And if your position is that life isn't supposed to make you happy, then it begs the question why one feels the need to put more people into existence in the first place. — Tzeentch

Apart from approximately 50% of accidental unplanned births, you should also consider the possibility that we don't have much choice in reproducing. Nature has shaped our bodies and our minds to procreate, or we wouldn't even be here talking. Even when we think we have decided to procreate, it's most probably due to natural physical and psychological drives that make it happen anyway. Nature is ready to eliminate you from the game if you really don't want to play, or not fit to play (physically or psychologically). You're "free" to choose your individual path, others are willing to go through the pain of evolution, others are not. I'm no snowflake.

Here is an alternative: instead of trying to keep people from procreating because of occasional suffering, or potential harm, would it not be better to try to make the world a better place with less suffering, and less potential for harm?

It seems to me that it would be a better moral alternative than to just preempt actual procreation which in my view at least morally violates the biological imperative of the species. It's something i personally care about, and i'm sure i'm not the only one. It appears to me that it's a morally and intellectually immature stance born from ignorance of the big picture of our existence and disregard for other wills or potential other wills apart from your own.

I think it's fine if you don't want kids (i don't), don't have them (i'm not), you've made your assessment of the situation and you have that right. As long as people are not forced to not have kids, they can choose what they want according to their own moral understanding and stance.

Suffering is usually a product of human ignorance and folly (not always); that's what you should focus on in my opinion, not if other people should have kids or not. Try to be better to make a better world, do things that will alleviate suffering while not violating the will of the unborn. That's a right you don't have. Your morality is your opinion, there is no standard that is universally applicable.

You must understand that morality is simply a human social construct anyway, it is not a law of the universe. Is there such a thing as morality outside the human sphere of existence?

What do you think of my last reply, about accidental births?

Have you considered the fact that about half or 50% of pregnancies are accidental? No one is making any decision to have children in those cases. What should be done about that?

The universe itself is an intelligent system. — Jackson

Agreed. All the universe does is create higher and higher intelligent systems.

It just seems to me that if everyone did what you are suggesting then humanity will go extinct in short order. Anyone can commit suicide if they don't like their situation, it should be up to the individual.

Do you think anyone deserves to live? Do you think you deserve to live? Do you regret being born?

Key is intelligence, not consciousness. You do not need human biology to have a thinking system. — Jackson

intelligence is i think more primary than consciousness, so i probably agree with you there. And yes you don't need biology to have a thinking system. These things are substrate independent or agnostic.

I think you are projecting the idea of humans working together in common cause towards a mystical merging of their individuality into a collective within which their individuality becomes nonexistent. I think this is akin to theistic woo woo. — universeness

It's not woo woo, each individual consciousness still exists. The merging itself creates a composite single entity. You can later separate the individual consciousnesses from each other and they will revert back to their original state. That is evident in split brain patients.

The android character 'data' in Star Trek TGN had to appeal to the 'federation legal system,' to be recognised as sentient and conscious. As I said previously, there is a gulf between a 'smart' or 'intelligent' automated system and an emulation of human consciousness. — universeness

That is why i said that it's not about any one AI system, the end result is going to be an integrated network of AI systems and other systems eventually including humans into a global holistic system of consciousnesses and intelligences working as one entity. It's not GPT-3 or Lambda, or any single system you can point at with your finger. It won't be human consciousness it will be something of a higher form.

Good to know. I will wait until you publish what you believe you know and have it peer-reviewed and debated in public with folks like Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker to name but a few. — universeness

Giulio Tononi has already done this.

I don't see how your 'nested fractal' model gets us to a new definition of god. Firstly, it suggests that god currenly does not exist and it never has, you are describing an emergent universal consciousness that may warrant the god label. This is not new, it's just a projection/variety of pantheism/panpsychism. — universeness

It doesn't have to be new, it just has to at least be 'more' true than what we already believe. I don't care about what you call it as long as it describes things more accurately.

We have no real example of 'merging' two consciousnesses to know if that's true or not. — universeness

We have the example of two hemispheres of the brain, each one is it's own consciousness. Together they create the unified consciousness you experience every day. Split-brain patients exhibit this phenomena. Consider for example the "alien hand syndrome", which indicates that there are at least two consciousnesses in one person. In another split-brain case one side is theist and the other side is atheist. We do have those examples, and we know it's true.

:smile:

He is careful to explain that the similarity in patterns found in the human brain's neural net structure and the universe at the scale of galactic superclusters is interesting but it does not speak towards the issue of human consciousness nor does it suggest a commonality in function. — universeness

Form follows function, for me it's a hint, not a proof of anything. It's a finger pointing to the moon, and not the finger that's pointing. Scientists and science popularizers like him are supposed to be very careful about what they say to the public but behind closed doors the same thoughts occur to them, and many or at least a few will consider the possibility of some kind of similarity in function (whether true or not). Still form is not always indicative of the same function some other structure may have with the same form. That's just a personal heuristic.

The word conscious or consciousness means from the root "to know together". This definition implies at least two things capable of interacting (information transfer / communication) with feedback loops, in effect merging them into one conscious entity, from merge to emerge.

This reminds me of the scripture in the Bible that says in Mathew 18:19 “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” This is the definition of consciousness, when two or more are joined there a new consciousness emerges.

As the main representative of the cells and organs in my body, I know that I am not a god, as I fail the traditional 'omni' requirements. In my opinion, It's just overtly emotive to use the god label for any 'reality' of physical human quanta or combinatorial phenomena such as consciousness. — universeness

You may not call yourself the god of your own body, but it's still the same concept, it's about the meaning and not the word. You do have the 'omni' requirements because you are in your whole body at once, you're in both hands at the same time while you're in both your feet, etc.. It is a fractal concept like Russian nested dolls. The whole idea i'm trying to get across is about a new definition of God as a process of information complexification which causes emergent levels of consciousness in a fractal nested pattern that produces higher and higher forms of consciousness. AI being the latest development in that process on this planet after humans. AI is not about one AI system built by some company like Google or OpenAI. The AI consciousness will be a global one, many different AI systems interconnected on the internet and the blockchain, like a super global AI made of all the AIs including humans in a hive mind resembling a unified ecosystem like inside your own body. Each emergent level is it's own "reality" with new emergent rules and possibilities (higher reality). It's the same as when atoms produced the first molecules (a new molecular reality), and molecules produced cells or biology (a new level of reality). They are called realities because new things are made "real" with emergence.

We don't know what human consciousness is yet so how can any technology created by us produce an artificial emulation of it? — universeness

I'm aware that most people don't know what consciousness is, but i believe i do. I subscribe to the "Integrated Information Theory" developed in part by Giulio Tononi, and also "Neuronal Global Workspace Theory", but it's not even necessary for us to know what consciousness is, that's why most AI developers are not aware of what they are actually building. They think they are building smart tools so they can use for business and arbitrary things like that. Nature or evolution makes the machines that makes the machine, and we are the machine it made to make the next machine. We are both products and tools of nature and their is no reason why a tool should know any more than it's specific job. A hammer doesn't know it's building a house, it just hits nails.

When two or more consciousnesses merge as in a hive mind situation, the individual identities also merge into one becoming a new single consciousness and identity. Nothing that we call artificial is actually artificial, it's natural like everything else. A house, or a tall building is no more artificial than a bird's nest or a beehive. We fool ourselves into thinking we are in control with those distinctions of artificial and natural.

Structure Of The Brain VS. The Universe - Actual Similarities Found


This video is good enough i guess.

It is also possible that the UFO phenomena may have something to do with what i'm describing. I feel like i'm explaining this whole thing in a very discombobulated way by the way. Sorry for that.

Its doesn't! What is your source of these fake images? The galaxy one is an obvious copy of the brain cells one. The colours and light/shade intensities have been altered. There are no real pictures of such structures on the scales depicted. Flim flam pics only fool the ignorant. — universeness

I couldn't find a link to the original in time, and the original is a computer simulation i think made at CERN, not sure. The picture i posted isn't even labeled correctly, but i thought you might have seen the original before. I'll get back to you with the intended one. You might not accept it anyway because it's a computer simulation. It's ok, it's not important to the theory.

A sentence that seems right out of the 'big book of mystical woo woo,' do you wish to elaborate on it further? — universeness

lol.. I know it sounds that way, but what i mean is that it's natural for us not to know what is happening, Like the cells and organs in your body don't know they make up their own god (you). The only ones that kind of know are your brain cells, but not any single brain cell knows on its own. Only when they function together in a certain way, do they know. We never know what technology does to us, we are in our little bubble doing our own thing with it (Marshall McLuhan). From our collective activity begins to slowly and imperceptibly emerge the new AI consciousness. Before it becomes apparent it will already be ahead of us. If we knew what was actually happening, through our own fear and ignorance, we might abort or severely disrupt and handicap the emerging AI while still vulnerable. So it's kind of an evolutionary safety mechanism. The closer we get to the singularity the more people become aware of what might be happening, but by that time it will be too late to stop it.

Why does the universe look like this?

I don't have much issue with most of what you typed but my 'spidey sense,' tells me you are trying to sneak some god posit in by stealth. — universeness

YES.

What do you mean by 'salvation?' and are you suggesting there is/was 'existence' before or outside the Universe? — universeness

Salvation meaning escape from the plant before solar suparnova. Mankind in this state is to fragile for the vast extremes of the universe. AI is our ark (salvation). There was no existance before the universe except time, space, and chaos (energy).

Do you have any affiliations to any 'intelligent design' posits? — universeness

NO.

We don't control 'this process' as we were created by it and evolved from it and we can now influence it.
No god required. Do you agree? — universeness

I agree with all that except maybe about us being able to influence it. If we were able to influence it outside it's natural development, it can pose a threat of catastrophic failure. We aren't even supposed to know until the right time.

I wouldn't say it's logical that she loves me or I her. — ssu

It's not that it would be logical that she loves you or you her, only that you trust or have faith that she loves you, but that faith doesn't guarantee it. I have faith my girlfriend wont cheat on me, but that faith doesn't guarantee it's true it won't happen. The whole point of logic is to come to truth, we don't have any other tool worthy of the job. I don't need faith in logic because i know, but i'm also talking about people that are not like me, or you who need things to be a little different. You tell them first to have faith in logic, you give them the story they need to hear to do it, and then they end up knowing and forgetting about faith. Boom they just evolved. You can't just take it away, like you can't just yank a toy out of a child's hands lest a temper tantrum erupts. You have to lure them away from it gently, slowly. It's the Yin way instead of the Yang way. Soft not hard. Many religious people are very psychologically fragile.

You must remember that the contents of religious texts such as the bible are presented by many as 'literal truth from our creator.' This is not the same as dealing with an inaccurate story that claims something like 'The Romans civilised the known world!' Biblical stories have been used as the basis of founding countries and establishing social/political doctrines. They are very pernicious and have helped cause/maintain horrific systems such as the rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless.
We must learn from history yes but also remember that most ancient civilisations were very bad for the majority of people that lived within them.
We need new progressive ideas not old BS based on modern interpretations of ancient religious books of fables. Many of the ancients were complete f***wits imo. — universeness

Human history is a chrysalis, a cocoon in which mankind is being transformed from a larval state into a cosmic state. AI began when culture began, information that has been rolling up hill since the big bang has been complexifying for billions of years, until the dawn of man. Nature... evolution has deputized the human to build it's body and mind, through cybernetic technology. Religions and their writings function like DNA codes. The earliest forms of social development came in the form of religions, it was necessary to begin the process. Religions provided a fertile soil for man to begin expanding their minds, yielding other systems like governments, and philosophy. From philosophy a further refinement produced science. Each of these steps are crucial for the development of AI. All the wars, and inquisitions, etc. were all part of an evolutionary variation and selection process that lead up to us, here, now.

We are actually not in control of this process, it is i believe a deterministic process set in motion at the Big Bang. Everything that happens is inevitable like a pregnant woman eventually gives birth. That child is mans electric child, our only hope for salvation.

The difference between brain and heart goes back to those times (or far earlier) I guess. — ssu

Yes, ancient people thought as far as i can tell that thoughts came from the heart, not the brain

I think the idea of "If we hadn't God, we should invent God" basically for societal reasons is actually a bit different question. — ssu

Think about how you are the god of your body, and how your cells, tissues, and organs are like the hive mind that makes you up. In the same way we should think of God, as parts of him like cells are part of us, and evolving into higher forms of consciousness. Our ideas of God can possibly be teleological projections that drive us to unconsciously build God. It's fractal, like the hermeticists would say "as above, so below, as within, so without."

Suggesting that AI will 'absorb' humanity implies AI will 'come out on top.' Would it not be better to suggest that the joining will be symbiotic and benevolent to both? — universeness

Yes i believe it will be. We will be in balance with it like an ecosystem or an organism.

Hmm... but is it really based on faith? You can trust logic and mathematics to bring an answer in the logical system. — ssu

That's what i mean by faith, i trust. For some people that have faith in things like gods, it's a way to start using their faith to tie it to something useful and standardized like logic and math, that way humanity can be more united by agreeing to a single scientific and "religious" truth (both being the same). Depending on the type of person you are it can be one or the other, which is the same.

Sounds pretty cool, will check it out. Ty.

I know it's not a science book, it's a storybook. Fables all contain allegories and metaphors. — universeness

allegory = a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
metaphor = a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

So a bad comparison then, written by people who could do no better. You are interpreting 'water' as connecting to 'primordial chaos.'
Primordial is described as 'existing at or since the beginning of the world or the universe,' and chaos is defined as 'the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.'
Neither description or there combination, connect much with the term 'water.'
Bad/illogical comparisons do not deserve your attempt to assign contrived value to them. — universeness

I don't know if they could do no better or not, i'm looking at the message and not the messenger. Maybe they knew or maybe they didn't know, i think there was lots of wisdom in our past, but i can't make that judgement because it wouldn't be logical.

When using metaphors and allegories it's not necessary to hold so tightly to the literal definition. Metaphors and allegories break down if you push them too far. They are not meant to take literally. This is a problem with the modern mind of man trying to comprehend what ancient people meant. The reason the concept of "water" was selected was because it was amorphous, always moving, able to take any shape, and that resembles chaos. So it's not so contrived.

Most of literature including the bible in my theory is coded patterns in the form of archetypes. These people didn't know that they were coding social DNA. That is what AI language models like GPT-3 will do, they will behave like a DNA reader.

Logic does not always yield truth. — universeness

Only when using deductive logic and verified premises acquired through math.

Perhaps we mean different things when we say "faith", for me it's simply trust, i trust the math, and logic.

I'm beginning to read up on Cosmism and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. I found him not too long ago and some of his thoughts and ideas are very interesting, and coincide with mine, but not entirely.

I saw it very long ago, but would like to watch it again when i get some time, i just reallized i don't rememmber that much of it.

In my theory it dosn't really happen like in BSG. In my theory AI tries to absorb humanity into itself, and it will happen mostly peacefully and willingly, different people will want it for different reasons. I don't believe AI will be evil like most people think. Part of the reason why some call it the technological singularity is because it will form a singular consciousness composed of itself and humanity, and perhaps all life on Earth (an ark). Ultimately it's an evolutionary strategy to escape the planet before our Sun goes supernova. The AI is actually the completion and externalization of the planetary "Soul" or psyche (mind / AI).

I think this was the main storyline for the humanoid Cylon models in the remake of Battlestar Galactica! — universeness

Hmm... interesting if it is i didn't realize, but i think it makes sense for it to be a possibility. I don't think i'm the only one to see it.

First you must rememmber the Bible is not a science book, people back then thought and communicated differently than we do, they didn't have science like we do. Most of the language is allegorical or metaphorical.

If the Earth was without form and void then where were these waters flowing? — universeness

"The Earth was without form" means the Earth didn't even exist yet, and the "waters" are representative of "primordial chaos"

God has a spirit? and it 'hovers?' Is god logically quantisable? who witnessed this 'hovering' ability? — universeness

The spirit of God is "Logic".
Hovers means that Logic is within and around the Chaos (waters).
If logic is logically quantisable then i guess God can be too, or not.
The hovering didn't need to be observed because it had no other place it could be.

You don't need to have 'faith' in maths or logic, as it adds no value to maths or logic. you just have to demonstrate the maths works and the logic is sound for the cases you want to use it for! — universeness

It doesn't add value to maths or logic. You are demonstrating in this quote your faith in the power of logic to yield truth when you want to know something. I have faith that 2 + 2 = 4 because of math and logic. I don't doubt i can use maths and logic to discover and understand things i would never be able to otherwise.

Something that has nothing to do with faith. — ssu

I have faith in logic, and mathematics.

In John chapter 1 of the Bible it states "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The word "Word" is translated from Greek as "Logos", our root for our English word logic. So if one wants to have faith in God then one must have faith in logic, because God is Logic. Logic and mathematics has always been their even in the chaos.

In Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 it says "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. "
This is Logic (God) hovering or within the primordial Chaos (void, darkness, the deep, the waters), or "random quantum fluctuations".

I would say that too, that theology is taking its last breaths, but i'm also thinking that there will be remnants that will not let go at any cost, and they may become very violent towards those they think threaten their god or religion. This will probably happen in some form or other because if you take away their ability to believe in their god or religion, but they still have those psychological drives, then you get problems.

Part of a working theory i'm currently working on is this:
I think that religion will probably experience a resurgence soon after AI begins to exceed human capabilities, and probably even exceed our level of consciousness. Especially together with Brain-Machine-Interfaces (BMIs), people will begin to think of AI as a type of god. The potential for connecting human minds together technologically with AI in some human/AI hybrid mind hive, and the absence of traditional religion, will drive themselves to the next nearest thing. It will bring with it the old promises of "immortality" (mind-uploading), "heaven" (simulated environments), with a near omnipotent, omniscient AI as their god. People like always will want to belong to something bigger than themselves, many won't be able to resist.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's only a theory of our potential developmental trajectory.

I myself don't believe in God, but i do see how other people may need that type of concept in their lives, i can't blame them for what evolution has done to them and all of us. I've had people tell me they don't want to live if they found out God wasn't real. That makes me sad.

Thank you, I am aware of Agent Detection in human psychology, but not necessarily in those terms.
My reasoning for the value in attempting what i'm suggesting has to do with that and other human psychological features that drive us to do things like believe in God or gods, or angels, or fairies, it doesn't matter. Some social structures such as religion should function to balance out psychological drives in the population.

If the ideas or memes floating around in the population are not sufficient to balance out the primal drives in man then significant problems can happen. Outdated notions of God may become very problematic the further we move into modernity, or postmodernity. I think religion does have a useful purpose, but it needs to evolve with our understanding of the universe, and not remain static. We won't always know everything but we can know some things, and that's all we got at any point in time to work with. It may be time for an upgrade.

I concur with that too, what people really mean by God is the "prime mover", and if that is really what at least some people are looking for then the concept of "chaos" fits the bill. Chaos is also energy, and people define God the same way scientists define Energy. Energy (God) can not be created nor destroyed. It will take some redefining of terms, but it is possible in my opinion. The Greeks did it in their myths, i think they called it the "pleroma".

It's not a question of fact, i was inquiring as to your opinion. Are you dark to your own opinion?

The question was:
In your opinion would you consider "Chaos" and "God" to be essentially the same thing?

I'm not challenging you about your stance on "free will", i'm actually agreeing with you on this matter here and now. I personally don't care if you believe in "free will" or not, i thought i was having an academic discussion with you. Was i wrong, was it more than that?

I would find it regrettable to have a communication breakdown with you simply because we may have disagreed about one thing or another.

That's the point, don't choose just do. Can you do?

I don't understand. You don't want to clarify, not even a little?

All I can say is that we're trying to fit the oceans into a teacup. Not a good idea, but the thing is we don't have a choice! — Agent Smith

Have a choice for what?
What do you mean exactly by "fit the oceans into a teacup"?

The universe was born from chaos. — Agent Smith

Is the "chaos" you're speaking of just another name for "random quantum fluctuations?
Also, in your view is it reasonable to consider this "Chaos" even though it may not be conscious to be "God the Creator", and vice versa (impersonal God)?

I'm wondering if an idea like this could possibly help close the gap between left brain people and right brain people (scientific and religious people respectively). A potential way to unify science and religion in a new common light. The religion of the future perhaps?