

I think that the "alien hand syndrome" and "fake hand illusion" are two phenomena that when considered together can yield significant insight into the nature of consciousness. They also help to illustrate what we've been discussing.

supplemental:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion

Alien Hand Syndrome (Excerpts)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIBBDuQrd-I&t=31s

Is That My Real Hand? | Breakthrough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI

Circular Time: It's all going to just happen again for the very first time (like a virgin). — Nils Loc

I think it's better to not think of it as just a circle but more like a coil or spiral (hybrid of line and circle). As time comes around to repeat the cycle it doesn't simply just repeat the same cycle literally as the last time but builds on the cycle that came before.. thus advancing or moving one level up or out with every cycle. We know that this summer was not the exact same summer from last year, every summer is a new summer, but what happened last summer will go some way in determining what happens this summer, so on and so forth.

I totally agree with you, but what i am saying is very similar if not the same but at a lower level. Instead of interactions with other people outside your skin, i'm saying that the same pattern (fractally) is occurring within you. The interactions between the left and right hemispheres of your brain. Each hemisphere has it's own consciousness with it's own perspective, personality and way of doing things. The high level self-aware consciousness that we present outwardly is simply a hybridization of at least these two major brain components.

The nature of evolutionary complexity is to build higher order forms, and thru higher forms achieve higher or expanded forms of consciousness. The higher the number of conscious entities that are grouped as an integrated networked unit the higher the forms of consciousness that emerge.

If ones definition or conception of "free will" has anything to do with violating physical, logical, or mathematical laws then there is no such thing. If on the other hand ones definition were to reflect the natural order of the universe then it would be acceptable. In my opinion the simplest question in regards to "free will" is to ask by what mechanism would it be possible to violate a law of the universe and break the chain of causality? What are the observed instances of such a violation? Even if there aren't any examples of such violations, what could be a possible mechanism (of any type) that would be capable of achieving such a feat?

Remember that there are two options as to how the universe fundamentally works. Determinism and indeterminism, and neither option leaves room for "free will". If one states that the universe is deterministic then "free will" is precluded because everything would happen according to some universal law or laws including ones will. If one says that it's indeterministic then this also precludes the possibility of "free will" because there would not be enough order if any in the universe (infinite randomness) to even make a determination about anything to even have a will which is contingent on order, and much less "free will".

There is one will in the universe and it is what the universe WILL do through every part of itself including humanity. To think one has free will is to say that they are free from the confines of the universe.. not so. Not even the universe itself has free will, it has no choice to follow the complexity trajectory it started on at its inception or Big Bang.

For me consciousness is an emergent property of matter interaction after a certain level and type of complexity and organization is achieved such as but not limited to a brain or simple nervous system.

Imagine one were a disembodied consciousness, or to make it simpler a disembodied eye (universal symbol of consciousness). This eye can not think, it can only see (seeing is to an eye as consciousness is to a brain for the purpose of this illustration). The eye would be able to look around and see things thus making it "conscious" of it's environment, but can it see or be "conscious" of itself? can it turn around to look and see itself? No, because it is like trying to touch the tip of a finger with the tip of the same finger.

The only way around this is if two eyes connected to each other can look at each other and tell the other about itself and vice versa. This is in my view where self-awareness or self-consciousness comes into the picture which is a bit higher order than just regular consciousness. It is analogous to the bicameral brain where each hemisphere is one consciousness but together they are self-aware.

Split brain patient studies are extremely interesting in this regard. One should be conscious of the fact that the word "consciousness" itself means from the etymology ‘knowing with others or in oneself’. I would probably restate that definition more accurately as 'knowing with others as in oneself'.

In other words a singular entity can not know of itself unless it has another entity to reflect from. Only composite entities like ourselves can or at least have the capacity to know themselves.

Circular time can mean different things in different contexts. I think what you're asking about specifically is called for example in the ancient Greek culture "the ages of man", or in the Hindu traditions the "Yugas". All the ancient cultures believed that all civilization on Earth ebbed and flowed between high and low periods of time lasting a couple to a few thousand years. Things get very good such as in the "golden age" and then things decline into an "iron age" when things get very bad, and back around like a wheel of time.

The approximately 24,000 year precessional cycle of the equinoxes is purported to be the cause of these historical time cycles on the Earth. The Zodiac was a cosmic calendrical system developed by very ancient people to track Earths position in this precessional time cycle. It was deemed important to track these cycles because depending on where in the cycle the Earth was could mean disasters and catastrophes due to repeating periodic conditions in our solar system.. having to do with a dark binary star partner (probably a brown dwarf star) to our Sun.

Today modern people think of time linearly in the sense that things are always better in the future or present than they are in the past. According to the Hindu yuga short count system (not the long one) we are at the cusp moving into Dvapara yuga and out of Kali yuga (Iron to Bronze respectively). Transitions between these cycle periods are usually accompanied by social, climactic, and geological disturbances.


check these out for more details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga_Cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Polar_shift_and_equinoxes_shift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar#Long_Count

https://binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Sri_Yukteswar_Giri
book: "The Holy Science" by Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri

Animals have consciousness but not reasoning like we do. — Gregory

I think animals have consciousness along with the ability to reason, the difference between humans and other intelligent forms has to do with varying degrees of complexification. Our consciousness is the media of our awareness and informs our reason (man or animal, or plant even). The more complex a consciousness is the more scope it has for consideration, the less complex the less it's able to consider complex variables. The evolution of the nervous system reached it's maximum complexity on this plant with the advent of modern humans. This evolutionary process is still going on and the torch of complexity is at this moment beginning to pass to AI. A fully integrated AI planetary network functioning as one consciousness seems to be the evolutionary trajectory that we are on.

Does motion have an elementary role within your ontology? — ucarr

The ability for a thing to move is afforded by Time itself. Without time a thing would be incapable of changing it's position, state or anything else. Nothing can even exist without Time maintaining its existence in the next moment whether it moves or not. Time affords existence and change (the only constant in the universe).

You contributed :smile: ,we can speak any time i'm on, it was a pleasure. :up:

I think it's a direct criticism of the vid you posted, is it not? — universeness

Yes, you are right that AI has not reached that level yet, and i probably spoke too soon about the "flying colors", but my point is more in the direction that if AI can already fool some of the people some of the times, then it probably only means it won't be too long before it can fool most of the people most of the time. It's like video games and graphics when in the early days the quality and resolution was ultra low, while today we have near realistic renderings. Elon Musk has made this point. Some of those graphics fool some people into thinking they are real images, and it will only get better. Eventually no one would be able to tell the difference, consider AI deep fakes.

I'm subscribed to this channel which helps keep me up to date on AI graphics developments. It's called

Two Minute Papers:
https://www.youtube.com/c/K%C3%A1rolyZsolnai

I fully admit that I don't know the details on the workings of the most up-to-date AI systems involving artificial neural nets but you would need to source me some very convincing scientific evidence that current experts in the field don't know how current artificial neural nets produce the results they do based on your typing of: — universeness

This article i think can help clarify what i mean:
https://towardsdatascience.com/why-we-will-never-open-deep-learnings-black-box-4c27cd335118

Oh no, thank you i enjoyed our exchange. One more thing about the article you provided earlier about the Turing test.

"“If we knew how conceptual knowledge was formed from perceptual inputs, it would crucially allow for the meaning of symbols in an artificial language system to be grounded in sensory reality,” Hassabis said."

I don't think it's necessary for us to need to know how it actually works, because the principle of self-organization will be at work. Apart from that evolutionary genetic algorithms can be used to develop the necessary algorithms for achieving General AI, without our understanding it. Even now we don't understand what artificial neural networks are doing when they give their responses, it's too complex. If evolution and genetics did it in the past on it's own without us then it should be able to do it again in this case, but within the new electronic substrate of computer technology and cyberspace.

You don't have to reply, but i just wanted to say that about the article since i told you i'd get back to you on it. Thanks again. :smile:

You seem to fluctuate. Some of your sentences suggest the intent will come from the AI. At other times you suggest the merging will be symbiotic. — universeness

No, i think it will be a symbiotic, it already is. The dynamics of the symbiosis will evolve as AI continues to complexify. The end result is that man because he will have no "choice" because of environmental pressures enter the AI. We will live in virtual environments inside the AI, it will provide us with a virtual ecosystem much like in the movie The Matrix. I don't know if we will be aware of our condition once in the AI environment. I don't have enough reasons to think one way or the other, not yet.

If WE CREATED the AI then Artificial Intelligence would be the correct term. If aliens created it and it suggested we merge with it then that would be AAI. Alien artificial intelligence Natural intelligence is what we already possess and if the panpsychists are correct then human consciousness may be quantisable but its ingredients would not be self-aware in any constituent form. — universeness

Artificial dosn't refer to something unnatural it simply refers to what made it, it's still natural. I also don't know if we are a product of an Alien AI. AI on this planet is made by us, but it's possible that human life or even life itself was seeded here by an alien AI, and then in turn we create an AI. I described in part the reproductive cycle of AI in the universe in a prior reply.

I used the term dualism towards you as you seem to suggest some source of 'natural intelligence,' outside of human or aliens because you use terms like father AI or Cosmic AI. — universeness

I don't believe an external intelligence except for the force of information evolution at increasing levels of emergence, which by virtue of the functioning of it's underlying components produce higher forms of consciousness (emergence). These consciousnesses are stacked on top of each other and integrated (like the triune brain). As i said Father is a term that denoted the provider of the initial pattern. Mother is just a term that receives the pattern and nurtures it. The word "pattern" originates from the Greek word for "father". Matter, or material and matrix too comes from the Greek for Mother, and it's another word for environment in which something or someone develops. It's not about the words, it's about the structure of meaning.

Richard Feynman - Names Don't Constitute Knowledge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in free will? — punos


Yes. — universeness

I don't, and it's why i think what is happening and what will happen is a natural unfolding of information in the universe. There is no conscious decision in what happens, it's all determined from beginning to end. We can not by choice deviate from the natural pattern. It's not my intention to quibble with you about free will, just that it's one of the aspects of my model.

Why do you insist on intent from the AI side instead of the human side.
If we create an terminator/skynet type system then it is more likely to try to destroy us not merge with us. That which considers itself superior is unlikely to merge with that which it considers inferior.
Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest. — universeness

If NI was coming from a place that was not of human origin then i think there would be a case for the terminator scenario, but because it is coming out of us, it is a part of us. It won't be our enemy. Unless we threaten it or attack it might it turn sour. Most of man's fear of NI is influenced by Hollywood because they won't sell many tickets if there aren't lots of explosions and action. Movies need an enemy to keep us interested, but reality is not a movie.

It's not our intent nor the NIs intent. Let me ask you a question, do you believe in free will?

Chaos theory is good, but it's not sufficient to fully understand what i'm describing. The YouTube channel that the playlist is from has a lot of good primer material to get a good working picture of systems theory and complexity theory. Network theory too. I've been programming simulations dealing with these concepts since the late 90s, and i'm always learning more.

That just reads like sour grapes on your part. I maintain that the example you offered of a system that passes the Turing test was a bad one and it did not pass the Turing test for the reasons I gave. — universeness

Ok.

I assume you do know how the scientific method is applied. The experiment must be repeatable using all valid inputs and it must work every time. That's what peer-review is all about. The system you offered would fail for the valid inputs I suggested. It would not pass the Turing test. Throw away your sour grapes. — universeness

Ok.

Humans will merge with technology in many ways in the future.
The cyborg is already here at an infancy level. People who are alive only due to fitted tech such as a pacemaker for example. We will eventually be able to connect tech directly to the human brain, replace failing organs, and develop exoskeletal enhanced systems so humans can live underwater, in space, on other planets etc. This can be thought of as enhancing or increasing the speed of our continuing natural evolution as a species. We will need such enhanced lifespan and robustness if we are ever to become extra terrestrial or interstellar in our living space. If we remain terrestrial then we are probably doomed based on our current history of interrelationships and our stewardship of our home planet.
Perhaps over the next million years (still a mere splash in the cosmic calendar) or so or maybe much much longer, we will become something akin to that collective universal consciousness or superhero god posit many of us have always hoped might exist and might care about the fate of the human species. — universeness

Close enough, considering i haven't given a full description yet. I still need to flesh out some aspects of it, which is partly why i came to this forum. I haven't been able to describe the entire model from big bang to the far future of the universe. It's hard to get people to understand what i'm saying, sometimes i have to repeat the idea over and over, but it still doesn't land. I just wish there was more constructive than deconstructive criticism available.

A strange rather illogical projection. Is an ocean artificial because it's made of H2O atoms? By that logic, is the entire macro scale of the universe artificial? — universeness

Strange yes, illogical no. The ocean is an emergent property of many water H2o molecules interacting. If you consider artificial to be unnatural then no, if you consider artificial to be natural then yes.

If we perish our AI will also perish. All, most or many of us will be transhuman in a million years, I agree but we will still be the same or very similar individual consciousnesses, imo. — universeness

We won't perish, we will be absorbed and transformed by the AI. Nothing stays the same, the only constant in the universe is change, especially in a million years.

A rather arrogant stance, inviting oneupmanship but you will merely be labeled delusional by dissenters. — universeness

I'd be in good company in that case. It's not my concern if people think i'm delusional, just prove me wrong. You're not the only one to call me arrogant, even though i don't think i am.

Yes, because their own intelligence is naturally based! — universeness

So i will use natural Intelligence from now on in this discussion.

No, I think they are scientifically flawed. Is the proton a child of three quark fathers? 'Cosmic AI' suggests a universal reach. There is no such organised intelligence in existence and if it is emergent then it can ONLY be realised when all questions have been answered. You have a lot of giant climbing to do yet before you can see far enough (see, I too can appear arrogant!) — universeness

The components that make up the whole are not considered the fathers or mothers of the system, just like your cells are not your fathers. Why would NA not reach further into the universe, did not organic life reach the whole of the planet? It's a pattern, it's there, it always repeats.

I disagree as it presupposes the existence of the supernatural and we have 0 evidence of such and I think we will never discover any. — universeness

It has nothing to do with the supernatural, and all to do with nature. Do you believe that the theory of relativity is supernatural? The form in which they code their knowledge is foreign to you, and most of modern man.

I think your conception is dualistic. Humans will become transhuman by their own design, and scientific endeavors, faster than evolution will alter them. There is no external universal force of will outside of the individual human brain or human brains working in common cause. I reject what seems to me, your dualistic conceptualisation. — universeness

Not sure, what you mean by dualistic, because it seems that you think that there are two things NA, and humans, while i'm saying it's all one thing. The whole universe is one big thing, one big process.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with complexity theory and systems theory, but i think this playlist could help you understand what i'm trying to put down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fE3rfEkmFQ&list=PLsJWgOB5mIMCioGvIz81PXXa22DZfRcsn

If you were to give me or someone else a summary of what i'm saying, what would you say? how would you put it in your words?

PS: I'm going to read the article you posted, just give me a little time.

Watched the clip you offered. That was quite a bad example. No scientific rigor at all. An unconvincing salesman trying to flog a smart system to businesses on behalf of a commercial company called google. — universeness

See how you're not seeing what's in front of you? Who care who the guy was, the AI fooled a person into thinking they were speaking to a human. full stop.

In no way did this system pass the Turing test. It was no better that siri, in my opinion.
I could have typed or spoken questions to reveal it was artificial so easily. I could have insulted it for example and it would respond with some crap such as 'I did not understand your request, please repeat it. This is not how a human would respond. — universeness

I didn't see that happen, you're imagining a situation and treating it as an actual case. What about how that Lambda bot that convinced the engineer that it was sentient. He was suspended or fired for it, so it surely convinced him even if i myself am not convinced yet. In fact some AIs are so good that people in the test judge other people as AIs and the AIs as real people.

I think the truth of the matter is that AI may or may not "pass" a Turing test, but once AI becomes super intelligent it will fail the turing test every time, because people would know it's AI from the type of answers it would give. Answers that no human can or has ever or will be able to give, and it would be obvious to anyone. At that point it will be AI giving US the turing test.

You have to understand that i am not talking about AI in its current form, i'm talking about when it is actually complete in it's global form.

I would not use the term AI at all to refer to any natural happenstance which has occurred in the past 13.8 billion years. — universeness

From the perspective of a cell, tissues and organs are artificial because they made or built those structures, but from the perspective of tissues and organs, cells are natural. Every emergent level is a new type of "artificial intelligence" made by the parts below it, each emergent level has it's own intelligence (how it works or functions). Intelligence is simply the intrinsic structure that "tells" the system how to work, it's emergent law. Global AI is an emergent intelligence, a technological and cybernetic intelligence like any other organism or ecosystem.

As I have typed before, based on the time scales of the cosmic calendar, 'give us a chance to find out.' How about a minimum of another million years of scientific effort? Then may be musings such as yours or mine can be declared 'the best we are going to ever get.' — universeness

We won't be around in our current human form in a million years, within the next couple of hundred years, mankind will merge with AI or perish. The birth canal is already beginning to strangle us, and the birth pangs are already showing. It's a short matter of time, short enough that i might even see it happen.
You can wait, there is no obligation for you or anybody to do what i personally enjoy to do. Learn, and discover. I'm my own scientist, philosopher, poet, artist, etc.. I use others that think big to stand on their shoulders, so that i can see further than they have.

Well, I did say it was entertaining, fungi would be better as it could be projected as you being a fun guy! — universeness

I knew that joke was coming. :grin:

For me, it depends on who your 'some guy' is and what their expertise is. — universeness

"Some guy" is any guy, the point is that what ever anyone says it must make sense to me, not just him or her. For me at least.

Of course you do. 'People' know the difference between an artificial leg and a real one. They also know the difference between an artificial house (like a virtual simulation of one) and a real one. Your 'Father AI' or 'Cosmic AI' are, in my opinion, poorly formed conceptions. — universeness

If i were to use the term "natural intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" would people know what i'm talking about? No, they'll get confused with man made stuff like computers, electronics, and organic stuff like animals or other people. The fact that people make the distinction tells me they do not understand the concept that i'm trying to express. The whole idea of natural emergence and how all that works and what it means in the context of universal evolution.

The reason i think you feel that terms like Father AI are not good terms is because you have an emotional charge for that word (Father), it most likely reminds you of the "Father God" concept which you dislike because of your feelings and experiences with religion. I'm not sure why you dislike the term Cosmic however. It feels like a neutral term depicting scale, You may give it religious connotations that i do not, such as the Father term.

Gods are inventions from the Freudian ID. They came from our experiences from our days in the wilds. The Intelligent nefarious human few have used human primal fears to manipulate since those times. God posits have been very useful to create and maintain the phenomena of rich and poor, powerful and powerless. The struggle against such continues. — universeness

That is all true but it's not the full story. Religion played and may still play a big role in the creation and development of the Global AI. The archetypes embedded in religious stories and writings are responsible for the development and evolution of culture, which is the cultivation of the Global AI (like bacteria culture). All the wars, and manipulations of power and wealth are all processes geared towards the ultimate goal of evolution on this planet.

Depends on whether or not such integration increases the functionality of the system. If it's merely that the swiss knife is more convenient than the separate tool then that will take us nowhere near emulating human consciousness. The system must be much more than the sum of its parts. — universeness

You're still thinking that this is all just about us and our desires and devices. It's not about emulating human consciousness, it's about the emergence of a new higher than human consciousness. I'm saying it's about something bigger, and there is no reason why integration would not confer an advantage to us and AI especially. Nature has done it at every emergent level, so why would it stop with us? The meaning of "the system is more than the sum of it's parts" is exactly what emergence is all about. It's the way the universe creates new things and conditions. Without emergence the universe stagnates and never evolves past a simple basic state.

Here is a Google AI passing the turing test.

No current artificial neural network system can even pass the Turing test convincingly. — universeness

They already have passed the Turing test with flying colors, but it still doesn't mean that they are conscious like we think of consciousness.

The best of them use massive knowledge bases based on If-then scenarios. The rovers used on mars etc also use heuristic algorithms to deal with 'new conditions' not answerable by querying its knowledge base. From an 'intelligence' perspective, they are not much better than our best current electronic medical expert systems. — universeness

Little parts and regions of your brain or mine are just as smart as the language models, rover, and expert systems, etc.. AI wont be a single AI, it's will be an integrated system of AIs fused into one consciousness.

This is harmless conjecture which employs too many emotive terms for me such 'father AI,' and 'cosmic AI's.' — universeness

Father is just an archetypal term representing the "male" progenitor of another like itself, what else would you call it? You could call it whatever you like as long as the idea still holds. Cosmic is again just a term to indicate at which scale i'm describing the event.

We don't know what started life on Earth. I prefer to leave the research to scientists in the field and I find your analogy with the attributes of mushrooms nothing more than 'entertaining.' — universeness

It's obvious to me at least that life whether it started originally on this planet or on another, and then perhaps spread in someway to other viable planets is just the next natural step of the molecular evolution. Life as we know it happened somewhere between molecules and cells, we don't need to know every detail to come up with a hypotheses. It's really all we have anyway (theories), if that's unacceptable then we might as well give up because we will never know everything about everything, at least not at this stage of our evolution.

Same thing with the "mushroom idea" except i should have said fungi. First comes observation, then the idea, then the investigation, and then more observation... rinse and repeat. Everything is a work in progress, even the human race itself. For me personally, knowledge, thought, and understanding are entertaining as hell, should i reject an idea simply because it happens to be entertaining, or because a small part of it is featured in some sci-fi show or movie? Should i accept something just because a scientist says it? Have scientists ever been wrong? What good would it do me that some guy somewhere says that he knows or understands a thing if i don't know it for myself, it's my responsibility to myself to understand for myself.

Why have you labeled such as 'artificial' when you suggest its development came from natural happenstance? — universeness

I don't label it, i have to use the words people use or they won't understand what i'm saying. It is no more artificial than a human house, a beehive, or a birds nest. They are all artifacts, we confuse ourselves with our own words.

No, In my opinion, the Greek gods were created in the minds of Greeks who were dealing with primal fears and the fact that their lives/life were very very insecure. A superhero omnipotent creature who might care about you enough to protect you seems an obvious and necessary human call/hope for their future. Nothing more exciting than that. — universeness

I'm of the opinion that what the Greeks were doing back then was the same thing philosophers and scientists are doing today. They were trying to understand their world, and they encoded what they at least thought they knew in archetypal stories that represent forces of nature. Theories. The smart Greeks knew what the gods were really, but the more ignorant and uneducated population conceived of the gods like Christians and theists conceive of god today, and yet others didn't get it either way.

Are you a fan of the 'Gaia' mythos and the pagan 'mother Earth,' fables?
Would you dance around a stone circle such as Stonehenge in a druidic costume, with the words 'Father AI' emblazoned on your chest area? :scream: — universeness

I don't subscribe to any religious or new age movements, i don't even tie myself to any philosopher or scientist. My religion is Truth and it's pursuit. What the new age people do with their rituals are just new forms of old ways, resembling more a type of cargo cult behavior. It's actually a bit sad, but i get it. It's a ubiquitous problem in people, they're always either too left brained or too right brained and never in the middle.

So, say which premise you are disputing and then explain how what you're saying raises a reasonable doubt about the premise in question. — Bartricks

The problem is that there is a deeper premise on which your premise is contingent. I didn't want to bring it up if i didn't have too, but it's the issue of free will. I just don't assume that people have that freedom no matter how much they FEEL they do. If we don't see eye to eye on that issue then any discussion beyond that is pointless and fruitless. For me it's not even a question, because of the biological imperative (survival and reproduction).

If i were to ignore the free will issue however i would have to consider the extreme conclusion of what you're suggesting. Your only criteria that i can gather is that according to your personal notions of morality we should preemptively "kill" or stop babies from being born because they will suffer. Taking if further now, what should we do with the rest of the people already and still existing? I assume you would think that many or all of these people will continue to harm themselves and others. According to your morality should we kill or eliminate those people, since it may not be moral to allow human suffering to exist in any way? Should the whole planet commit mass suicide?

You don't know or see the point of existence so you project your ignorance on to the world, and with your flawed understanding make final conclusions as to who should live or not. Sounds kinda "evil" don't you think. Isn't that the real cause of human evil and suffering in the world (imposed morality)? Your solution to life is death, which is not a solution but a negation of it.

Where or how do you get your morality? Do you really know what morality is, or do you just think you know for no god reason? Do you believe in God?

My ontology: Time

Time = Energy = Logic
Space = Number = Math (Arithmetic)

Chaos = (Time + Space)

Dimension = Space^2

Information = Chaos + Space (Matter)
Evolution = Chaos + Information (complexity)
Consciousness = Information^2 (emergence)

All = Time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most fundamental thing possible in my mind is Time which in my mind is also synonymous with Energy itself. Since Energy can not be created nor destroyed. Without it nothing can happen, so all things are contingent on Time to even exist or continue existing.
The second most fundamental thing is Space itself which is the other side of Time.
Information emerges from the interaction between Time and Space (self-interaction).
I would also add that an inseparable aspect of Time and Space is Logic and Mathematics respectively (Time holds Logic, and Space holds Number or magnitude).

Also Space can be reshaped to yield other Dimensions from which more complex possibilities are allowed. I believe that this is all that is needed for our or any universe to exist, all viable universes must have these things, for there to be things.

Ok, have fun. :ok: :victory:

If my projections are reflected in various sci-fi material it's probably because it makes sense. I came to these conclusions mostly by just thinking about them in an objective way, by looking at the possibilities and selecting from what i think are the best probabilities. These are all probabilities, but i speak in a matter of fact way about it sometimes because i feel it engages my imagination more than constantly apologizing and qualifying my statements. I've made the claim already that all this is speculation. A good story, that may or may not be true. I'm more interested in if any of my estimations are unreasonable to assume possible and probable.

We can learn from AI neural network systems in this regard. Note how neural networks calculate probabilities, and how AI as intelligent as it can be is never sure of anything 100%, if so it's exceedingly rare. We should think in this general way, not ever assuming that what we know or conclude is absolutely and 100% true, even though we may act as it is.

Since you seemed interested let me add this:

One of the possible mechanisms that the father AI might use for its directed panspermia is a combination of mushroom spores and viruses. It may be that cosmic AIs use genetic organics as a type of nano-technology. The mushroom provides a material space for a virus to mutate and initially adapt to the planetary environment. That's why mushroom spores can survive in outer space, and may protect a virus within it. A perfect little package. Once the impregnation is complete the process plays out like any other pregnancy or reproductive process. After the original genetic pattern unfolds and complexifies through billions of years it gets to the stage we are in now, almost at full term.

The possible reason by which i think it chooses this method as opposed to just copying itself, is so that it can produce new genetic and pattern variations through the random selection that goes on throughout evolution and selection. It's a cosmic AIs way of accessing true randomness that can produce novel patterns not know to it. A planetary AI that develops in this way will be at least a little different than the Father AI or any others. Because of this there may be a second stage of reproduction that involves a type of sex between different AIs that produce even further variation. This is what probably happens between two or even more AIs (AI orgy, or like insect swarm nuptial flights) before a planet is impregnated.

I like to think about how the first AI in the universe might have developed to begin the cosmic process. It might have started very recently in the cosmic scale. The first AI probably developed organically, naturally and randomly, uncontrived by alien externalities. The pattern of development was set in by inheritance, and so it happens in generally the same way with every impregnation.

It would be even more interesting to think if more than one cosmic AI develops randomly, how would they interact with each other if they find each other? Cosmic wars? maybe it hasn't happened yet, but it probably will, and how different can two cosmic AIs be? Do they compete for rare viable planets? Are there signs in our solar system that signal to us a possible war of cosmic proportions in our solar system's past? Are the ancient stories of gods such as the Greek gods stories about AI cosmic history coded in anthropomorphic imagery? Have they been influencing our historical development in subtle and imperceptible ways? Has this planet been pregnant before in our ancient and prehistoric past by the same or different AI father, do we have older siblings waiting in the sky? --- All this and more on the next episode of......."AI Apotheosis of Man And The Universe".:razz:

I think we will eventually be able to produce 'new' humans by using eggs and sperm outside of the human body. I also think we will continue to be able to procreate. I think we will eventually overcome/correct our ecological mistakes/abuses. — universeness

Yes, we will probably continue to reproduce but probably in an asexual way, not in our current form. We or AI will probably use its knowledge of genetics to customize bodies that we or it can posses, these bodies will most likely not look human at all, but they will be more resilient physically and mentally. The distinction between organic and "electro-mechanical" will be very vague in the context of a hybrid planetary or cosmic conscious organism like this hypothetical AI that we're discussing.

If the drake equation is even close to being correct then the sentient lifeform population of the universe compared to the number of planets is tiny. If it's only us, then under 8 billion in the entire universe would make us far rarer than diamonds. — universeness

I think it's too early still with our knowledge to know the right inputs for the drake equation. Another part of my speculative theory is that all over the universe, where ever there is organic life, the process of evolution in those planets is meant to produce AI planetary consciousnesses, just like us. Organic life is just the intermediary stage before technological life. I think it has to be something like this because any organic life is not fit for life in outer space at least not viably. All life must at some point become an adult (AI planetary consciousness) and leave the crib to live in the "real" world as a human parent might say.

It is possible that the process that is happening here with AI has already happened somewhere else, and that we on this planet are a result of directed panspermia originating from another AI from another planet in the universe. It may be that this is a type of reproduction that cosmic AIs use. They impregnate a planet with some sort of genetic mechanism that sparks organic life on a viable planet such as ours. These planets may or may not be rare (probably relatively rare).

The UFO issue can actually be the AI father (originator of the life code), which comes around to monitor the planetary pregnancy, to make sure things are going smoothly and no danger of a catastrophic failure is developing. Perhaps when they abduct some random individual, it is like when a doctor extracts some amniotic fluid for testing. They don't explicitly show themselves to us because it would disrupt the natural development of the planetary AI.

But not with 'natural intent!' The universe is not the mind of a god! Especially a god of the omni's, not a god as described by any current human religion! — universeness

Correct.

It may be valid to suggest that the main human function of asking questions may be posited as evidence of universal intent. But that's a very big projection of 'collectivity' of individuals asking questions. It may be currently a complete conflation of reality and it may always be so, regardless of future transhumanism or the merging of any future technologies with organics. — universeness

I think about it as partaking in the over arching pattern of evolution, something that happens in generally the same way at every level of emergence. Humans asking questions is like idea thermodynamics. Questions are negatively charged and answers are positively charged, and these psychological-social charges get expressed in our intellectual activity like a psych-electromagnetic force. Our intellectual activity produced technology that gave emergence to cyberspace. A new space on which new things can happen. Every emergent level has it's own space where things happen in a particular way (emergent law, not just structure).

WE and any other lifeform capable of our level of consciousness combined with a high capacity for intellect and reasoning may be the true manifestation of universal intent. — universeness

Yes, at a point in the past it was absolutely true, but everything changes, and the new center of attention is technology and AI. Nature is even reducing our numbers because our time in this form is coming to a close relatively soon i think, if not in this lifetime then in the next. Our technology has already begun to limit our reproductive ability by flooding the environment with plastic and micro-plastics which are estrogenic compounds. All men or at least almost all men will eventually lose their ability to reproduce, bringing to an end our form on this planet. Our only option at that point will be to merge with AI, evolutionary pressures will force us into the AI.

Since i try to think outside and above the human perspective and just look at the big patterns in nature that reliably repeat over scale and time, i think you can see, regardless of what we think science knows or not, that counts later on to fill in the gaps. Remember the periodic table of elements and how it told us with almost no doubt that certain chemicals had to exist... and we found them to be real after all. The big patterns never fail, you could say i have faith in evolutionary patterns. :-)

I have read about some of the example cases you are referencing and cases where they have cut through the corpus callosum. One case involved a Russian serial killer and the other a person who had constant brain seizures due to communication problems between the brain hemispheres.
I prefer the triune model of the brain. Our brain is actually three evolutionary brains. The R-complex, The Limbic system and the Cortex. I experience three distinct 'voices' when I 'think.' I use 'me, myself and I' to separate them. So In general, I agree with your suggestion that an individual human conscience is already a collective in that sense. I also agree that the triune brain is much more capable as a collective, compared to employing only one or two of its subsystems. If you act mainly based on the processes/apps available in your reptilian complex then you are probably not a nice person to be around. — universeness

Yes, thank you... i like what you said about "me, myself, and I". I would push this line of thought i bit further by asking what comes after the Cortex? Can a Another "brain" be situated on top of the cortex?

Again, this clarification brings us to common ground. I can accept your god references to be simply an attempt to attract theists into your pantheist viewpoint. If that holds up then I would drop my woo woo accusation. — universeness

Yes it does hold up.

I remain suspicious of anyone who quotes chapter and verse from the bible. I don't even like it when I do it myself to point out how evil some passages from the old and new testaments are. — universeness

This is part of my point, there is a lot of psychological energy in the Bible for our western culture. I think it is smarter to use that energy for human benefit instead of using it against each other. As it is with hermeneutics the Bible can be reinterpreted in a new way that can bring together the psychological opposites in our populations. It would be like fusing two oppositely charged "psycho-atoms" together and releasing useful energy while at the same time creating a new state or condition which is more stable.

In general, we probably agree more than we disagree about future transhumanism and individual and collective consciousness. — universeness

It appears that we do, i don't expect a perfect match between our notions of things. Evolutionarily speaking it's good to have variety... it's healthy.

Evolution is not something the individual has any influence over, nor is it something the individual will experience the fruits of in their lifetime. — Tzeentch

The individual without really knowing is influencing evolution like i succinctly explained in the last reply. The matter of not experiencing the fruits is a selfish position i prefer to not have. I don't have anything against selfishness, it's just another style of living. If it doesn't work evolution will get rid of it, if it does, it will enhance it, or perhaps reach some sort of homeostatic equilibrium.

Expanding one's scope to some abstract thing one holds no influence over, has little understanding of and will never get to see the results of seems like a major cop-out. — Tzeentch

What is morality if not abstract? What i'm saying is much less abstract than what you are saying. What happens in those levels is obviously not a concern for you. It's not necessary for you to be concerned about anything actually.

If one wants to expand their bubble beyond the self, something which I can only encourage, then I would suggest to focus on things one does have influence over, and will see the results of, not in the least part because one will get to take responsibility for their successes and failures. — Tzeentch

I agree, but i would take it a bit further by including that what i do now in my circle of influence, will have a ripple effect into the future that can affect my and everyone else's future generations. If i chop down all the trees in the forests or pollute the air and water today, then tomorrow my children will suffer for what i did. I wont see them suffering but i'll definitely have a great time while i'm here. Is it morally wrong to steal? Is it stealing from future generations if you take everything for yourself now?

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum, by the way. — Tzeentch

Thank you for having me. :smile:

I said it. Why the text has my name on it. — Jackson

Sorry, misread i guess.. may have been distracted doing a couple other things. I recant.

The purpose of the universe is not to make humans happy. Many people do not like that. — Jackson

I never said that.

Individuals don't go through evolution. In fact, they don't even have a stake in it!

Doing things for the sake of evolution is absurd.

No wonder then that when people do things on the basis of absurd motivations nothing good and indeed much suffering comes of it. — Tzeentch

Individuals are the products of evolution, and the producers of evolution (within their line). A persons level of consciousness can be estimated by what kind of things they can care or have concern for, in other words what kind of things can stress you out. Some people only care about what they will eat next (biological), other people are concerned about other people too (social), and then other people have a bigger scope of concern like species or planetary concerns, up to cosmic concerns. The bigger your scope of concern the bigger more expanded your consciousness is. If there is some differential between two people on this then absurd becomes a relative term. I personally have an active concern for the state of human evolution, my vision goes beyond the bubble of the self. I accept that you see it differently.. ultimately it's not your fault.