But we’re talking about even more power here, enough apparently to render the checks ineffectual. He basically fired anybody related to investigations on his abuses. The authority should not have any authority over said checks, but they always do, especially when the abuses were embraced by an entire political part just because he wore the same color uniform. Police are the same way, almost impossible to prosecute for abuses because the police and even the courts stand behind their own most of the time. — noAxioms

So, you accurately describe the failure of the current USA political system to prevent a horror like Trump getting elected and the final result being a failed and rather pathetic attempt at an insurrection.
If you think all current checks and balances on national politicians are too weak then it's time to fight for real change. I just don't agree with your apathy that little can be done to change the status quo.

Our cells learned to cooperate into a larger entity, working for the entity and not the individual life forms. — noAxioms

What a strange conflation! A biological human cell is not a lifeform. (EDIT: in the sense that a skin cell wouldn't be considered an organism, because it cannot live by itself, it needs to be part of something bigger.) Humans are a combinatorial of many sub-systems yes but for me, the concept of 'life' applies to the brain. The natural body systems are 'replaceable,' depending on the tech available. You are still alive, if you have no arms or legs, etc etc.

The sort of authority I’m speaking of needs to act on the benefit of the collective, but here you are suggesting this cannot be done because it would involve actions not popular with the individuals. — noAxioms

No, democratic socialism supports majority rule. A ruling or policy not supported by a majority must fall, it will stand, if the dissenters are a minority. BUT, an informed majority that supports secular humanism, will always strive to accommodate minority needs and wishes, as long as those accommodations do not directly go against the well-being of the majority.

I’ve frequently said that the larger the group of people, the less mature they act as a whole. The term ‘mommy’ is deliberately to emphasize that, an authority over something far to immature to know what’s best for it. — noAxioms

That sounds like someone wearing a 'big brother' garb, deciding that a large majority of people are incapable of 'knowing what's best for it.' You make yourself sound like a person who should never be given significant authority over others.
What would you do as president of America. Surely you would not use your 'mommy' model to drive your policies that would affect all Americans.

Google is owned by the nefarious rich, who nurture profit more that people, what do you expect from such? Such companies have been ever thus!
Yes, but they started out wanting to do it right. Mozilla (a competitor) is still trying very hard not to be evil. — noAxioms

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I accept that, but I also agree with 'if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.' I would not allow Google sized private profit making machines, to exist.
Democratic socialism MUST encompass personal freedom and the entrepreneurial spirit as much as it can. BUT, it must control the consequentials far more than the current free market capitalist system does. No billionaires or multi-millionaires are acceptable via business dealings or entrepreneurial effort. No large gambling joints like the stock exchange. No celebrity roads to ridiculous riches. A very nice, comfortable life, yes, but not the abominable rich that we have today.

Space was never a solution to excess population. — noAxioms

Of course it is. EDIT: Well, to be more precise, it's not a solution NOW, or in the forseeable future but it will be, in the distant future.

It costs far more to put a person in space than it does to keep him here — noAxioms

It costs resources to put people in space, not money. Money is nothing more than a means of exchange.
A decent human society should not need a means of exchange.

The extinction threat is a somewhat better reason, but it would be like preventing a fish from going extinct by building fish-bowls in the trees. Better to just build a bird to put in the trees, and then call it a fish if that’s important to you. — noAxioms

I have already answered this point. This planet is the equivalent of your fish bowl comparison.
We cant survive outside of it. I see no difference between that and living in a space station or domed city on the moon or Mars, that we cant survive outside of. Those who feel as you do in the future, can be born, live and die on Earth, while others boldly go where no one has gone before.

They’ll never be as comfortable as Earth. Where are all the exatons of material going to come from (and of course the energy required, far more than it took to decimate Earth) to make outdoors of an alien place less immediately fatal to us? — noAxioms

I have already answered this as well. There are lots of extraterrestial resources.

What problem was being solved when Hilary climbed mount Everest or when Armstrong first footed the Moon.
Say you done it. — noAxioms

Which is also part of the why we must go beyond Earth, we will go to Mars and live there one day because it exists, and it beckons us. Hilary answered the question of 'why climb Everest,' with, 'because it's there!'

Does Greta do it, yes. It’s her suggestion. You didn’t answer the questions, especially those about competitiveness. — noAxioms

I still don't understand what your are asking about Greta or what 'competitiveness' has to do with capturing CO2 rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
From Howstuffworks:
"The United States alone has enough subsurface space to potentially hold 1.8 trillion tons (1.71 trillion metric tons) of carbon dioxide in deep aquifers, permeable rocks and other such places."

No, it isn’t peer reviewed. I’m asking if you deny it, which apparently you do if it doesn’t come from a journal, which I’m sure it does in some form. — noAxioms

I am not an expert on the issue of safe, clean, renewable energy production but I don't much value the formulae you offered and I fully support all current efforts to make E=ER, based on your representation of E and ER. All energy should be produced as resourced based and not profit based.

There is no one Christian doctrine. — noAxioms

Right, but instead of rejecting the insight for what is already familiar, — punos

I don't know exactly how they will go about it. — punos

Did you notice that I used the term Teleonomy*1 instead of Teleology? — Gnomon

I will respond to these posts tomorrow guys. I am meeting two fiends, friends from Glasgow for a local pub crawl! Cheers!!!

You seem quite willing to directly engage again with @Gnomon.
He seems to be still too angry at you due to the level of disrespect he feels he has suffered at your hands. I hope that changes. What else can be said? Perhaps proxy comms between you will be as good as it gets. C'est la vie!

Almost 10 years ago, when I first began to post on this forum, — Gnomon

Wow! long time poster! I am surprised you are only at 2.8k posts.

So, I'm OK with your careful critiques of my personal worldview. Yet now, you seem ready to dis-engage. :sad: — Gnomon

I apologise if I have given you that impression. If you keep making points, I will forever respond to you.
You are a very interesting thinker and you have obviously researched a great deal on the topics of interest to you. I think @180 Proof is also a fascinating thinker. I would be very foolish indeed to handwave any such thinkers away. Surely there can be a little bit of heated discussion between us without anyone pulling up their drawbridge permanently. People are passionate about the truths they accept and hold dear and want to defend. I am meeting a friend of mine tonight, who is a very loud, brash guy who gesticulates wildly, when he has had a few and is defending his points of view. He is an agnostic religious education teacher with a heavy loud English accent. Bouncers often come over to our table and ask if everything is ok, as he gets so animated at times. I think he is brilliant. I love how he tries to defend a hopeless position. :lol:
I continue to greatly value his friendship, even though we utterly disagree with each others viewpoints at times. I think you should directly answer any outstanding question that @180 Proof has, regarding your enformationism. Don't take his acrimony personally, I don't, and you can equal him, insult for insult, if you like, until the moderators tell you both to back off. Or you can just apply a 'water of a duck's back' approach. Enjoy the exchange! I need folks like @180 Proof, I will never become an arrogant pr*** as long as folks like him tell me when I am being a pr*** and why.

I think the verbal boxing between you is not severe. I have witnessed far, far worse.
You should both be able to be who you each are, and still interact. But, if you just can't, then by proxy, is all that remains instead of a complete comms shutdown.

I remain interested in those like yourself (please correct me if I am wrong here), who are interested in building bridges between science and religion. I would say @Athena also thinks it's important to find ways to do that. I would be interested in her opinion of your 'enformationism.'

As as non-professional amateur philosopher though, I'm not afraid to call a spade a pointy shovel, or a universal field of Data/Information a big Idea. — Gnomon

Fair enough!

No. sentient rocks are not implied by the concept of Dataome. — Gnomon

I didn't suggest 'sentient rocks,' I suggested that panpsychism posits that rocks contain 'ingredients' that can be used in 'consciousness.' Panpsychism does not suggest rocks are self-aware.

In any case, only a tiny fraction of the embodied information in the universe has developed the emergent quality of Sentience. — Gnomon

Ok, I accept that is your viewpoint.

But if pressed, Scharf might agree that the universe has indeed become self-reflective, by means of its sentient creatures. He does admit that "There is little doubt that something is going on with our species . . . ." I'll let you read the book, to fill-in the ellipsis. :smile: — Gnomon

I will add it to my current very long list of books I need to read. So far, I only have to live until I am 128 to get through the list, but the sex drugs, drink and rock & roll, might get me first!

Yes. Empirical Science may be the final arbiter of pragmatic Empirical questions, but theoretical Philosophy is still arbitrating questions that remain unanswered by classical scientific methods*1. A century later, the practical significance of sub-atomic physics remains debatable. Yes, the get-er-done engineers have developed technologies for manipulating invisible particles of stuff. But physicists are still debating the common-sense meaning of such non-sense as Superposition and Quantum Leaps. Philosophy is not about Matter, but Meaning. — Gnomon

*1. Physics vs Metaphysics :
Physics is defined, in its simplest form, as the study of matter and energy and how those two interact, while metaphysics deals with the ideas that don’t abide by scientific logic and theories.
https://allthedifferences.com/metaphysics-vs-physics/ — Gnomon

If there is still arbitration, then when and if, such arbitration is ever settled and (a) conclusion(s) is/are arrived at, then empirical science will become the final arbiter or those findings.
Philosophy is described as:
"The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence."
and
"The study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience"
and
"A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour"
I think that which is labelled 'matter' is included, so philosophy certainly is about 'matter' as well as that which 'matters' to people. Your description regarding metaphysics is why it is such an overburdened and pretty useless term, imo.

Those spooky questions*2 remain under the purview of Theoretical Physics*3, which is essentially a narrow specialty of Philosophy. Einstein was not a mystic or religious believer, but he resorted to philosophical & poetic metaphors to convey unsettled ideas about physical facts. Ironically, some posters on this philosophical forum seem to believe that such ideas as Emergence can be finally settled by empirical methods. :smile: — Gnomon

*2. Quantum Questions :
Here is a collection of writings that bridges the gap between science and religion. Quantum Questions collects the mystical writings of each of the major physicists involved in the discovery of quantum physics and relativity, including Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Planck.
https://www.shambhala.com/quantum-questions-1226.html — Gnomon

I have already stated that imo, Einstein was faced with a religious power base (especially in America), that wielded more power than it has today. So, he threw the odd bone at them, as he knew how to play the game of being a public personality facing the zeitgeist of the time.
Empirical methods will be the final arbiter of what is emergent in humans, no matter how much woo woo of the gaps, some posters on TPF want to attempt to secret in, by camouflage or stealth. :smile:
I appreciate your offer of links to attempts to 'bridge gaps between science and religion.' But, I assign very little value to such notions.

PS__Just as Steven Jay Gould separated Religion & Science into non-overlapping magisteria, Philosophy & Science are not competitors in the same arena. — Gnomon

Sure, many philosophers have inspired many many scientists.

most importantly, the term "information" has a meaning for humans, not for objects or nature, i.e. the physical world. The physical world cannot use data or information. Natural phenomena obey physical laws, conceived by humans. It is we who are interpreting, describing, and explain them. We can also control them to a certain degree and make use of them in our life. — Alkis Piskas

I think it's enough for the purposes of our exchange to agree that information is labelled data or data which has been assigned an associated human meaning. 23 is data, 23 apples is human information.
Humans are OF the universe, so any laws or interpretations or meanings we assign to the physical contents of the universe are also OF the universe. Do you think that data/information is thee universal fundamental? The 'natural' fundamentals that science has posited so far, are the quarks, photons and electrons. If these are in reality 'data' items then ........ data/information is thee universal fundamental.

I think the physics community does not use the term 'information' in the same way we do in Computer Science. I am more comfortable with 'data' but they mean 'data' that is a 'measure' of a phenomena such as a quantum fluctuation or a field excitation. In that sense, this is data that has meaning for humans, so therefore they employ the word 'information,' which I am ok with.

All true, but one thing i know about autistics is that they have a high level sense of justice. I imagine that these kinds of problems will arise, but i also can imagine safety mechanisms in place to counter these pathologies. One possible way is to have a monitoring system that locks out any node that threatens the stability of the hivemind. I imagine highly developed complex systems methods can restructure the network accordingly in real time. This can be done by the other member nodes of the network as a self-regulating mechanism or it can be done by algorithms or an AI system. I'm sure those issues would be ironed out in some way. — punos

Well, :lol: I suppose we can all send our models for a future transhuman 'collective,' to Demis Hassabis, et al and see which one they favour.

Studying how the corpus callosum works will go far i think in helping us develop these hivemind protocols. Large language models like GPT can probably be used as a possible component in a hivemind network protocol. Most of the testing will probably be done on animals first and in complex simulations analyzed by AI. I don't doubt that we will have the tools necessary for the task; look at what we've done with solving the protein folding problem. — punos

Again, I think that Demis et al, may be receiving too large a mailbag, if we all submit our models.
I think we will need a system that is far more robust and reliable than the corpus callosum.
chatGPT cant even pass the Turing test. Despite the fact that some sources claim that it has.
Protein folding! Back to Demis Hassabis at deepmind again! :grin:

In 2020 a team of researchers that used AlphaFold, an artificial intelligence (AI) program developed by DeepMind placed first in CASP. The team achieved a level of accuracy much higher than any other group. It scored above 90 for around two-thirds of the proteins in CASP's global distance test (GDT), a test that measures the degree to which a computational program predicted structure is similar to the lab experiment determined structure, with 100 being a complete match, within the distance cutoff used for calculating GDT.
AlphaFold's results at CASP were described as "transformational." and "astounding". Some researchers noted that the accuracy is not high enough for a third of its predictions, and that it does not reveal the mechanism or rules of protein folding for the protein folding problem to be considered solved. Nevertheless, it is considered a significant achievement in computational biology and great progress towards a decades-old grand challenge of biology.

Sure but we really can't get away from representation anyway no matter what we do. — punos

If that's true, then I think there maybe a fatal flaw in the proposal that data is a universal fundamental.
A 'representation' is not 'an actual,' its a mathematical simulation.

I sometimes think about it the other way around. If one assumes that information is more fundamental than our experience of physical matter then it may be reasonable to say that matter is representative of information in a sense. — punos

But how would you go about empirically proving that? A photon has associated attributes, sure but we currently know so little about exactly what constitutes a photon and we don't know adequate detail about it's functionality, to be able to 'reproduce' it via data representation.
Until we can actually achieve a tech such as point to point dematerialise/rematerialise transportation of objects with mass or create start trek style food replicators, we will not be able to demonstrate that data is a universal fundamental. Can you think of other tech that would be enough to demonstrate that data is 'thee' universal fundamental?

This idea of 'representation' (to present again) is why patterns can be traced back to earlier and simpler structures or even abstract principles. I think the best we can hope for (and it doesn't trouble me) is that our representations work for us and are internally and logically consistent (a utilitarian perspective). — punos

But it seems to me that the limits of what can be achieved, in that case is, 'virtual simulation' or at best 'virtual emulation,' inside computers but not physical reproduction. To me, if data is thee universal fundamental, then it MUST be possible to use it to create that which is natural, because that's the content of the universe. My use of the term natural here, refers to all possible forms of energy. If it's impossible to manipulate that which is 'natural' in such ways, then data cannot be a universal fundamental.
It does not matter if developing tech which can do ANYTHING nature can do (but can produce the result very quickly,) proves to be impossible,(no matter how much time we have to create it), due to the complexities involved or/and the limitations of any perception of future human science. As long as it is nonetheless true, that the functionality of nature can be reproduced, if we only knew all that we currently don't know about data, as thee universal fundamental.

A simulated entity on the other hand would consider anything in it's simulated environment real to it including simulated fluids. I think that's what real means, and it might be worth thinking about. It's the idea of the 'realm', and the word real is related to the word royal which ties into the "rules or laws of the land", also the concept of real-estate. — punos

I currently, give very little credence to any of the current 'simulation theories' of reality.
They are just another form of supernatural or 'god' posit imo. An infinite regression of programmers who create simulated universes.
Why would an outside force create a simulation of a universe that had no life at all in it for the vast majority of its existence. What kind of purpose would the simulators have for creating our universe?

Consider how a legal system is like a simulation, meaning it has it's own rules like contracts, taxes, etc. None of these things are real at the level of biology, or particle physics (realms of their own), but they are real at the level of a legal system. The word 'real' and 'exist' in this sense are not the same. — punos

But that's not true if data is thee fundamental! A legal system is made up of information and information is not simulated, it's real. It can even create REAL simulations.

Information entropy i think emerges in the presence of space (degrees of freedom), where the ratio of energy or matter (information: 1 bit for simplicity) to space has to be at least 1/2 or less. If the ratio were 1/1 then no possible entropy. I'm not sure if information can be erased, but it can be lost to another system which could be difficult to trace giving the impression that it was erased from existence, but i might be wrong about that. There may be a law of conservation of information in this regard. I'm not sure yet... will think about it more. — punos

Roger Penrose's CCC proposes that most 'information' will end up inside black holes as the universe experiences heat death.

Don't forget to pour one out for the homies. — punos

:lol: Well, I was still thinking about how I was going to answer your two posts to me, as I was sipping my first beer, with a Johnnie Walker (black label) whisky chaser.

I will respond to your last two posts to me, tomorrow. I am going to order in some food and have a wee nights relaxation and a couple or 10 drinks with family.
Have a good night! :party:

A mother may love her children or she may not.
Irrelevant. The authority I speak of simply needs there to be children a long time from now, not necessarily all of them. That’s a different priority, a different sort of love. — noAxioms

Not irrelevant as you have invoked the 'mommy' model time and time again, as imo, a mockery of any suggestion of a future benevolent (via robust check and balances) authority structure to help, a future human global civilisation thrive without destroying it's own nest planet.

Remember about a decade ago when Google’s business model was ‘don’t be evil’. Notice they don’t say that anymore? They found out how very well it pays. — noAxioms

Google is owned by the nefarious rich, who nurture profit more that people, what do you expect from such? Such companies have been ever thus!

Gnomon's disdain for my aggressive criticisms is apparently an excuse to continue to evade rather than engage dialectical challenge. — 180 Proof

:up: I agree.

Ozone is recovering. It does fix itself due to efforts as simple as reduction.
The carbon sequestering is interesting. Does she do it? Is a company that does it competitive with another making a similar product but without the sequestering? What sort of tonnage rate are we talking here? Where is it put that it will stay out of the environment? — noAxioms

I don't know what 'she' you are referring to? Greta Thunberg?
As for the details of carbon capture or coral reef recovery methods. I am sure there are many claims and counter claims exemplified on-line. I was referring to the genuine efforts of the people involved, not the debated efficacy of a particular method.

Do you know what I mean by those words? Can you refute the mathematics/logic instead of just point out more examples of delay? — noAxioms

Not until you offer a the details needed or at least provide links to the specific maths / logic, that have been published, peer reviewed and contain strong empirical evidence that any claims made are robust and hard to counter.

It does not follow that slowing an advance can eventually stop it — noAxioms

It also does not follow that it cannot! Climate.gov.

We want to explore and develop space not exclusively to solve our problem of excess population or the extinction threat we have due to 'having all on us on one planet only.'
Other than those reasons, what problem is being solved by it? Why exactly does it need to be ‘us’ doing the exploring instead of something more fit, designed for the task. — noAxioms

Us, as we are now, us with transhuman augments as well or exclusively transhuman augments, at least until extraterrestial habitats, are made more comfortable and practicable for us, as we are now.
I have no pressing preference. What problem was being solved when Hilary climbed mount Everest or when Armstrong first footed the Moon. It's also about human's investigating the universe they live in, as in my opinion, if we don't, we will ossify, as a species, on out little pale blue dot nest planet.

Absolutely won’t work. The elected guy will be one that does what the people want, not what they need as a whole. It cannot work that way. This authority must be able to make the tough decisions and will not be able to if he needs to get elected. — noAxioms

I don't want to get all 'panto' on you but, 'Oh, yes it will! and oh yes it can!'
My detailed arguments of why I think so would have to be a different thread about democratic socialism, secular humanism and a resource based global economy.

Agree that such a mechanism is needed, but it’s another thing that seems unworkable. Look at the failed efforts to put checks on Trump’s abuse of power. — noAxioms

That's a start, and episodes like Trump, do not negate the need for such rigorous (hopefully even fool proof), checks and balances, on all those trusted with power. They enhance such need and shoul further compel all of us to insist they are established. There is no shortage of ideas as to how to achieve such.

Probably, except for above checks, some sort of watchdog that doesn’t have a say in the decisions. Very hard to give somebody (or an entity) that sort of power than then still be able to keep it in check. Can’t consider unpopular decisions to be justification for unseating the leader. But the decisions need to be judged in the light of their higher purpose. — noAxioms

You certainly can consider unpopular decisions as a reason to consider unseating any leader or group of leaders. There would be much to consider but I would get rid of any second politically elected chamber and establish various tiers of citizen authorities. I would establish a second chamber of elected stakeholder. Nurse or teachers or the police etc can elect two members to this second chamber.
Any new law proposed by the political chamber would have to gain the support of this second chamber.

Would ‘the’ Christian church actually agree that it is OK to trash the environment since it is disposable? I don’t think many would (‘the’ in scare quotes because nobody speaks for all) — noAxioms

They have no choice, if they are being true to Christian doctrine. I agree that the Christian hierarchy would be too scared to do so, in News at 10, or such like, but that's what their doctrine dictates.

That sort of thinking comes from the statement you made. — noAxioms

:grin: God spends half it's time in the OT, smiting people (one poor guy for dropping a corner of his ark of covenant). He also commands she bears to kill kids for insulting one of his prophets, and he demands murder and ethnic cleansing, all through the OT. It's not our sort of thinking that's the problem, it's the babble in the bible that's the problem, when deluded folks accept such babble, as the written will and character of their creator.

*2. I coined the term EnFormAction to encapsulate the directional (teleonomic) causation of Evolution. The act of enforming creates novelty out of directionless randomness. For example, that's what happens when Quantum superposition (disorganized randomness) suddenly "collapses" into an organized physical particle of matter. — Gnomon

I think there is no teleological connection to natural evolution via positing a universal data fundamental.
I think the current position that disorder can become order due to very large variety randomly combining in vast numbers of ways. Natural novelty need no teleological input. Teleology only comes into play via human design/intent/purpose.
Quantum superposition has still to be fully explained. What evidence do you have that quantum superposition, is 'disorganised randomness?'

I'm not sure if Jim would agree, but I also view Information as "immaterial" in its invisible mental forms of Concepts, Ideas, Feelings, etc. — Gnomon

I don't think he would as concepts, ideas, feelings can be made very apparent through language or actions, at the will of the human involved. These are therefore only invisible to others until the source human decides to manifest them. They are not even invisible at all, in the sense that the source human is aware (cognisant) of their existence inside them.

I have to go. But if you have specific questions, raised by the video, I'll be glad to respond as I get time. — Gnomon

Same to you! You can also raise any questions that you have, and I, and I am sure others on TPF, will be happy to help.

A significant point was noted right away : "invisible information". The general thrust of the video seems to be similar to the book I'm currently reading : The Ascent of Information, by Caleb Scharf. He refers to the ubiquity of Information in the physical, mental, & technological universe as the Dataome (holistic concept similar to Genome)*1. — Gnomon

*1. In the final chapter of his book, Scharf finally reveals the motivation for his interpretation of the philosophical importance of Information : "The greater mystery is that the universe is actually capable of self-comprehension". — Gnomon

But do you think this 'capability of self-comprehension,' is only emergent through US and lifeforms such as us, or is he positing a general panpsychism, in the sense that, 'rocks contain some ingredients that could become part of a conscious combinatorial?' Would this have to follow if human consciousness is fundamentally information, and information is ubiquitous?
95% of the universe is currently 'invisible' to current science, in the form of dark matter and dark energy.
There is also a lot of matter in the universe which is 'not illuminated.' But such invisibility is not 'philosophical,' it is scientific.

Both Scharf and Al Kalili are scientists, and focus primarily on the practical Technological products (looms & computers) of understanding that abstract Information is more fundamental than concrete Matter, and can be manipulated meta-physically by the human mind. — Gnomon

I don't agree with the 'separation' you suggest here. The posit is that concrete matter IS information. It's not that information can be abstracted from that which exists in the universe, which is the important focus. It's that the single most important fundamental OF the universe could be labelled as 'data.'
The unit suggested is the bit. But, like the strings in string theory. A bit can be in many fundamental 'states.' Perhaps even 'inter dimensional vibrational states.' I think that data must be able to be in more states that the two states associated with the traditional BInary digiTs used in computing.
I don't think your use of 'meta-physically' above helps illuminate the point you make.
I think a fundamental like a gluon or a quark or an electron IS a data state!

Autistic people have a tendency to be very highly specialized in their cognitive functions to the point of reduced functionality in other areas, sometimes to a sever degree. They have a condition where brain cells in the prefrontal lobe grow "abnormally" or more than they "should". — punos

But is it not also posited that autism can result in very challenged emotional control, a lack or empathy or/and sympathy etc. Such could be really problematic if present in a hivemind. Sociopaths and narcissists can also be highly specialised in their cognitive functions but I don't recommend applying their models to a network of individual consciousnesses, unless the enhanced cognitive functions can be applied minus all the negative aspects of autism, sociopathy and narcissism.
You typed earlier about the brain as two hemispheres:

Think about the hivemind that you already are, meaning the two hemispheres of your brain are two distinct consciousnesses. — punos

I think the better model is the R-complex, the Limbic system and the Cortex. The reason I say this is because I sense the presence of all three. I refer to them with the old idea of me, myself and I.
It's interesting that our consciousness can be partitioned in such ways. I wonder how far that 'reductionism' can 'scientifically' be proved true. Is human intent and purpose reducible to data representations. It has to be, if information is 'thee' universal fundamental.

The main difference really between a hive mind and what you and i are doing right now is simply network 'protocol'. — punos

But developing adequate network protocols, that are 'fit for purpose' for all possible scenarios, (for which it's almost impossible to exhaustively test,) is really difficult, and it's why those who develop network operating systems are highly paid and the best of them are highly sought after by every country in the world.

It is wiser to listen to the wisdom of the crowd and not be so adversarial with our ideas and each other. — punos

But, we must also be careful and balance your well stated and valid point, with dealing with error, misguided viewpoints, deliberate subterfuge, etc, etc. It's also not always clear who in the crowd, is genuine and who are 'wolves in sheep's clothing,' or 'bad disguised as good or innocent.'
The (imo) invented Jesus characature might seem like a pleasant fellow we should all follow, when his fable is actually a cautionary tale of a 'pied piper,' trying to get rebellious Jews to accept the rule of their 'Roman' conquerers. "Give unto Caesar, what is Caesar's" Really? That's the advice of a God??????
Pay your taxes/tribute to whatever vile thug happens to have temporarily subjugated your tribe.
I accept that is trying to figure things out, just like the rest of us but I also think he is trying to 'leave the door ajar,' for those who want to find some common ground between theism and the scientific method. I want to slam that door shut permanently and move on.

I remember reading somewhere not too long ago about the photon needing 8 bits to describe it. I think the search term i used was "how many bits to describe a photon". Regardless, its not 1 bit because light has wave structure like amplitude, frequency, which is at least 2 bits but to describe the full phenomena of light like variable frequencies and amplitude it must be more than just 2 bits. I'll try to find the source, which doesn't seem to be coming up at the top of my google search now. — punos

Yes but my problem is that using bits to represent a photon is still a REPRESENTATION.
Computers exist based on binary representations but the two state representations used in current computers are based on the presence or absence of a voltage > 0 volts and <= 5 volts.
Such representations have little to do with the 'physical realities' of the universe. So I am interested on how a two state representation can actually BE a physical representation of the universe.
In the video, from time stamp 36 mins. Jim starts to talk about Turing's vision of computers and how we can now MIMIC or emulate the functionality of other devices (a phone, a calculator, a camera, a typewriter, a fax machine, ete, etc,) on a single handheld computer but he then goes on to suggest that the laws and rules of physics can be represented in a similar way. The simulations shown at around time stamp 38 mins are just that, simulations of a real world fluid but such cannot produce a REAL world fluid.
That's the bit I am interested. Can identification of a fundamental unit for information open the door to something like star trek style replicators or transporters?
Later on, in the vid, when Jim starts talking about 'deletion of information' and connecting that to the concept of universal entropy, Is that a valid definition of what entropy is? The loss of information? To where? black holes?

Thanks for bringing in this video. It offers plenty of food for the mind. — Alkis Piskas

:up:

~25:00
1) What does the box full of air and what the partition dividing the box into two parts (hot and cold) represent in actuality?
2) What does the daemon represent? God? Some Super Mind or Intelligence? — Alkis Piskas

Thanks for the time stamps Alkis, I appreciate the time and effort involved.
James Clerk Maxwell's demon was his own thought experiment to explain to people, the mechanisms involved in the second law of thermodynamics. Rather than me, offer you my summary of the 'what, and why,' I think Maxwell chose to present his thought experiment in the way he did. I thought it would be better for you to have a look at some of the published text on the topic. Have a look at Maxwell's demon.

~26:00
1) What does the "gap" or "path" (not sure about the word used) that allows the passage of molecules from one part to another represent in actuality and how does this happen? — Alkis Piskas

If you made a hot cup of coffee and put in on a table. The coffee would eventually reach thermal equilibrium (reach the same temperature as the air in your kitchen), as the heat from the coffee would dissipate into the volume of the kitchen, which would slightly raise the overall temperature in the kitchen but only until it was the same as the temperature of the coffee and then the transfer of heat would stop.
The gap that the demon open and closes, represents an attempt (thought experiment) to reverse the thermal equilibrium between the kitchen and the coffee in the cup, so that the coffee would stay hot and the heat would not be lost to the kitchen (almost like putting the coffee in a flask to maintain it's heat for longer).

~49:00
Re: "Information lies at the heart of the physical world"
This made me think of two things: 1) information and purpose and 2) information and meaning.
We know that both relations apply on a human level. But is there a meaning or purpose of information on the level of the physical world? If yes, what that could be? — Alkis Piskas

For me, as my career is in Computing Science. Information with no meaning is data.
'Jimmy' is data. 'Dog name: Jimmy' is information.
1 or 0 are bit data. They represent two data states. If I try to perceive their fundamental representation in the sense of the physical world. The best I can come up with is 1 = something and 0 = nothing( or perhaps it's better to suggest 'an absence of something.') Traditionally, in Computing, 1 = true and 0 = false or 1 = on (there is a voltage) and 0 = off (there is no voltage). These are measurements that happen to a clock pulse (normally the clock pulse of a computer processor.) So time must pass, for a system to be able to measure data/information. If such a system can be 'equated' to something like a 'field excitation,' then this would suggest that all particles could be described in terms of data representations. These data representations could then become information, by labelling them things like 'up quark' or 'gluon' or 'string' or 'electron' etc and by doing this, the physical contents of the universe could be fundamentally described as 'information.'

What response? Clarify .. — 180 Proof

You offered him the choice of responding by proxy.

↪Gnomon You can post answers to these several questions either in reply to me directly or in reply to Agent Smith or @universeness and that will be the end of this antagonism between us, no more rejoiners or criticisms from me. — 180 Proof

I think he is responding, but not directly to you. I think he has chosen to maintain a political approach to you and I would personally prefer he responded to you directly. But I also respect his right to choose not to. I have less respect for that choice however. @Gnomon has given his reasons for choosing not to interact with you directly but I personally, don't accept them, as you are just a robust, knowledgeable debater, and in no way are you just acrimonious, for the hell of it (a troll).

I theorize that autistic people will probably play a significant roll in the adoption and evolution of hive minds. It almost seems to me that autistic people and hiveminds will make a perfect fit. Perhaps the steady increase in the birth rate of autistic children is an evolutionary self-organizing pre-development leading up to the emergence of hiveminds. — punos

Why do you think autism would make a person most suited to a hivemind?

A hivemind is the "perfection" of democracy, a completely leaderless complex dynamical system self-regulated from within it's own activity, a situation where everyone's will naturally balances out like nerve cells entrained on a pattern in your own mind. — punos

The only imagery that springs to mind is:

The alien can access the information stored in the robot boy. The network to other aliens seems to be by touch. I don't see any invocation of a hivemind here, however, It seems to be more like the model I suggested, Autonomous Individuals who can also act as a merged/networked collective. Which traditional model of a hivemind are you suggesting matches your claim of a 'perfect democracy.'
I never like the use of 'perfect,' when it comes to describing any system, as I think it's one of those words that invokes a non-existent.

For me there can only be one fundamental: the bit. — punos

A true fundamental would only need one bit to be described and it takes 8 bits to describe a photon for example. So i suspect that it's perhaps a couple levels above absolute fundamentality. — punos

This is where I think the video falls short and the current scientific orthodoxy on the fundamentality of data is incomplete. But I don't think Gnomon's enformationism takes us anywhere useful, as it is too 'philosophical' and does not qualify as a scientific theory which has empirical evidence and has been peer reviewed. I would pay much more attention to it if it was a theory, instead of just a personal hypothesis. I googled 'a photon represented in 8 bits,' and got nothing of any value. Do you have any details on this?

It's not always easy to identify when and what particular aspects of a post are jocular. Best to use the 'joke' emoticon if you think it's not totally obvious. I do not value any hivemind model, available in the insect world as worth emulation for humans or transhumans. I also do not value any hivemind posited by sci-fi, that I am familiar with. I would model any future collective effort, on democratic socialist models, that fully respect individual freedom, to not take part in such. If freedom of choice is compromised by a future system then we must combat it as best we can.

No, I am willing to collectivise and work together, but my individuality is also essential.
Hivemind's have a totalitarian ruler. F*** that shit!!!!
It would be cool in an ASI future, if there was a way to fully merge individual brain power, in a way which made such a network function in ways, that were more that just a sum of parts.
But the ability to resort back to autonomous individuals, would be 'human' and essential imo.

Ok, It seems we type mainly, in unison.

Do the fractional charges of quarks play an essential role in the outer boundary of a quark's field excitations? — ucarr

Sorry, ucarr, you have just went past my current physics. I am not sure who are the most qualified physics folks on this forum. From my personal previous exchanges, perhaps @noAxioms could offer a more accurate, detailed physics response to your above question, than I could.

Does Gell-Mann answer my question by identifying quarks as purely mathematical entities? — ucarr

No, because I think Gell-Mann is wrong.

From phys.org:

Quarks have an astonishingly wide range of masses. The lightest is the up quark, which is 470 times lighter than a proton. The heaviest, the t quark, is 180 times heavier than a proton -- or almost as heavy as an entire atom of lead.
"So why these huge ratios between masses? This is one of the big mysteries in theoretical physics right now," Lepage said. "Indeed it is unclear why quarks have mass at all." He added that the new Large Hadron Collider in Geneva was built to address this question.

Does the material universe have a one-dimensional realm? Does it have a two-dimensional realm? — ucarr

Only imaginary realms or mathematical realms not 'real' ones, imo. Such realms can be modelled but not realised within our universe. If string theory is correct and we have more that 3 dimensions in THIS universe then none of those extra dimensions are macro (or extended dimensions.) They are all posited are dimensions which are all wrapped around every 3D coordinate in our universe. The calibi-yau manifolds are an attempt to display a 2D representation of a multi-dimensional space. The following is a 2D representation of a 6D space (that I admit, means nothing to me, as it just looks like an interesting shape, that I don't understand, at all!)



This image is on wiki, here.
Does this mean that it can be suggested that in our 3D extended space, each dimension is 'wrapped' around an original single dimension? I think the answer is no and I know of no currently plausible scientific hypothesis that suggests otherwise.

For three-dimensional humans, are these realms, if extant, inaccessible? — ucarr

Carl Sagan in one of his episodes of Cosmos, models a 3D object landing in 'flat land.' I think he used an apple on a piece of 2D card with little square lifeforms moving around on the card. He explains that the flat land lifeforms would just see some strange geometric, disjointed 'slices,' appear from nowhere.
It offered a 'little' understanding of a 3D object trying to manifest in a 2D space.
NO! this does not make 'crop circles,' 4D lifeforms trying to manifest in 3D space :lol: I doubt you were making any such connections!

then do we have reason to see that Gell-Mann, by characterizing quarks as purely mathematical entities, creates some distortion of truth via simplification for the sake of clarity? — ucarr

Yes, I think so. It's similar to the current debate on exactly what 'virtual particles' are. Some very learned people say they are 'real' (kinda makes the word 'virtual' confusing) and others say they are only mathematical (I would agree). I think vp's really help in explaining what is going on at a quantum level.
From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles.

I would call @Gnomon's response, as in the style of the experienced politician.

It's about theoretical Philosophy, not empirical Science. — Gnomon

Do you disagree that empirical science must be the final arbiter of theoretical philosophy? If your answer is no, then what is the path from hypothesis based philosophy to what you are labelling 'theoretical' philosophy? A theory is a tested hypothesis, some strong empirical evidence must be tested and peer reviewed before a hypothesis can even become a theory. What you are labelling 'theoretical philosophy,' will always be in danger of remaining purely faith based or become mere 'philosophical conjecture/musing,' if it has no support from empirical science.

A photon is not energy. — Gnomon

A photon is an energy concentration/packet/excitation in an energy field/potential to do work.
A photon IS electromagnetic energy.

I understand this in the sense that for me neither energy nor information have any manifestation unless they come as a unit; — punos

So do you not accept photons, gluons as the fundamentals of energy, measured in elecrton-volts or joules? In the video I posted, from time stamp 41:07. Jim relay's the story of Shannon's identification of the bit as the fundamental of information. A bit can be represented in many ways and the fact that we can represent it and built 'two state' computers based on it, and use that 'two state' system to progress to quantum computers and use that to progress to a future ASI, is pretty strong evidence for me, that information does have a very REAL fundamental unit, that we can represent as a BInary digiT.

Why "vacuum fluctuations" and not "God", that is if an answer with no explanation is sufficient? — punos

Because such a god posit is 'of the gaps.' 'An answer with no(or insufficient) explanation YET, does not mean insufficient explanation FOREVER. How does slotting in god help us meantime? Why would that turn insufficient into sufficient? What have we gained if we say god did it? Should 'god did it,' ever provide all humans (especially those with a mind towards scientific investigation) with an excuse to stop asking detailed questions that can and must be asked about quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space. I vote for continuing to try to find the answers we want and never be satisfied with the delusional god answer.

I have watched that video previously, and i just watched it again. Thanks — punos

:up:

no physical evidence will be possible, only computational evidence which can be checked by computer simulation. — punos

How do you know no physical evidence will be possible, it depends on exactly what is covered in the future by the label 'physical.' Once we have 'real' AI/AGI/ASI, who knows how far and how quickly our scientific knowledge will advance. The only aspects/attributes of god posits I ever see any credence for are emergent in humans. The omni labels, like the concept of zero do have some practical use as placeholders and as non-existents that we can nonetheless, asymptotically aspire to.
'Perfection' can hold a place but only an imaginary one.

Yes, that one. Capitalism has a nice motivator for that, but I have to admit that socialism also can do it, as evidence by the work ethic of more social countries. I suspect much of the problem is identification of a non-cooperative attitude with your peer group. For example, resistance to the Covid vaccines has been assiciated with a conservative viewpoint. Getting a shot is seen as a vote for the wrong party, so they don’t. I lost a sister-in-law to that mentaility. I’m such a proponent of free speech, but I obviously see a downside to it. — noAxioms

Reasonable thinking imo.

A republic is simply free of monarchic or aristocratic rule. A republic can be a socialist democratic republic. There have been some countries labelled as such but those proved to be nothing more than an abuse of the label — noAxioms

OK, I admit to not being up on the terminology, and agree that no country seems to actually operate under a system that their ‘label’ is supposed to describe.[/quote]

:clap:

I don’t see it much, but there’s a reason that many sorts of surveillance is restricted or just plain illegal. There is very much potential of misuse if you already have the data for supposedly normal purposes. — noAxioms

I agree that there are very valid security concerns regarding your personal data and exactly who has access to it and could abuse that access.

Agree except for the logic. Whether my life was better not lived or not depends heavily on the gauge by which the benefit of it is measured. — noAxioms

Agreed but I think it is possible to get a general overview. I don't like citing theistic Hollywood BS, but it's the only (relatively poor) example that springs into my head. In the film 'It's a Wonderful life,' Jimmy Stewart is shown how he positively impacted the lives of others. Such criteria is one way to measure your life, imo.

I got lost in the jargon enough that I couldn’t make that assessment. It was that for which I was looking. — noAxioms

Ok, thanks again for taking the time to listen/watch it. If you try again, tell me your impressions of the superluminal communication possibilities you think were involved (if any).

That’s the life in a box. Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to do it here, kind of like Logan’s run? — noAxioms

Could be much the same as life in the box you currently call your home. The only difference would be that you need a spacesuit to go outside. That may happen here anyway, if your predictions of the effects of climate change all come true. Logan's run just suggested you get killed when you get to a certain age. What's that dystopian storyline got to do with potential human life on Mars? We want to explore and develop space not exclusively to solve our problem of excess population or the extinction threat we have due to 'having all of us on one planet only.' (your Logan's run suggestion would not even solve that one.) We want to go boldly go where no-one has gone before, that's embedded deep in our nature. It is a large part of our intent and purpose. Your home is a box, as is your nation and your planet and our solar system and our galaxy. The boxes get a lot bigger as you leave your home box (your house or your planet.)

You don’t want some kind of authority to keep each of the planets in the federation from stepping out of the agreements? — noAxioms

I want authority that is democratically elected (Proportional representation and the single transferable vote). Authority that is answerable to very strong checks and balances that will instantly kick in, and cause any individual, to be removed from power, quickly and assuredly, if you are guilty of abusing your power and of acting nefariously. Your imagery of motherhood models of authority are dictatorial one's. A mother/child relationship is not democratic. A mother may love her children or she may not. Such authority as 'mother,' or your more childish label 'mommy,' is at best, a cult of personality and raw emotion. It is a 'silly' authority model to suggest, as a way of running a progressive human civilisation.

OK, that’s just assigning a completely fictional long-term goal. I agree with that, but was trying to say that they don’t address long term goals in this life. — noAxioms

Ah, ok, so you are basically agreeing, that the tenents of many religions and consequentially, the majority of it's adherents, consider all Earthly experiences/materials/ecology, disposable.

I seem to see only suggestions of slowing the destruction, not in any way undoing any of it — noAxioms

New carbon capture initiatives are an example of actions which are directly targeted at 'undoing,' damage already done, as are all efforts to stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so that such as the ozone layer can recover. A great deal of work is also being done to help coral reefs repair.
Many species are being reintroduced into areas where they have been made extinct, so as to reintroduce the benefits they offered to the ecology of the area. 'Beavers' for example. You are justified in complaining that, it's probably not enough and it's not fast enough and there probably will be heavy prices to pay, but, I think you should recognise the very serious efforts that are being made and encourage their growth, rather than just keep suggesting that all such efforts are in vain, especially with doomster words such as:

It buys time, but actually makes the crash worse. — noAxioms

but I cannot actually find any suggested action that doesn’t just fall under the category of slowing the advance. — noAxioms

Slowing an advance, if continued, can eventually STOP an advance and eventually REVERSE an advance. Each of us must do what we can to help.

You've answered my questions with useful info. Thank-you. — ucarr

:up:

I'm asking whether these existentially -- right? — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by these words.

fractional quarks and gluons are expanded into three spatial dimensions. Is the answer similar to your answer re: the 3D shape of the electron? — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by 'fractional quarks,' a quark is not 'fractional' unless you simply mean that they combine to make a proton or a neutron an in that sense they are 'part' of a hadron structure.
Yes, quarks are 3D field excitations. A proton is made of 3 quarks, 2 'up' quarks and 1 down quark. Held together by gluons. There are no free quarks, all quarks are 'bound up.' Neutrons are also made of 3 quarks but 2 are down quarks and 1 is an up quark. There are other types of quark, bound up in other types of matter, such as neutrino's. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

What do you say to the following reformulation: Given our apparent human entrapment within an empirical experience of 3D, does that entrapment render the first two spatial dimensions of our real world as abstract objects known solely a priori? — ucarr

Well, I would ask, why you are differentiating is any sense between the 3 dimensions we 'empirically experience?' Why would 'two' spatial dimensions be abstract and another real? All three have equal 'significance of presence' and all three are experienced equally by humans (although up/down could be considered a different experience to forwards/backwards and side to side, I suppose).
I don't see how you can connect a dimension of space with the concept of an 'object'. An object can have dimensions but I don't see how it can be posited AS a dimension. Perhaps I am missing your main 'philosophical' point here. Can you exemplify further?

Seems fair to me!

What about elementary particles? Does an electron have depth? — ucarr

Yes, but it's not shaped like a little sphere or even spheroid. It's an irregular excitation within a field which propagates in spacetime.

What about quarks and gluons, mere fractional parts of elementary particles, with fractional charges? — ucarr

What about them? What are you asking? proton's and neutrons are not fundamentals, Electrons are, as are quarks and gluons.

At the sub-atomic scale it’s probably hard to talk about the three spatial dimensions of the human-scale of experience, given the unusual and startling attributes of quantum mechanical physics. — ucarr

Why? In what way does such as quantum entanglement, superposition or tunnelling, clash with 3d?

If we imagine an authentically 1D or 2D object in our 3D world, can it have any workable reality? — ucarr

No (Imo) but it's very useful in mathematical modelling.

How could you move a 1D or 2D object absent the third dimension of depth? — ucarr

In flat land (2D) you cannot move up or down.
In line land (1D) You cannot move up or down or overtake.

Likewise, how could you bend or reconfigure such a physical object without the third dimension of depth? — ucarr

You couldn't, (EDIT: apart from squishing it, ultimately into a pointlike configuration,) just like we cant project a 3D object into a 4th dimension, regardless of whether or not a 4th dimension is macro, or is wrapped around every set of 3D spacetime coordinates.
It's mathematically easy to refer to 4th dimensional spacetime as (x,y,z, a, t) but you cant show the 'a' coordinate geometrically.

Given our apparent human entrapment within an empirical experience of 3D, does that entrapment render the first two spatial dimensions of our real world as metaphysical objects? — ucarr

You could use the very overburdened label 'metaphysical,' for such, imo, if you want to, but you invite the supernatural woo woo, associated with the term, if you do.

@Gnomon, @180 Proof, @punos,@Agent Smith, also @Alkis Piskas (due to Jim Al-Khalili's connection between information and disorder-order in this vid) and of course anyone else interested.
Please watch this, if you have not watched it previously. It is almost an hour long but it is worth every second of your time, based on our recent exchanges in this thread. It is also directly related to my OP, human intent and purpose, and what is emergent due to human intent and purpose. ASI in particular!


To @Gnomon in particular. This video explains why I dont consider you a crank, as I do also accept, that information/data is a universal fundamental. I also think it's fundamental unit, may well be the 'bit' as the 'smallest measure of information possible.' This vid also features a discussion of the importance of the work of Claude Shannon, which you have also cited. Where do you think your enformation, etc posits, takes us, FROM the current position, as established by Jim Al-Khalili's video above.
I would like anyone here to reference any section of this (imo,) very important video, (please reference by time stamp,) that you think best supports or counters anything raised by Gnomon's enformationism.
I first saw this on TV around 3 years ago and and I have now, watched it about 5 times, including last night, due to my exchange with Gnomon.

↪Gnomon You can post answers to these several questions either in reply to me directly or in reply to Agent Smith or @universeness and that will be the end of this antagonism between ua, no more rejoiners or criticisms from me. Give other members who are skeptical of your "personal philosophical worldview" potential reasons with your "staightforward" answers to reconsider the stuff you're selling. Clarifying your contributions to TPF, Gnomon, need not be blocked by our impasse. — 180 Proof

:clap: Very reasonable, constructive response. Which Gnomon should respond to, in kind, or risk the conformation of any lingering sophist accusations, folks may have towards him.

https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-only-bank-vault-opening-in-london-2019-12 — Vera Mont

Hey, how did you know where I keep my first edition, signed copies of priceless Vera Mont books!!!