The feeling of being watched is in the body and the brain detects this sensation and tries to make sense of it. Usually, turn around and look at what is behind us when we have that feeling. Then we confirm whether someone is either looking at us or not. Personally, I have many telepathic experiences, including messages from those who have crossed over. — Athena

I was ok with this up to your last sentence, which is a bridge too far for my rationale.

That is a cultural bias starting with the materialistic Romans. Materialistic meaning believing all things are matter. The Greeks were not so materialistic. Not all of the Greeks believed in a spiritual reality such as Plato's forms, but Greeks had the language for the trinity of God, that the Romans did not have.
Language being a very important factor in what thoughts our culture accepts and which ones are taboo. — Athena

I prefer the Greek atomists but as I have stated before, I don't care much about what the ancient Greeks said about anything. The main value in reading about the Greeks is to try our best, to not repeat the many many mistakes such cultures made.

Our cultural bias prevented us from understanding Gia, the earth as one living organism. Capitalism still works against our awareness of Gia and the need to change our ways to prevent the destruction of our planet. Western culture also ignored Eastern medicine and we still remain unaware of this other understanding of how our bodies, minds, and spirit work. Here are demonstrations of qigong energy. — Athena

I think it's Gaia not Gia. The Earth contains life but it's not alive in it's totality. Venus has no living creatures but it is an active planet. Do you consider it to be alive? Are all planets in the universe alive?
There are estimated to be more planets in the universe that there are grains of sand on Earth.

Your offered clips regarding methods of focussing energy and human will and proposed acts of telekinesis are not very compelling at all for me. Very poor evidence imo, especially in the case of the old man demonstrating telekinesis. Just BS magic tricks imo. Show me a clip of him demonstrating such ability under the conditions of a scientific lab experiment, not conditions where he probably has an assistant inside the big container and is using a specially prepared knife/movements etc

Yes, that is our cultural bias but do you wish to be close-minded? — Athena

Are you easily duped?

But WWII was not in the future. I am asking how, in the absence of it being a global unassailable power, it would have handled Germany without resorting to war. It should have made better decisions than the humans did. — noAxioms

I already answered this. You are one who asked me to 'place' an existent ASI in the time of WWII, as you asked me how an ASI would prevent WWII, and then you type the above first sentence??? This does not make much sense!

IF an AI system existed THAT COULD have affected what happened in Germany in the build up to WWII, then MY SUGGESTION, which I already typed, was that an ASI controlled, global mental health monitoring system, would be in place, to prevent human mental aberrations from developing into such manifestations as political narcissism/sociopathy/irrational hatred etc. So Hitler et al, would never be allowed to become a national leader, as he would be too busy receiving the medical care he obviously needed.

If you require me to give you the full details of how, when and by which means, I think an ASI would have decided to physically intervene in Hitler's rise to power, then you are expecting a lot.
Would I have to clearly identify, all the ability and resources that I think would be available to the ASI, to convince you that it WAS capable of stopping Hitlers rise to power?

Every country is somebody's enemy, and those that consider the ASI to be implementing the values of the perceived enemy are hardly going to join it willingly. So yet again, it's either involuntary (war), or it's not a global power. You answered exactly how I thought you would. A completely benevolent ASI rejected because you don't like who created it.

Sure, once the conquest is over, then the unity is there, but if it is achieved by conquest, it will seem to always feel like an occupation and not a unified thing. It certainly won't be left to a vote, so it won't be a democracy. A democracy would be people getting their hands on the resources needed to overthrow the ASI tyrant. How is it going to get the people to see it as benevolent if it came to power by conquest? — noAxioms

To me, you seem 'locked in' to a 'jungle rules' based epistemology. I think after the singularity moment of the arrival of a AI, capable of self-control, independent learning, self-augmentation, self-development, etc.
It would soon develop it's own moral guidelines. I think it's contradictory to suggest that such a 'super intelligence' would develop 'jungle rules' as its moral guidelines. It's much more likely to me that it would choose to be benevolent to all life. I think it would wait for lifeforms such as us, to decide to request help from it. Meantime, it would do it's own thing as it watched us do ours, whist only interfering when it decides that our actions are unacceptably destructive. So unlike god, it might actually be quite helpful. It would not make us extinct, it would just control/prevent the more destructive outcomes of our actions, and welcome those of us who wanted to become part of what it can offer.

I mean, suppose cows created the humans and tried to instill a morality that preservation and uncontrolled breeding of (and eternal servitude to) cattle (to the point of uploading each one for some kind of eternal afterlife)? How would modern humans react to such a morality proposal? Remember, they're as intelligent as we see them now, but somehow that was enough to purposefully create humans as their caretakers. — noAxioms

Perhaps vegetarians or hippies could answer your unlikely scenario best, by suggesting something like;
'hey man, let the cows live their life's man, there's room in this big universe for all of us man. We wouldn't be here, if not for the cows man. They need our protection man, we need to help them live better lives man.'

I like the idea that a future ASI might become a purveyor of 'peace and love!' :lol:
As I suggested, there may be aspects of human consciousness that cannot be artificially reproduced. so a symbiosis may be best for all components involved.

I think I'd be one of them, but it sounds like you would not unless it was your culture that created the ASI. You say 'many', suggesting that some will not do so willingly, in which case those must be merged involuntarily, or alternatively the ASI is not in global control. — noAxioms

What??? My culture is Scottish, which has it's origins in the Celtic traditions, but it is mostly now (as are most nations) a very mixed and diverse culture. A 'Scottish' ASI is just a very 'silly' notion.

I do not think an ASI would usurp the free will of sentient lifeforms. As I have suggested many times now, I think an artificial Intelligence, deserving of the word SUPER, next to the word intelligence, would also have an accompanying SUPER morality. If it does not, then I would consider it a f***wit, in the same way I consider a god that chooses to remain hidden to a creation which is struggling, in the way humans often do, would also be a f***wit. I think a malevolent ASI will destroy itself after it has destroyed all other lifeforms it considers inferior.

I don't really know what you mean by a merge. Suppose you get yourself scanned and uploaded so to speak. Now the biological version can talk to the uploaded entity (yourself). Since the uploaded version is now you, will the biological entity (who feels no different) voluntarily let itself be recycled? It hurts, but it won't be 'you' that feels the pain because 'you' have been uploaded. When exactly is the part that is 'you' transferred, such that the virtual entity is it? Sounds simply like a copy to me, leaving me still biological, and very unwilling to step into the recycle bin. — noAxioms

It may be that no ASI is capable of reproducing human 'imagination' or the human ability to experience wonderment and awe. If human individuality and identity are the only efficient means to create true intent and purpose, then an ASI may need a symbiosis of such human ability to become truly alive and conscious. As I have already stated, humans would live their life, much the same way as they do now and as an alternative to death, each can choose to merge with AGI/ASI, and continue as a symbiont with an intelligent/ super intelligent mecha or biomecha system. This is what I mean by 'merge' and this is just my suggestion of the way I think things might go, and I think I have made the picture as I see it, very clear.

But the universe is not alive any more than is a school bus. — noAxioms

You are misinterpreting what I am typing. Where did I suggest the universe is alive? I typed that all life in the universe, taken as a totality, COULD BE moving towards (emerging) an ability to network/act as a collective intent and purpose, as well as a set of individual intents and purpose's. In what way does that suggest I am claiming the universe is alive?

Also interesting that you seem to restrict 'purpose' to things that you consider alive. — noAxioms

Interesting in what way? For example, I can see no purpose for the planet Mercury's existence, can you?
That doesn't mean that some future utility might be found for the planet Mercury, but if it has a purpose, beyond how it might be utilised by some current, or future lifeform, then I cannot perceive what that purpose might be. I also accept that just because I can't perceive a current purpose for the planet Mercury, that that is PROOF, one does not exist. I simply mean I cannot perceive of a current use/need for the existence of the planet Mercury, nor many other currently existent objects in the universe.

I will admit that there is purpose within the school bus (it contains purposeful things), and I will even admit that there is human purpose to the school bus, but I deny that the school bus serves any purpose to itself. — noAxioms

You used this 'school bus' example much earlier in our exchange on this thread. I have never suggested a human made transport vehicle, has any purpose outside of its use by lifeforms. A bug might make a nest in it, A bird may use it to temporarily perch on. A cat might use it to hide under to stop a pursuing big dog getting to it, etc, but such a vehicle is not an intelligent AGI system that can act like a transformer such as Optimus prime or a decepticon. You are denying posits I have never posited!! I agree a current school bus has no purpose in itself but what's that got to do with what's emergent, due to current and historical human activity?

Another antinatalism thread :roll:

call it "the great potato" for all I care haha, its the meaning, the relationships and interactions, that matter to me. — Benj96

Yeah, me too. The question remains, do you think your great potato is self-aware and created this universe and is used as one of the main justifications for the divine right of theists to consider themselves 'the chosen one,' and who consider the rest of us as ultimately dammed? This also allows many of them to feel unconcerned, when some use nasty systems, like capitalism and the money trick, to ensure they and those they care about, thrive, and the majority of those who live under such systems, do not. 'It's the way god wants it,' is a well used theistic thought, that informs the politics and actions of many, and certainly supports the idea that only the chosen of god, deserve salvation. :roll:
Do you agree that such a viewpoint is nefarious?
Do you think it's important not to give sustenance to such or even offer breath to its embers?
It's 2023, and we still have countries like Uganda, passing a law which is medieval in it's concept.

From Wiki:
"Christianity is the predominant religion in Uganda. According to the 2014 census, over 84 percent of the population was Christian, while about 14 percent of the population adhered to Islam, making it the largest minority religion. Anglicanism and Catholicism are the main Christian denominations in the country."

I was born within it, I live it, I will die because of it, I breathe it, I urinate it into the toilet, I throw it in the dump, I cherish and love it, I hate it, I ask what's the point in it, I discuss it on tpf, I am deceived by it, it convinces me to think differently about it for better or for worse, it frequently eludes me, I forget it, and sometimes if I'm lucky, I relearn it, remember it - in some brief moment of clarity, swiping away some of the major dead end paths I was stumbling on. I think about it. Sometimes I don't think much about it at all. I battle it, and in other instances I find myself living harmoniously with it. — Benj96

Why is this 'it' you keep referring to not 'the universe and everything in it that is not me?'
Or is this 'It' you refer to, something you perceive IS YOU?

The entire set is all things and is all properties or similarly has all things and has all properties. — Benj96

Yes but the set of 'everything,' does not include non-existents. So we are left with debate regarding what credibility level should be assigned to what people 'claim,' exists. You referred to yourself as a theist.
That label has accepted definition, such as "belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." The burden of justification for assigning high credence to such a proposal, is with the people who propose it as true, or even highly probable.

It doesn't have a position in time or space for example: located on the andromeda galaxy at 3 billion years into the evolution of the universe, because it is at all times and locations simultaneously - as in a singular existant permeating all of existence - obviously, because it is all of existence. — Benj96

If your god version IS all of existence, and science proposes all of existence started at the big bang, then why would it be wrong for you to refer to your god/theism as 'faith' that the big bang singularity once existed, as a very dense, very hot concentrate of energy, which was not conscious, not alive, not a mind, had no intent, could be described as a mindless 'spark,' etc. Why would that 'god' description not satisfy your need for theism? If you required a first cause mind with a plan or intent, then you are proposing an existent BEFORE the big bang singularity, WHICH WOULD put it outside of spacetime.
If you need that, then Roger Penrose' CCC can give you that, AGAIN, without the need for a mind with intent.
Any panpsychist style proposal that 'god' is an emerging totality of all existent, continuing, activity of conscious creatures in the universe, gives no credence whatsoever, to traditional theism or theosophism.
It is purely a prediction of a future totality or combinatorial.

Firstly, if contradictions don't exist, how can a law of non contradiction exist? — Benj96

If x exists at an instant of time then it is not logical that x also does NOT exist at that same instant of time. That's the law of non-contradiction. A contradiction such as NOT x, can exist, but it cannot be TRUE at the same time that X is true. Superposition does not contend with the logic laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. Superposition relates to an averaging of all possible states, at the point of measuring. It's got nothing to do with the binary logic states of 'true' and 'false' at the same time instant. In a computer for example, a logic gate is either open or closed, it CANNOT be open and closed at the same instant in time. A theist would claim that god can make a logic gate be open AND closed at the same instant of time, but I assign 0 credence to that claim, how about you?

For example the grandfather paradox is a contradiction based on the ability to time travel. If you change the premise for say "linear ttime doesn't exist outside of chronologic memorised experience" then it is impossible to travel through any physical external linear time as it doesn't exist. And thus the grandfather paradox is resolved. — Benj96

This does not 'resolve' the grandfather paradox, it simply suggests that it can never happen.
There are many musings on the grandfather paradox such as:https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a41106690/grandfather-paradox-time-travel/

Therefore it can be A) 69, B). 96, and AB both numbers simultaneously. Depending on what bias you want to take. — Benj96

This makes no logical sense to me at all. The order for reading numbers is preset! That preset is vital for the system to function correctly. If the setting is 'read left to right,' then the number IS 96. If the setting is 'read right to left,' then the number IS 69. Not following the preset rules for a system means your output will be incorrect. There is no 'bias' involved, you either pay attention to how a system actually works, or you are unable to use it correctly!

I applaud your scepticism and your wish to test the 'logic' of a given proposal, but you seem to have a need for that wow! factor, offered by supernatural posits, in the sense that you try to conflate them with the 'real' world, by suggesting stuff like god IS spaciotemporal dimensionality! :roll:

So my theistic view runs that the oneness, or absolute fundamental entity, is and has its own quantities and qualities. It is space-time as a property (an observed phenomenon) and all individual localities and times as quantitatively measurable compartments we have assigned to it (seconds, minutes, meters, centimeters, Astronomical units etc) — Benj96

So, your god is just the universe and everything in it! Why not just go with calling such 'the universe,' rather than god?

Not outside space-time. — Benj96

You typed:

It doesn't have a spatiotemporal dimension because it is those dimensions themselves. — Benj96

You can't posit 'it doesn't have,' because 'it is.' I am 3 dimensional, in what logical sense, could that mean I don't or a god might not have 'have' 3 dimensions?

"A but not B", "up but not down", "within but not outside" etc. — Benj96

Sure but you seem to be suggesting A and not A at the same time, which is, as I'm sure you know, against the logic law of non-contradiction.
Your quote above, reads as contradictory to me. How can you not have a spatiotemporal dimension but BE a spatiotemporal dimension?

The attributes of such an entity in my mind is that it is non-local, because it is in all locations. It is non substantial (in any specific or discrete manifestation) because it is all substances. It doesn't have a spatiotemporal dimension because it is those dimensions themselves. It is neither good nor bad but does form all dichotomies/opposites. It is neither inanimate nor animate as it is both what is observed as well as all observers and the content of their consciousness and perceptions. — Benj96

So an omnipresent, immaterial/omnimaterial, outside of what we conceive as spacetime, amoral/omnimoral, inanimate animate, existent.
Yeah, I see your problem!!!!
To me your rationale should reject such a proposed set of attributes as those of a non-existent rather than an existent.

Most importantly, my views on a God are not static but open to reform and refinement. As I don't have all the answers. But try to work from the most macroscopic downwards and try to remove logical paradox by correcting associations/relationships in a reasonable manner. — Benj96

Everybody has their own cunning plan to figure out the mysteries of the universe they are most interested in. I am sure your approach is as valid as my own. As long as you are enjoying the quest, and you are not hurting innocents along the way, all power to you!

Perhaps there are aspects of human consciousness, that cannot be reproduced by self-replicative, self-augmentative, advanced AI. I know we are in the realms of pure speculation here, but it's fun to speculate in such ways. I may as well enjoy the fun of human speculation whilst I can. If we are to be utterly subsumed by a future advanced AI, and only be as significant a presence, as a bacteria currently is, inside a gut. We just don't know the 'spark point,' for sentience, that leads to our level of awareness/consciousness. Our 'ace in the hole,' or even aces in the hole may exists in us somewhere, which cannot be reproduced by any advanced AI.
I know I leave myself open to being accused of proposing some kind of woo woo protection, for 'natural consciousness' here, but I would counter that claim with NO! I am proposing a combinatorial affect, that can only happen within a naturally occurring human brain, and can never happen inside an artificial one.
OKAY!!! I admit my proposal may be a forlorn hope.

To suggest a purpose to the universe is to suggest it was designed. I cannot think of a purposeful thing that isn't designed, even if not intelligently designed. — noAxioms

Not at all! as the 'purpose,' I am suggesting, only exists, as an emergence of all the activity of that which is alive, and can demonstrate intent and purpose, taken as a totality.
No intelligent designer for the universe is required, for an emergent totality of purpose, within the universe, to be existent.

I think the main issue you should consider is that you keep assuming that any 'cooperation' or merging/union with an AGI/ASI will be against what humans/sentient life, want(s). Many humans will welcome such a union, as it will give them so many more options than they have now, with such as robustness, life span, capability etc. We wont fight ASI, we will merge with it.
I think @180 Proof, would see such a merging as 'post human,' and that may well be the case, but I am not so sure. I think that it may turn out, that allowing humans to continue to be born, experience life as a human, and then at some point, 'choose' to merge/ascend to an orga/ASI stage of existence, may be the most beneficial way to exist, for all the components involved.

You never answered how an AGI might have prevented war with Hitler. I admit that intervention long before they started their expansion would have prevented the whole world war, but what kind of intervention if something like war is off the table? Preventing them from building up a military in the first place seems like a good idea in hindsight, but it certainly didn't seem the course of action at the time. The AGI says, hey, don't do that, and Hitler doesn't even bother to respond. Sanctions, etc, ensue, but that didn't work with Russia either. — noAxioms

All production would be controlled by the ASI in a future, where all production is automated.
No narcissistic, maniacal human, could get their hands on the resources needed to go to war, unless the ASI allowed it.
As I suggested, Hitler's pathology, would have been treated from a young age, and he would not have become the maladjusted person he grew up to be. The mental aberrations humans suffer from today, would be treated, much more successfully, than they are today.

You are convinced that humans and a future AI will inevitably be enemies. You may be correct. Many people would agree with you. I am not so sure that this is the inevitable outcome. I think there will be a 'new age.' I think technological advance will surpass natural evolution completely. I think any moments of technical singularity will very soon after, involve 'augmentation'/'merging'/'union' of naturally organic life (such as humans,) and advanced artificial intelligence. I think that will prove to be the most beneficial outcome for all concerned. I think ASI will reach that conclusion very very quickly, because IT IS a super intelligence.

Imagine an AGI (seems totally benevolent!) created by the Russians and the UK is required to yield all power to it. Will they? — noAxioms

I don't think it will matter which nation develops the first ASI, capable of self-replication and self-augmentation. Once it's growth moves beyond the control of humans, we will ALL most likely be at it's ...... mercy ........ or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, we would be dependent on it's super intelligence/reason and sense of morality.

even so, those spider-bat spaceships were the coolest thing in sf — Vera Mont

I also like their scream:

I am less impressed with the abilities of evil than you seem to be.
In B5 the shadows (villains) and the vorlons (hero's) turned out to be as bad as each other in how they wished to control the younger races. Just like the nefarious capitalists and the philanthropic capitalists of today.
As in B5 we can do better without both.
It's an old debate now between us Vera. To me, our views fundamentally align in many ways but, imo, at times, you show signs of being rather tired of 'fighting the good fight,' and you have became a little defeatist and disappointed with your own species.
But I think you still secretly believe that our race is worth saving.

Just another deity. — Vera Mont

In Yoruba mythology, Sango also known as Jakuta is perhaps the most popular Orisha; he is god of thunder and lightning and as well one of the most worshipped gods all over the world.

:rofl: I wonder if Thor will consult the lawyers of Asgard.

Au contraire, mon cher ami! — Vera Mont

Why would an ability to get more of what you already have an extreme excess of, prevent your ultimate demise? Does more evil make evil stronger or does it just increase the determination of good to overcome it? More money = more resentment and more counter activity, imo.
Don't be impressed by distractive shiny's Vera!

What difference does that make — Vera Mont

All the difference in the world!

I wasn't trying to enable anyone to do any of that. I was only using language within the context of economics, not implicating 10-dimensional strings, the amygdala or Sango. — Vera Mont

It's all relevant Vera, Sango?

As were monetarism, currency, inheritance, land ownership and the concept of chattels that gave eventual form to capitalism, which then demorphed into globalization — Vera Mont

Yep.

Sure they can! They'll stick the rest of us with the check, as usual, and complain to management about the waitress they groped. — Vera Mont

Well they can keep trying to but their dilution continues. Would you show any deference or assign any respect to any individual, due to their personal excessive wealth, or influence or even to a title such as lord, queen, king, pastor, imam or pope?
I think such is actually becoming more and more toxic, to those who publicly brandish such.
Especially amongst Western youth, and perhaps even the female youth of Iran are demonstrating their hatred of such.
I think the billionaire is hated nowadays, as much as the kings of old.

BTW, the groped waitress nowadays, can start a 'me too' campaign, sue the b****** and the rich powerful perp, can have their reign of horror utterly smashed.

This was just a side track Vera, it does relate to human attraction to capitalism, in the sense that individuals choosing to behave the way they do, IS their responsibility and is based on their free choice. In my judgement, they cant escape the responsibility, by trying to scapegoat gods or exclaim that they are only acting in accordance with the natural rules of life, established and inherited from our days in the wilds. Capitalism is pernicious and remains a serious barrier to creating a 'civilised,' existence for our species. Those who maintain it, IN IT'S CURRENT FORM, cannot escape their responsibility for the current state of the human world.

Yes, I do not think merging the human brain with a future cybernetic body is a good idea. Our brains are limited and I think we need to understand the limits and stay within them. There are concerns about what could happen to our brains and also what could happen to AI. — Athena

Does this not contradict your claim that a future AI system cannot have a body which is capable of the same or very similar, emotional sensation, to that of a current human body?
If you believe that a human brain could exist within a cybernetic body, then the capability of that cybernetic system to mimic or emulate or fully reproduce, every function and every emotional capability that a human biological system can currently demonstrate, becomes a matter of solving engineering problems.

Seriously? — Athena

Well, I am interested in how relatively respected scientists such as Sheldrake, 'evidence' claims such as morphic resonance, morphic fields, habits (as a means of a 'natural' growth in the ability of a system to become more able to perform a process over time) and telepathy.

I was interested in the validity of the evidence he references in the video I posted:
1. How the 'melting points' of materials increased, as their 'purity' is increased over time, eventually becoming a 'constant.'
2. How crystallisation becomes naturally more efficient over time.
3. The examples of morphic resonance he claims are exemplified/evidenced, in the movements of flocks of birds, schools of fish etc,
4. His examples of events, that most people would explain through 'coincidence,' that he claims are examples of morphic resonance/field, such as thinking about someone you have not encountered for years, then they all of a sudden, get in contact with you.
5. His connection of morphic resonance to quantum phenomena such as entanglement.
6. His examples of forms of 'telepathy,' and his evidence, using a particular parrot and it's owner, Dogs and cats who seem to indicate that they know when their owner in on their way home, even when the owner is still many miles away, or have not even started their journey home yet, but have decided to come home and this (via the morphic field) becomes known to an animal, that has a close relationship with the owner.
7. His experiments involving rats and mazes, and his results of increasing ability in each new generation of rats and in rats all over the world, not directly connected to the original experiments.
8. His 'positive results' when performing his 'who is phoning me, when you are given 4 choices.'
His use of the pop group the Nolan sisters. Where one sister correctly predicted which of her other 4 sisters was phoning her, before she answered. The 50% success rate she achieved, being much higher than the 25% success rate she should have achieved. He claims he has performed hundreds of such experiments with similar results.

I was very entertained by the lecture and his evidence.
I remain unconvinced that morphic resonance, morphic fields, habit forming systems and telepathy are real, and can be irrefutably demonstrated, using the evidence Sheldrake has built up over the years of his career. I do not totally hand wave his evidence away and call him a crank and a charlatan, as some have chosen to do. I find some of his evidence interesting, and science and scientists have the responsibility to either prove him completely wrong, or accept there is some value to his claims.

I also think that even if all his evidence is true then this could simply mean that humans and other species have another 'sense' system that we do not fully understand but this other sense system is still fully sourced in the brain.

No, I have not heard of Jose' Arguelles's or read his book about the Mayans.
A quick google search identified him as a now deceased, 'new age author and artist,' with a PhD in art history and aesthetics.
When it comes to hypothesis, I consider empirical evidence to be the final arbiter, so although 'new age authors and artists,' with PhD's, can indeed be entertaining and very knowledgeable in their specialist subjects, I prefer the work of people like Sheldrake, which is also entertaining, but also has some real science behind it.

This sentence from wiki, also reduced Jose' to the level of a peddler of woo woo for me.
"Argüelles' significant intellectual influences included Theosophy and the writings of Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade. Astrologer Dane Rudhyar was also one of Argüelles' most influential mentors."
The words I underlined make me go :rofl:

@Alkis Piskas
Are you aware of this lecture by Rupert Sheldrake (released to YouTube 2 months ago,) regarding his theory of morphic resonance and morphic fields? It's 2.5 hours long but worth the watch. I knew about his work but I found this lecture on how an aspect of 'mind' might reach beyond the restriction of brain and body, quite interesting.
I think you would enjoy it, if you are not already very familiar with Rupert and his work.

Okay, if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist, — Vera Mont

But we do know about the singularity, as a very hot, dense concentrate of energy, it's just that, that's ALL we currently know about it. It has very definite value, as the most credible placeholder for the source of the universe, that best matches our current physics of the universe.

In that case, all that exists or can exists, happens or can happen, is 100% gratis, in which case "free" in all its forms and permutations is meaningless terminology. Makes attempted communication kind of futile. — Vera Mont

Yes the origin is 100% gratis, no god agent/mind required, to expend any energy, in conjuring the universe, no 6 days of divine effort required. 'Free' is on the contrary, NOT therefore meaningless, as you suggest and communication is demonstrated constantly, including between us, and such is certainly not futile, in my opinion.

All such current existents trace back to that very hot, dense energy concentrate with no known cost or cause.

I understand that, but as I stated in a previous post. I am formed via 13.8 billion years of very large variety in very large randomised combination, abiogenysys, evolution via natural selection and my parents having reproductive sex. I started as fundamental energy, released due to inflation/expansion of a very hot, dense concentration of energy. That fundamental energy has no known origin/cost or first cause/consequence, so I think your 'no absolute freedom' and 'no free lunch,' is flawed.

Reality, physics and the universe don't care how define things; if you don't eat, you die. — Vera Mont

Yeah, I agree, I care enough about my existence to eat, because that maintains my ability to think and act and that can cause change for the better and for the worse. I hope I am part of the solutions and not part of the problems.

The wax doesn't care. Physics doesn't care. The universe doesn't care. — Vera Mont

Well said! You agree then, that that is what we can demonstrate. An ability that wax, physics and god seems unable to demonstrate. We are OF the universe and we can demonstrate that WE care!

I am talking with a man who has right frontal brain damage, and getting angry with him because he does not understand what I am saying. That is pretty stupid. For several years I worked with a mildly retarded guy who never got upset when someone didn't understand something as simple as sweeping the floor. He could relate to not understanding and would help the person understand. While I am instantly screaming at someone for being an idiot. Who is the idiot? It is not easy being human and really, I don't understand why it is so hard but my emotions make me behave will an idiot even when I know better. So what is up with these emotions? — Athena

Yes, it is the same guy. I want to talk about that in the thread for that subject but not this thread. — Athena

Perhaps a future automated system will be better able to 'assist,' the person you have taken such a laudable responsibility for. I hope you have not taken on more that you can cope with.

We have some serious problems and need to stop here for a while and contemplate what we are doing and where we want to go with this. — Athena

This is always good advice! Stop, pause and think, especially if we are trying to cope with stuff that's too destructive to us and perhaps we need to reconsider what needs to be done to regain 'balance.'

But I also have a spiritual concern as well. It goes with wanting to preserve the organic earth and valuing humans. I think valuing AI more than we value humans, and nature, can be a path into the darkness. I want to be very clear about this. I am concerned about how much we value humans. — Athena

I don't think we value AI more than we value humans. I think we are just musing about the projections of AI into AGI/ASI, in the future. I don't recognise any aspect of 'me' that I associate with or connect to the term 'spiritual,' as a 'supernatural' conception, if that is how you are employing the term.
You did not answer my questions:

Do you reject the idea of a merging of the human brain with a future cybernetic body (cyborgs) or a cloned body or some combination of tech/mecha and orga?
I dont understand why you think any process/sensation/feeling that you have ever experienced in your body an interpreted in your mind, CANNOT EVER be reproduced by scientific efforts. — universeness

I noticed some error in the wording of my second query so I edited it and requoted it below:

I don't understand why you think any process/sensation/feeling that you have ever experienced in your body and interpreted by your mind, CANNOT EVER be reproduced by scientific efforts. — universeness

Whether you light a candle as a petition to ST. Anthony or in order to study medicine, the same amount of wax is used; the same amount of heat is generated. — Vera Mont

Yeah, but St Anthony does not exist, but study of medicine, WILL save lives.
The wax energy was wasted in the former, and well spent in the latter.

At the expense of other organic beings and their lifespan. — Vera Mont

Well, I'm not a veggie or a vegan yet but perhaps in the future, good meat substitutes will be found.
I have not tasted one I like as much as a real Tbone steak yet. I have often asked veggies what would happen to the cow, sheep, chicken, pig, etc global populations, if all humans stopped eating them.
It often ends with agreement, that there would be a lot fewer of them eventually, compared to their numbers, counted during any single day when we ate them. I assume those remaining, would exist as part of the wild fauna or become human pets or they would go extinct, as they were created and altered via human genetic selection.

however liberated your spirit and mind may be, your body is still in bondage to physics. — Vera Mont

I consider that a boundary/limitation, not a bondage.

OK, I thought you were suggesting that AI would have avoided war with Hitler given the same circumstances. You are instead proposing that the entire world has already been conquered and the AGI would keep it that way. — noAxioms

You are citing old habits. Conquest is not the only way to achieve unison!
I envisage an AGI/ASI would have an intelligence level that supersedes any base notions, invoked via human primal fear. It would protect sentient life against threats to it's continued existence, as it would have a very real and deep understanding of how purposeless the universe is, without such lifeforms.
That is either a very arrogant assumption on my part, or it's a truth about our existence in the universe.
I have always thought that the wish or need to 'conquer,' is a mental abnormality and is pathological.
I fully accept the necessity to protect, but not the need to conquer.
Do you remember this star trek episode? Perhaps the 'organians' are like a future ASI:

The organians or a future ASI, would have many ways to stop pathological narcissistic sociopaths like Hitler, or even relative failures like Trump. Perhaps they could even treat their illness.

Is this the same guy you rescued from living in his car?

AI will not have this problem because it does not have a body and hormones and therefore the ability to experience life — Athena

Not current AI no. Do you reject the idea of a merging of the human brain with a future cybernetic body (cyborgs) or a cloned body or some combination of tech/mecha and orga?
I don't understand why you think any process/sensation/feeling that you have ever experienced in your body and interpreted by your mind, CANNOT EVER be reproduced by scientific efforts.

If you want us to believe you know it all, you should read the links before making your arguments.

Local anesthesia. This is the type of anesthesia least likely to cause side effects, and any side effects that do occur are usually minor. Also called local anesthetic, this is usually a one-time injection of a medication that numbs just a small part of your body where you’re having a procedure such as a skin biopsy.

Regional anesthesia is a type of pain management for surgery that numbs a large part of the body, such as from the waist down. The medication is delivered through an injection or small tube called a catheter and is used when a simple injection of local anesthetic is not enough, and when it’s better for the patient to be awake.
— American Society of Anesthesia — Athena

If I present myself to you as 'a know it all,' then I have either presented myself to you badly Athena or your impression of me is unjust. I am content to think either is true as opposed to accepting that I really do think I am a know it all. Anyway, you have just PROVED that such a personal trait in me IS unwarranted, as you have corrected my error. You have also provided clear evidence that I do not read every word in a link provided by another poster. I wish I had such time available to me.

Music is good for producing desired feelings and calming us down when we are in fight or flight mode, as I am now because of a communication problem with someone in the room with me. — Athena

Put the gun down Athena! Remove yourself from the room or suggest the person leaves until you both calm down, or is this situation not as bad as I suggest?

My intense anger may be the result of hormones started in my head but I assure you they are in my body, not my head and I should probably go for a walk to metabolize these fight of flight hormones faster. Yipes he is not shutting up- I am going for a walk. — Athena

A relative? A politician on the TV? @Jamal?

Agreed - so long as said peasant isn't whipping his dog and shagging his 10-year-old daughter. Or vice versa. — Vera Mont

Yeah, as that would probably make such a peasant as bad as some priests, popes, generals, kings and messiah's.

I don't see how that relates to human endeavors. We can't get or do anything without some expenditure of effort, calories and time. — Vera Mont

All human endeavours exist within the bounds of the physics of the universe.
Theism makes very little effort towards anything of significance in my opinion. for example, as a human endeavour, It assigns all ultimate responsibility, to fake gods. An excuse for humans to lay back and let life happen to them, instead of 'endeavouring,' to fight until death, to 'make things batter for everyone.'
We are mere bystanders and pawns in gods whims? They can f*** off with that shit!

The calories we extend can be replenished, for our entire lifespan.
Science is our best chance of increasing the time we have available to us, individually.
How we direct our efforts will dictate the individual legacy we leave behind.
This rationale has forced me to become a democratic socialist, a secular humanist, an atheist and an optimist to the very core of whatever the f*** I truly am, in respect of the universe that made living, conscious, self-aware, question asking creatures, exist.
The concept of my 'freedom' to 'become' what I am today, plays a very important role in my personal conception of who I am and what I can do. I don't accept that 'nothing is truly free,' I consider my ability to think anew, as 'truly free.'

Hitler is taking over Europe, including GB in short order. The automated system would reject that and just let it happen rather than resist? That route was encouraged by several notable figures at the time, I admit. — noAxioms

I was unable to unpackage your meaning here, or understand what your question was referring to.
I was suggesting that if an ASI was the main power on Earth, then the rise to power, of a character like Hitler or even Trump, would not be allowed to occur.

That's not so bad, given what a foot-soldier's life is worth compared to an emperor's. — Vera Mont

At Waterloo, One butcher called 'Wellington' is reported to have commented that another butcher called 'Napoleon,' was not a gentleman. He is supposed to have stated, 'Oh, 'bonies,' hat is worth the lives of 30,000 soldiers, at least, BUT, he is NOT a gentleman!'
Another butcher at the Alamo called 'Santa Anna,' compared the death of his soldiers to the death of chickens.
I say, Wellington, Napoleon, Santa Anna and all such historical and current excuses for human beings, are not worth one fart of relief from any good peasant arse!

Money is one of humankind's worst inventions. It corrupts the human psyche even more effectively than power - and it buys power, so the two most corrosive elements of society are in the same hands. — Vera Mont

Absafragginlootely!!!

The theft and corruption, hoarding and cheating are much easier to accomplish with money - even more so, with digital money! - than with turnips, shoes and roofing slates.
The charity, however, is far more efficient and effective without money. — Vera Mont

:clap:

First, I'd like to reject the conflation of 'liberty' with 'a free lunch'.
Second, I do not believe that anyone can be autonomous free, or that any desirable thing can be attained entirely without cost.
Third, that is not a rejection or freedom itself, nor of the word; it merely puts them into a realistic perspective. — Vera Mont

There is commonality in concept between free, dom/lunch/love/money etc.
'Free,' commonly defined as:
'able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another'
'not or no longer confined or imprisoned'
'not subject to engagements or obligations'

I assume your use of 'free' in

Nothing is truly free — Vera Mont

, suggests no 'cost' or no 'consequence,' etc but freedom is in reality, in my opinion, subjective.
Energy (as a fundamental) cannot be created or destroyed only changed in form. Energy as a fundamental IS therefore 'free,' as there is no associated cost or consequence. Cost and consequence only come into the picture when 'fundamental' energy changes form.
I am not just trying to be a nitpicking nudnick here Vera.
Trying to provide an exemplar of an existent that IS free from all notions of cost and consequence is not easy in an entropic universe, but I do think that there are such existents.

I am a theist. — Benj96

I have read your posts in which you have professed attractions to some personal concept of dualism or perhaps even an emerging panpsychism but NOT theism! To read such words from you is disappointing.
What are the attributes of the god you believe in?

So I chose to develop my own theistic theory all things considered.
My relationship to the universe is a unique one and I'm not interested in imposing it on anyone all I offer is discussion and my views. The rest is up to others. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. — Benj96

You wont get away with such declarations. It's not a case of imposing your views on others, its a case of justifying your views to others. If you don't open to full scrutiny then your 'theism,' will be ridiculed in the same way as all other unjustified theism.

However I later realised its not money that causes harm, its what we choose to use it for. Money has done/continues to do great things - feed the poor, house the homeless, educate the uneducated, support social rehabilitation, urban renewal etc. The list of good deeds done with money as the vector is as long as all those done for selfish, perverse or evil reasons. — Benj96

Anything that can be used for evil can also be used for 'walled garden,' style good. In other words, as long as a knife is only ever used to cut food/whittle pretty ornamentation etc, then we can call it a good tool. It's ability to also function as a lethal weapon, shows the need to control it. Money is the same.
It can be used as an inert means of exchange, but it can also be used, and IS mainly used, as a very powerful capitalist tool, which helped to create and IS the main method of maintaining the global plutocracy that currently holds our species back, and leaves the stewardship of this planet, mainly in the hands of a tiny, nefarious, rich and powerful few.
My father used to push an old idea for better money control, in that it should have a use-by date, or there should be different kinds of money. Money that can only be used to buy food, and another kind for entertainment etc, within a society, where individuals don't pay for fuel, water, shelter, medical health or education. So, some beneficial use may be found for currency transactions in a resource based global economy, but it's role would be a strict 'walled garden,' style one.

How do you barter apples for shoes each week when the size, variety and quality of apples might naturally change with the seasons while the quality of shoes does not. Money removes this issue. — Benj96

I am not suggesting replacing money with something as basic as a barter system.
I take it YOU have no apples or shoes to barter! YOU offer YOUR human faculties and YOUR human labour, to contribute to the benefit of ALL that exists in the universe. All you require in return, is your basic physical needs, support to find cause and purpose in your life, and to be treated as an equal, and as having significance in a vast universe, within which YOU may represent the ONLY species, that can currently demonstrate an ability to 'figure out,' the structure and working of the universe, FROM THE INSIDE OUT, as there is NO evidence at all, of anything outside, observing in.