I'm not so sure. The knowledge of nuclear fission lead to compassionate/productive use: nuclear power plants and malevolent/destructive use: nuclear bombs. — Benj96

The A-bomb also became the start of the 'ban the bomb' movement, CND (campaign for nuclear disarmament). The test ban treaty, détente, and probably even Mikhail Gorbachev. It did as much to united people all over the world in common cause as it did to further divide people. It was a massive step forward in getting many to see the world as a single vulnerable planet ('pale blue dot,' enhanced this).
Your "I'm not so sure," is a reasonably position to take but for me, it's a little imbalanced and it's just related to the 'half empty/half full' approach to such. I am not advocating that we must always focus on the search for silver linings in every cloud but neither should we focus on the darkness.

Having knowledge doesn't make anyone any better/more empathetic. It simply acts as a basis for further good or bad deeds. — Benj96

If I begin to see that the soldiers I have been ordered to kill, have more in common with me than they have difference, then we might together, begin to understand, that it's the whims of those in power who put us both in this situation who are the real rogue's, and perhaps we should all, on both sides, throw down our guns and walk away, and refuse to do their bidding. Knowledge can be absolutely pivotal!
If I have knowledge of how the money trick actually works then perhaps I will be much more empathetic towards those who are utterly forced to live in poverty. This should compel me to speak out against money and capitalism. My subsequent actions might be judged GOOD, if you are one of the poor or BAD if you are one of the rich, so your mention of 'good or bad deeds' above is for the judgement of the beholder.

Knowledge or power/ability is not a reflection of character of a conscious entity. — Benj96

Of course it is!!! Knowledge IS power and can have an enormous affect on 'the character of' an individual. It's the difference between a total 'conscious' idiot and a 'conscious,' knowledgeable person.

This is partly the reason for a belief in a benevolent God. Because if its omnipotent/all powerful it could have just as easily destroyed the entire reality we live in or designed one to cause maximal suffering. But for those that are enjoying the state of being alive, it lends itself to the view that such a God is not so bad afterall. As they allowed the beauty of existence and all the pleasures that come with it. — Benj96

Making excuses for a god, using the argument, that it's 'not so bad,' because, although it's so called, 'recorded word,' testifies that it supports human slavery and ethnic cleansing and sending those it created (but judges flawed,) to hell (and not just for a fixed sentence or to get rehabilitated, but FOR ETERNITY!) IS rather irrational, if you ask me. KNOWING how gods are described historically and currently, surely means that any assignment, of any notion of 'benevolence,' is not enough to compensate for it's deserved accusations of supporting and performing atrocity and evil behaviour.

We design AI based on human data. So it seems natural that such a product will be similar to us as we deem success as "likeness" - in empathy, virtue, a sense of right and wrong. — Benj96

Which data are you labelling exclusively 'human.' If I program a computer with data that describes how the planets of the solar system orbit the Sun, how 'human' is the data involved?
If an alien programmed a computer with data about how the planets in its solar system orbited its, star or stars, would that be 'alien' data? I think your logic is flawed here.

At the same time we hope it has greater potential than we do. Superiority. We hope that such superiority will be intrinsically beneficial to us. That it will serve us - furthering medicine, legal policy, tech and knowledge. — Benj96

I agree, we hope that the main existential threat from a potential future ASI, will not happen and instead, the future ASI will merge with us in such a way that we are still or can still be what we consider 'human' but are transhuman rather than posthuman and we are just far more robust(far more protected against all existential threat) with very advanced functionality. I think it's worth taking the risk of developing it.

The question then is, historically speaking, have superior organisms always favoured the benefit of inferior ones? If we take ourselves as an example the answer is definitely not. At least not in a unanimous sense. — Benj96

By Darwinian, jungle style rules, no, conquering and assimilating has been the norm but the whole point of humans trying to create a 'civilisation,' is that we REJECT jungle rules as having ANY role to play. The fact that they still do, IS to the chagrin of all those millions of people who try, every day, to fight for a better world. Stay with us Ben and stop offering comfort to those who posit the benevolence of gods.

Some of us do really care about the ecosystem, about other animals, about the planet at large. But some of us are selfish and dangerous. — Benj96

So f*** them!(EDIT: the selfish and dangerous, that is!) Let's keep working hard to change their viewpoints or render them as powerless as they need to be for the sake of the future of all of us.

If we create AI like ourselves it's likely it will behave the same. I find it hard to believe we can create anything that isn't human behaving, as we are biased and vulnerable to our own selfish tendencies. — Benj96

When will you stop concentrating on where humans came from and start concentrating on what we have the potential to become?

An omnibenevolent AI would be unrecognisable to us - as flawed beings. — Benj96

I will be content with benevolent, as omnis are impossible. My hope remains that any ASI supported transhuman form is NOT posthuman. I use the term posthuman in the sense of the extinction of all traces of anything substantial that WE would be able to recognise as human.

With a significant number of heavy tanks from the West now heading for Ukraine, including the Leopard tanks from Germany. Things just escalated! Much bigger booms coming or Russian bust?

So your answer to @180 Proof's question to me above, relates to my numbers 2 and 5 above and of course number 7 could still apply. I think I will just drop this issue now as I am probably not helping improve the impasse between you both. I was just trying to reduce the barrier between you both, that's all. You both seem to be reasonable folks to me.

Okay I'll bite:
1. Fear that he cannot defend against you.
2. He considers you too disrespectful towards him, and he refuses to indulge you.
3. He does not have the personal energy reserves needed to equal your persistence.
4. He is a very experienced sophist who selects his targets wisely.
5. You cause him too much pain.
6. He is a true seeker who is trying to get through to you but you cant see the truth when it's offered to you.
7. You are him and this is all part of your cunning plan to rule the Earth.

:up: but shhhhhhhh no one knows where the box is now!

Yeah Redford has been fantastic in some films and awful in others.
I think indecent proposal is crap as well and I hate 'The way we were' but Redford was amazing in
The Sting
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Brubaker

See, I think Billy Connolly is the greatest 'observational comic,' there has ever been.
Even simple ones like, "I couldn't believe it when walking in a Belfast street after xmas. There was a shop advertising half price bomber jackets!!" :rofl:
Robin Williams was another phenomenal observational comic.
Chaplin, Laurel and Keaton are amongst the greatest physical comedians ever. So Connolly and Williams doing the writing and Chaplin, Laurel and Keaton doing the physical enactments would be unbeatable imo.

Based on that kind of set-up, would you still choose the names you chose for your all time greatest comedy dream team?

Looking on past the links you provided above. I did notice that @Gnomon does not respond to many of your questions. He is welcome to reconsider, that and respond to the points you made, if he wants to.

although my modest contribution to the emergent information-centric worldview is to make-up some neologisms to convey the unconventional (post-Shannon) concepts that emerge from the new understanding of the ubiquitous role of Information in the universe : including both Mind & Matter. For example, what I call "EnFormAction" (energy + laws) is just a new name for the causal "phenomenon at the root of things"*1. — Gnomon

*1. quote from Caleb Scharf in The Ascent of Information, who has never heard of Enformationism . — Gnomon

But questions from @180 Proof like:

1. Why do "ancient Holistic philosophies" need non-philosophical "support"?
2. What is such "support" suppose to change about or with "ancient Holistic philosophies"? And change for whom?
3. Lastly, insofar as scientifically literate philosophers / students of philosophy tend to dismiss your repetitious (mis)uses of scientific theories and their findings coupled with your own (disingenuous?) confession to being a neophyte in both philosophy and natural sciences, how do you know, Gnomon, that the pervasive "lukewarm reception ,"is due to "reductive scientistic bias" and not due to well-founded learning that is philosophically and/or scientifically superior to your own? What does overlooking or denying the more likely prospect of the latter possibility say about the "openness" – or lack thereof – of your "mind", sir?[/quote]

Wont go away until you answer them succinctly. You should either PM each other and have an honest, good natured debate or start another thread and do it on the main mage of TPF where others such as I can contribute. It would be fun, and it need not be acrimonious.
If neither of you can be bothered or your have already 'tried, been there, bought the tshirt etc,' then I will accept that and say no more about it.

Yep, another good vid. I agree with the argument that although ASI may prove to be an existential threat, it may also be our best protection against existential threats. I am a fan of Nick Bostrom and do rate his opinions on the topic.
You might also like:

Demis Hassabis is on the left of Sam Harris and I think he is involved in some very interesting projects at DeepMind but I hate and worry about the fact that there are no many 'rich' people at the leading edge of development/ownership of this tech.

:up:

You appear to be more hopeful for a benevolent ASI than I assumed you would be! :cool: :flower:
I personally still love that Hazel O'Conner song, 8th Day, but then I have been a massive fan of her music, since my teens!

I cannot see why AGI / ASI sans fifty-plus million years of hardwired primate baggage (that is, without e.g. limbic-endochrine systems, metabolic-reproductive-territorial drives, or 'terror management' biases) would just as likely be "aggressive" as to be non-aggressive. — 180 Proof

Can you clarify this a little more? Are you saying the fact these aspects of the human experience will be 'missing' from a future ASI makes it MORE likely that an ASI would not care about humans?
By white/black swan, are you saying that the aggressive ASI is the more likely white swan portion of swandom and the black swan,(representing a completely benevolent ASI) the far more unlikely outcome?
I assume you are suggesting such.
Humans experienced the 'laws of the jungle' path to where we are now. As you say, AI has not.
Perhaps it will be a case of how we treat ASI when and if it appears. Perhaps it will naturally 'love' that which provided the spark that allowed it to 'become.'
In the same way that many theists 'love' god or in the same way many (perhaps even most) humans 'love' the universe. I don't think that's just 'hippy talk,' or any such notion. I think a benevolent ASI is just as possible as a malevolent one.
The more knowledge humans gain, the more empathetic they become to other species and to each other imo, and they also become more cognisant of their environment and how they need to protect it.
Steven Pinker's charts, support this. There are even a few films like:


or even


who depict benevolent AI/AGI/ASI
I don't think such as the Asimov three rules of robotics will offer us much protection but I would certainly try to use such as them, just in case you are more correct on this issue than I am.
I like that Crosby, Stills and Nash song (Crosby was supposed to be a total curmudgeon).
I though you were more likely to use something like:

:scream:

:up: Thanks for your input Alkis!

If that's your belief system, I apologize for stepping on your toes. — Gnomon

You haven't. I don't consider you a crank. It can be very tough indeed to try to occupy any 'middle ground' between two diametrically opposed groups. I do have a scientism, in that I champion science over theism or any supernatural posits, completely. I wear that definition of 'scientism,' with as much joy as any halelujah chorus.

PS__My personal worldview has some similarities to holistic oriental philosophies -- Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. -- but is not beholden to their religious doctrines. — Gnomon

:up:

PPS__Thanks for moderating your mockery. Some posters are not so tactful in their ridicule of rival "religions". — Gnomon

I have no religion and reject any suggestion (including any camouflaged ones,) that science or atheism are in any way, religious or theistic.
Thank you also for not attacking my critique of your viewpoints with nothing but ad hominins. I have also had many such exchanges on TPF but I normally give as good as I get. I will get down in the mud and scrap, if my interlocuter is trying to browbeat me.

while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality. — Gnomon

I don't assign a 100% credence to this viewpoint but my current credence level on this is very high.

- "only science" means that theoretical Philosophy is not accepted as a path to Truth. — Gnomon

I do give credence to 'theoretical philosophy' but I do think empirical science is its final arbiter.

I have enjoyed our exchange on this thread Gnomon, thanks for taking the time to explain some of your viewpoints to me. As someone who states that they have no significant academic quals, you demonstrate impressive thinking skills imo.

Excellent vid.
I think the natural development of AI(as AI starts to create AI and progress towards ASI) has as much chance of becoming a totally benevolent emergence as it does of becoming a purely evil one.
We may end up with as much ASI protection as we get ASI aggression. That will be an interesting fight.
I hope the benevolent ASI wins and we merge with it in a transhuman fashion without becoming posthuman. Panglossian is more comfortable to me than your posthumanist stance and I don't accept that the preponderance of evidence, is on your side.
As Vera Mont suggests,

I very much doubt any computer would consider enslaving any person or creature. It would have no reason to, and reason is what they do best.
We would certainly be better off if we made reasoned, altruistic decisions. — Vera Mont

I'm just amazed that i'm alive to see it with my own eyes, and to feel it in my own bones. — punos

:up: I agree and feel the same.

That even more is never going to happen. Kind of kills the whole point of rule by unverifiable promises. — noAxioms

I think there will come a more enlightened time in the future when there are not many theists left. If that happens, then theistic buildings will need to be repurposed. There are more and more empty churches nowadays.

Quite a bit. I just served 2 months on a grand jury and got a taste of the sort of evidence they collect automatically. They knew where these baddies were by phone tracking and car-license monitoring on the main roads. All the big tech companies (apple, google, microsoft, etc) are quite up front now that they collect data on everything you do on your devices. It gets pretty obvious when new ads appear obviously based on recent browsing history. — noAxioms

But I have no problem with the examples you cite above, as I think one helps protect me and 'society' and the other is at best 'convenient' and at worse 'pestering.' Big brother is a nefarious, evil force how much are you concerned that such data is being misused? What examples do you have of such. I think such personal data IS being misused by some 'individuals' in 'some organisations,' but I am yet to be convinced that such abuse is as rife as some (especially conspiracy addicts,) suggest.

Make your mark before you’re gone. Make something that can last. That’s as good a purpose as I can think of. — noAxioms

I agree but I would add that your mark must be benevolent or else your life would have been better not lived at all, imo.

I did watch and admittedly don’t know the terminology enough to follow what is being suggested. — noAxioms

Thanks for investing the time. Overall, and accepting, as I did myself that much of it was over my head, did you think Leonard was positing a situation where superluminal communication or/and superluminal transportation was not impossible?

Yeah, I have watched that one many times. It's one that gets me thinking about a 'dream team of comedy' list/thread.
Which comedians would you choose for the best comedy team ever in history? and you must explain why you would include each one, based on how they would compliment your previous choices. All of them would be at the prime of their profession of course.
Charlie Chaplin, Billy Connolly, Robin Williams, Stan Laurel, Buster Keaton. Would that team work, for example?

Hard to engineer something that can thrive in such a hostile environment — noAxioms

I assume we will start with some dome style construction with tech that can best emulate/simulate Earth's conditions but I accept that, initially, it will be a very rough and dangerous existence.
I would definitely sign up to go try!

I think a federation of planets would resist a mommy even more than a single one. — noAxioms

I don't think much of your 'mommy' comparator. Try to balance your seemingly low opinion of your own species. Many folks have done and still do, dedicate their lives to try to improve the lives of everyone else, surely you are willing to admit they exist and support them in everyway you are able to. You seem to have a similar feeling about the members of your own species to god when it asked Abraham/Lot to produce 50 (which was negotiated down to 10, I believe :lol: ) good people from the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sure you could find many more good people than 50 to stop you from just 'scrapping,' your whole species as just a total failure.

............ In this way, the most serious cases are lost, but in the ‘share all the world’ method, even more die and the survivors are worse off. — noAxioms

Democratic? Most places are republics. What’s your definition of something being democratic? — noAxioms

If it’s self-sustaining without fossil fuel, then great! It’s a city. Where do the rednecks live? — noAxioms

I could give you my personal, detailed viewpoints of the tenets of democratic socialism and how it would function and be applied to deal with each scenario you would throw at it. Yes, general tenets such as 'from each according to their ability and to each according to their need,' 'control over the means of production, distribution and exchange,' 'governance of, for and by the people,' 'the continued and regularly renewed democratic consent of the majority,' all remain in the 'mission statement' of democratic socialism. I am willing to try to address any scenario you wish to use to test secular/humanist/democratic/socialism, championed or even just posited as the best social/economic/political system for humans to live under.

The 'share the world,' within which you claim 'even more die,' could be debated case by case, depending on any historical or current example you might raise. The global production system has ever been organised as a solely resource based 'not for profit,' system, so that's the main reason the 'share equally' approach has fell short in the past.
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.
Who are you calling a 'redneck?' what problematic attitudes are you referring to?

They do indeed not seem to address the long term issues, but nobody else does either, so religion is hardly taking a different stance here. — noAxioms

Oh, I completely disagree! Many theist preach, to manipulable people, as a matter of fact and with a suggested 'authority from divinity!' that this life, is of very limited importance and your only focus here should be to follow the dictates of the dogma of the tenets of whatever religion is being peddled to you.
The Earth and it's contents are unimportant and disposable. Climate change would then be god's will.
Very dangerous, pernicious bullshit. I think you would agree that such is very dangerous and total bullshit. There are millions of organised folks trying to address the long term issues and they are having significant affect, globally, I don't know why you don't give them the credit they are due.
You have heard of folks like Greta Thunberg, yes? Why have you heard of her?
I agree we are in a race to save the planet, but to suggest everyone is just sitting back hoping someone else will sort it all out, is just false and unfair.

Nope. We’d pull the plug as well when there’s no longer any profit in keeping it running. — noAxioms

Not everyone is 'profit driven,' to believe that everyone is, is just misanthropic imo.

They’ll hopefully let me hasten the process rather than the prolonged torture that so many people go through, all under the heading of ‘do no harm’. Pretty ironic. At least freezing isn’t torture. — noAxioms

I am probably sensing a 'misinterpretation' incorrectly here but just to be sure, you are not under the impression that they cryogenically freeze you just BEFORE you die, if you sign up for that service, are you? You have been declared medically brain dead before you are frozen, so of course 'freezing isn't torture,' it would be, if you were still alive when someone was doing that to you.

Favorite actions films? Mine is Raiders of the Lost Ark. — Tom Storm

What did you think of the point made in the comedy show 'The big bang theory,' where one of the characters points out a fatal flaw in that movie, in that Indiana Jones need not have been involved at all and the outcome would have been the same. The Nazi's open the box and they all die. :rofl:
What a useful box that would be to have around today! You could gift it to folks like Putin and then say go ahead Vlad baby, open your gift! (not whilst you are in the same room as him and the box of course!)

It's totally another to see the film in a movie theatre with an audience howling in laughter during the mirror scene. I remember laughing in the car when going home. — ssu

:lol: The mirror scene! ...... :rofl: ....... when Groucho did that turn ..... :lol: and Chico .... :lol: ..... he just ... :rofl: .... he just ..... :rofl: .... moves his arms at the end of Groucho's turn ..... :lol: :rofl: ...... pure f****** class man!!!

Lots of good silents by Buster Keaton. — T Clark

I've always loved this scene from Modern Times — T Clark

Buster was so mistreated by the 'Hollywood' system. The General was a brilliant film and he was one of the best stuntmen EVER!
Chaplin and Laurel & Hardy are to comedy what Einstein and Newton are to science, imo.
I also respect Chaplin for standing up to horror's like Edgar Hoover. But I digress from the thread so, how about films like Arsenic and old lace?
Did you like any of the UK Ealing comedies? such as:
Kind Hearts and Coronets
Whisky Galore
The Lavender Hill Mob
The Man in the White Suit
The Ladykillers

A funny movie. I always thought it was a satire of conservative ideology and middle aged male fantasy.
— Mikie

That certainly shows how very differently we perceive things. I didn't find it at all; I thought it was tragic. — Vera Mont

I see the humour aspect of Falling Down, based on 'what could feasibly go wrong for you, all in the same day?' So, that kind of 'a series of unfortunate events' humour, but that's the only humour I could garnish from such a horrific portrayal of 'inner city' pressure.

Oh, you should definitely watch Mississippi Burning!
Kinda makes you wish you could have fought against the confederates, based on how black people and those who tried to help them, were abused in America during the civil rights movement. I say that as a Scot who has never experienced anything like that stuff, on either side of such divides.
Inherit the wind is a famous one with Spencer Tracy and Fredrich March, about the scopes monkey trial. Are you sure you have never watched it: Here's the trailer:


I was also thinking about the best comedy movies: That's probably another at least top ten:
It's a mad mad mad mad mad mad world
Duck Soup
Are two of my favourites. I still laugh at the same scenes, 40 years after first seeing them

E.g. I can't think that boiling water, with al its irregular bubbles can be viewed also as ordered in some other way. — Alkis Piskas

Why not? All the bubbles rise? They all disperse at the surface, The steam all comes from the top. The water volume reduces at a fixed ratio based on the how long the water is at boiling point etc. There are clearly observable orders in a boiling water system.

Your music signal:

looks symmetrical on either side of a linear mid section, which is more intense towards its middle compared to either end. The vertical height of each sectional prominence seems to repeat from intensity to almost nothing and then intensity again so there seems to be repeating peak and trough sections. There is clear observable order in that signal, imo.

Jigsaw pieces have a fixed set of 'shape of side'. Straight edge sides, male/female constructs, ie one has a prominence that fits into a space formed in another side. There is observable order, no matter how randomly dispersed the pieces are. They can also be grouped based on the picture elements they contain. Colour, pattern, recognisable object (such as a bit of a tree or sky) etc, so forms of order are observable in randomly distributed jigsaw pieces.

I'm not good at Physics, sorry. I only know that entropy is a state and degree of disorder or randomness. — Alkis Piskas

Entropy is the tendency for a combination to revert back to its fundamentals over time.
From the moment a combinatorial is created, it will start to revert back to its fundamentals.

the water starts in an odered state (calm, standstill, level), it becomes disordered when it is boiled and it is put back into its initial ordered sytate when boiling finishes. — Alkis Piskas

I depends how you are using disorder here. The water atoms become more exited/dynamic, they move around a lot faster, due to being heated. If ten people stand still, as close as they can to each other, in a group, compared with all ten of them constantly changing places with each other, as fast as they can, only using the same extent of ground (as best they can). Would you call the ten people standing still, ordered and the ones moving about, disordered? Disorder can be described as 'a state of confusion' or 'disrupting the systematic functioning of or neat arrangement of.' The ten people moving about display an ordered/common purpose, but their movement could nonetheless be called disordered.
The water turns to steam. There may be no water left when the boiling finishes. If you captured all the steam in a big container, then it would condense back into water, as the steam cooled.
If you consider the initial water state 'order' and the steam state 'disorder' and the return to water state a return to 'order.' Then we have order-disorder-order. If you then think well, where did the original water come from? Then you would have to say, one water molecule is from the combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. So the original water came from 'disordered' or 'disunited' hydrogen and oxygen atoms. So I think such examples 'trace back' to an initial state of 'universal' disorder. That becomes locally ordered and entropy ensures all local order eventually reverts back to disorder.
So for the universe, disorder-order-disorder and heat death seems to me to be the correct 'order' of events.

You are bombarding me with Physics terminology! But I undestand the term "homogenuous" at least! :grin:
Well, maybe. As I said, all that is speculations. I prefer to talk about things that we can know, perceive, examine and understand within the framework of our small world and our common reality, in the broad sense. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry Alkis. My own command of physics is still undergrad status at best, and I am 58. But I try to improve my physics grasp where and when I can. Any new knowledge about anything is welcome in my life imo, well, most of the time anyway. Not so much when its about impending tragedy for myself or others. Even then, it's better to know, as maybe you can help stop it, but if you don't know, then you are powerless.
I also accept that even if you know about some impending horror, you may still be powerless to do anything about it.

Emergence is not just an increase in magnitude of an ability, it's the development of a whole new one. — Agent Smith

I agree, but the point is that human intent and purpose can cause new functionality (technology) to emerge by design. The kind of design that god has been unable to prove it is capable of, resulting in it's possible existence being utterly rejected via rational thinking.

That's why I don't expect many physical scientists to accept the new way of understanding the world. But I provide links to the few pioneers that do -- all you have to do is click. — Gnomon

:lol: No mockery intended Gnomon, but your words here are a little messianic and sacrificial sounding. Always be on your guard against any seedlings of a Christ complex.

Even Einstein, as a theoretician, was loathe to accept the uncertain statistical basis of Quantum Theory : "God doesn't throw dice" — Gnomon

I am really beginning to hate that overburdened quote.

So I just patiently chip away at one philosophy forum, to see if theoretical thinkers are quicker to see the value of fundamental causal Information, than pragmatic doers. — Gnomon

Are you making satisfactory progress?

Acceptance of new paradigms usually take generations to become "settled science". At this stage, very few members of the "scientific community" are aware of a post-Shannon interpretation of Information. But if you want "sources other than the author" just follow the links. — Gnomon

Oh, I was referring to main news sources not sources I need to seek. Like most folks, including yourself, I have my own fav list of theories expounded by others that I take the time to find out as much as I can about, including Mtheory, CCC, quantum computing, and a good few more. Your enformationism is interesting, but it still has smatterings of a theosophism/mysticism for me. I admit, that may well be an unfair and uninformed criticism and I should find out more about it, if I ever find the time to. But if something akin to, or, the actual mainstream news sources, threw it at me, then I may well raise a much more interested eyebrow.

Since I have no academic or professional qualifications, I'd have to possess a monumental ego to expect anyone to take my amateur opinions as truths. — Gnomon

Mostly true, but I do personally like genuine seekers. Tesla was considered 'slightly mad,' and there are many many such examples, including some like Tesla who was also a freaking genius!
I have met quite a few interesting folks on the internet forums I visit, who are sure they have made a pivotal scientific breakthrough. The 6D Torus guy (also know under many names on TPF, the most banned/returned member ever, I think). The DIMP(DIMentionless point) guy. The Klein bottle/mobius strip guy and now you, the enformation guy. No gals yet but I am sure they are out there.
I would love to be in a room full of such folks. What a brilliant set of conversations that would be.
I also see lot's of alcohol involved! NO DRUGS! Well, not stronger or quicker than alcohol at least.

Only? That is that fantastic chance you were positing. We actually meed something where it is questionable which is more intelligent. Hardly disappointing. They’re probably as disappointed in us not being like them as we are of them not being like us. — noAxioms

Meh! :grin: :halo:

Yes, I hope we fully respect the alien killer whales and we leave their habitat and environment alone. Perhaps however, we may still be able to start a colony there.
A colony where we’re not allowed to touch the environment? Sounds like a zoo for the Orka amusement. — noAxioms

I suggested we leave their habitat and environment alone. I was not suggesting that would mean we could not 'touch' any part of the planet or its entire environment. Did you deliberately misspell Orca as these imaginings are alien Orca which you are calling OrKa? :lol:

Half the stuff I read has obviously never seen an editor and cites no credible sources. — noAxioms

But that's just half the stuff YOU have read, which is what percent of available 'stuff'?

I am in a way. My son has one of those smart speakers and it totally gives me the creeps to know everything in the room is being recorded in some google database somewhere. For a long time I was in the biz of selling places like google things on which to store all that data. — noAxioms

How much merit do you give to 'big brother is watching you?'

I don’t see any collective purpose exhibited by the human race. There’s a list of nice-to-haves, but no actual striving for some collective purpose. Not even something as simple as ‘don’t go extinct’. But then, I don’t see any other species with a purpose like that either. We’re not worse than the sponges. — noAxioms

I can only invoke the cosmic calendar again and say we have only been at this for a few seconds on the cosmic calendar scale. Give us a f****** chance mate!

We came to the conclusion that this creature must exist in some world out there, but not in this one, so not existing by any empirical definition of the word. — noAxioms

It would have been fun to have been part of that discussion.

Negative mass and tachyons are also valid under Einstein’s equations. Much of this wormhole stuff requires such exotic matter which theoretically is allowed, but isn’t open to actually existing. Really, a micro black hole? How are messages going to be sent fast utilizing a tiny bit of spacetime that is infinitely far into the coordinate future? Maybe I have to actually find time to watch the thing. — noAxioms

Well, he seemed to be saying that two entangled particles can function in the same way as the popular description of a wormhole as two entangled black holes that 'Tom' could be sent into (Tom is a qbit) by Alice and fall out of when Bob uses 'an operator' to make a measurement at his end. The 'state' Tom was in when 'transported' through the 'wormhole' can then be known by Bob. Leonard uses other terms in this section such as 'bell basis(one of 4 possible states)', 'signal matrix,' 'monogamy of entanglement,' 'the no-cloning principle' etc,
He finally asks 'how does Tom get from A to B and his second answer is 'through the wormhole,' he then says 'you might not believe that but, that's ok, we can debate that later.'
The time stamp for this exemplar is 4mins 23secs to around 8mins 20sec.

No, but the church needs to get on the side of humanity instead of the side of the church. It isn’t ever going to happen. — noAxioms

The 'church' needs to drop god and become a secular humanist support network. Or, at least, every church/chapel/temple/cathedral/mosque etc should also function as secular homeless shelters, substance abuse support centers, medical support centers, etc, etc.
Currently, they are mostly a waste of useful space!

These are all grown/harvested/distributed with fossil fuels today. They’re not a substitute for digging limited carbon out of the ground. — noAxioms

They can indeed be a substitute for digging limited carbon out of the ground!
From vertical farming:
"2. Possible Environmental and Energy Implications
There are also concerns over pollution and sustainable use. Crops grown indoors depend on artificial light. Note that sunlight can be exploited for natural lighting or self-sufficient generation of electricity through photovoltaic solar panels. The use of light-emitting diode or LED lamps also drives down the cost of electricity consumption. Of course, other than artificial lighting, a vertical farm includes complex machinery and automated systems. Hence, when compared to field farming, vertical farming has an additional energy input.

While renewable and alternative sources of energycan promote the ecological soundness of vertical farming, the practice can still have a considerable carbon footprint if it still depends on the use of fossil fuels. There is a need to improve first renewable and alternative energy technologies to guarantee environmental sustainability and energy efficiency of vertical farming."

Not talking about 2050. I’m talking about when there’s no more to dig out of the ground, coupled with what the environment will look like with that much greenhouse gasses added to what’s already there. — noAxioms

I have no problem with you always pointing out your 'but look at what we are doing now' examples. I will continue to suggest 'but here's what we could do about it.' It's also ok for you to keep posting which of my suggestions have some merit and which in your opinion, don't.
That's what our current exchange seems to mostly consist of. Perhaps that's good enough for now.

I don't enjoy 'noble' message films. And recent era cinema with overstated movie scores, swimming in clichés are really off putting. I prefer to see something visually inventive, with a focus on milieu and plots generally don't interest me much. Character does and sometimes dialogue. Clever production design can take your breath away and make something highly watchable. — Tom Storm

So how do you feel about movie's such as A Streetcar Named Desire or Scarface or Taxi Driver or Falling Down?

I don't approve of the aggressive sounding, 'taking over of the galaxy' imagery you invoke.
Pretty much got that from you with your talk of humanity having a purpose of making some kind significant impact on the universe, like it served the purpose of the universe or something. Can’t make any more than a scratch if we don’t cause something to spread out, to outlast the death of our planet which is already about 80% of the way there. — noAxioms

Well, that's down to your misinterpretation of what I am typing. We will spread out, yes but not 'in conquest,' or as a pernicious force/presence. I would invoke something akin to the Gene Rodenberry's vision for a human future, which is not an autocracy or a plutocracy etc, but is more akin to a democratic, secular, humanist, socialist, meritocracy. Perhaps even a benevolent united federation of planets.

Civilization collapses. We still have metal, but it’s old stuff from before. Nobody knows anymore how to get more since it takes tech to get at it. We’ve mined all the easy stuff. It becomes a chicken/egg problem. Takes metal to get to get to the metal. Fear not. The salvaged metals will last centuries. The longer it lasts, the less we’ll remember how to get more when most of it has corroded away.’ — noAxioms

Sounds like a fictitious dystopian future, that you might have fun writing a novel about.

I am a socialist
So is every first world government on the planet, just some more than others. — noAxioms

Nonsense sir! no current first world country is socialist. They are all capitalist as they are all currency driven, free market economies.
True democratic socialism has never been successfully established anywhere on the planet ..... yet.
The Scandinavian countries have little bits of it, yes but they are far from socialist, imo.

who no longer sees value in party politics.
It does serve a purpose, but isn’t implemented well anywhere. I mean over-the-table bribery as policy? That’s sanctioned corruption. Nobody blinks, and those getting the bribes are hardly motivated to vote that crap out of the law. — noAxioms

:clap: Well said!

I currently support notions of global unity
That’s the mommy I talked about. We’re not good at all about implementing something like that, but I agree, it’s absolutely needed. — noAxioms

When it comes to the basics of how the currently existential situations we face, might be improved, I think we agree more that we don't. I just have more confidence than you seem to, that our species can do much much better than we have so far.

Venus project:
Nice pipe dream, but no numbers. They say no servitude, but it’s all people shown doing the work, and they don’t show where the stuff comes from. No wind farms or other renewable energy apparent. — noAxioms

A resourced based global economy, would be the most significant human change to the way we live, since we switched from nomadic hunter-gatherers to fixed communities supported by craft trades, trading and agriculture. So yeah, many details are yet to be confirmed or even discussed.

Didn’t talk about being an enemy of an idea. I said enemy of an environment. Better to make friends with it, work with it, not against it. — noAxioms

Oh, I get what you meant now, you mean, rather than trying to terraform Mars, its wiser to transform humans so they can live in the current Martian environment. As I have already suggested, I think the reality may prove to be somewhere between the two but I have little doubt that a period of trail and error will occur in the traditional pioneer spirit.

Your opinions on excess human population control methodologies and the various existential threats that the human race currently faces, are offered again, with your rather dystopian/doomster hat on.
I appreciate your 'worries' about the situation and I think they are well founded and should not be underestimated, but I do try to counter balance such, with what humans do, when the possibility of their own extinction gets closer and closer. Many would just awkwardly and clumsily, tumble over the edge, but I think we also have many, that would, will, and are, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. I remain confident that the latter group will prevail in the end, but it may indeed get very messy before they do.

Anyway, to my knowledge, theism doesn’t encourage this sort of delay to meeting your maker. — noAxioms

Sorry noAxioms, I am probably being rather dense on this one, but I still don't get your point here.
"Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives."
Are you simply referring to the idea or criticism that many theists (especially christian/moslem fundamentals,) don't care about sustaining/protecting Earthly resources, as their focus is on their faith in their promised existence after death?

Oh like the Russians are going to honor those contracts when things get tight. But yea, they’ll take your money. — noAxioms

I try not to make judgements based on nationality. When things get tight, I don't think Russians act so differently from Americans, Germans, Englishmen, Africans or any other nationality.

Waiting list? What, like I’m dying now but a spot is opening up next March? Hope you haven’t expired too much while you’re waiting. — noAxioms

It's the same in any human service. Supply and demand. Demand often does outstrip supply or capacity (when it comes to cryogenic units and the long term storage of such). Not an issue for me or you, as I suspect neither of us is on the waiting list. I suspect that if you die and the available facilities cant provide for you then tha's just tough, unless you are rich enough to have your own private cryogenic facility built. Your own modern version of an Egyption pyramid perhaps.

Films like 'the grapes of wrath' are films I return to, to remind me of what's important in life.
How about:
Inherit the wind
Mississippi Burning
Hoffa
Malcolm X

slàinte mhath :cool:

You will find lots of empirical evidence to support my thesis in the links to articles by professional scientists. But, only the Enformationism thesis will provide the logical connections between bits & pieces of physical evidence and professional opinions that add-up to the conclusion that the physical world has "at bottom . . . an immaterial source and explanation". That may sound like "nonsense" to you. But I'll let you argue with a prominent physicist about the scientific details of his thesis : an information-centric participatory universe. — Gnomon

Well if you have such significant support from the scientific community then I am sure I will hear a lot more about Enformationism and your BothAnd proposals. From sources other than its author.

I gave you an example. The apparently disordered soundwave is also (i.e. it represents) an ordered musical sound. Also atoms by simple observation seem disordered but they follow well ordered, balanced (with forces) system. The planets seem disordered in space but they are also orbiting based on a very orderly system of gravity forces. And so on. In all of these cases, where there is (apparently) a disorder there's also an order. — Alkis Piskas

So, you are saying the disorder is only apparent, when we pull further out and increase the contents of our frame of reference then we see the order. So could this be the case at larger and larger spacetime scales. Yes, would be the answer but at the largest scale, entropy would suggest that we would see evidence that we are moving towards heat death. That's at least the way I perceive the disorder-order-disorder posit.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone can see an order --e.g. a pattern-- in this soundwave. It could well be random. You must hear it to see that there's an order or pattern in it. — Alkis Piskas

Yeah, your example reminds me of the film contact when the blind guy uses his more developed hearing to listen to the signal from space and makes a statement like 'there's a lot more here guys!'

BTW, even if some aliens receive this sound, they might not undestand anything at all. That is, they could consider it garbage or random, i.e. something disordered. And vice versa, if we receive a sound from space in which we can't detect some pattern although it might have been sent by aliens who conscidered it ordered. — Alkis Piskas

That's the rub! We might be getting all sorts of signals from space dwelling extraterrestials but our receiving tech/methodology is not compatible with their transmitting tech/methodology!
The Fermi paradox might just be down to incompatible communication systems!

So, when we are referring to the whole universe, we cannot be certain about what is ordered and what is disordered. — Alkis Piskas

I suppose it depends on how true the claim is, that on the largest scale, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic

Quality time spent with friends and family become more and more precious as I get older.
A few single malt's as well is just glorious!
Two fiends, I mean friends, from Glasgow coming down this Saturday so looking forward to a wee local town session!

I have no reason to believe humans will stop expanding their purview. Our economic model (despite recessions) is hinged on constant expansion/growth and resource acquisition. Our planet being finite in resources this compels us to look further afield - to space and its numerous expansive resources of rare metals and elements as well as habitable planets in which to form economies and industry and thus propagate jobs, lifestyles etc. — Benj96

I agree, or else what it all there for? As Carl Sagan wrote for his movie Contact.
"Seems like an awful waste of space!"

Coupled with our innate curiosity to further knowledge, and our advancing technology, it seems inevitable that either us, or our consciousness integrated into artificial bodies, will further our sphere of influence beyond what we ever thought was imaginable before. — Benj96

I agree.

So I think it's likely that humans will colonise space, one way or another, and maximise our chances of survival, reducing our dependency on any one solar system, any one energy source (Sun) for survival. All going to plan ofc. — Benj96

I agree.

Other lifeforms could be well underway to doing the same. And if they're not, sheer distance will cause our species to diverge into multiple different species across the galaxy. Unless we can solve issues of travel time or become metallic organisms/conscious computers/robots with indefinite lifespans. — Benj96

Sounds logical to me!

What this seems to mean as a general direction is that the universe wishes to be fully colonised, fully consolidated and fully alive/sentient. And if it doesn't wish it, for some reason the physics and chemistry of the system certainly seems to propagate that behaviour. — Benj96

So, that's the bit I am most interested in from you Ben, as you have dualistic viewpoints.
Do you muse on how this emerging 'single mind' will 'network' or collectivise or ultimately merge before the universe suffers the heat death, it is most likely to suffer?
I don't expect you to have a definitive answer but I am just interested in how the dualist see's that emerging networking, even from a future transhuman or the more depressing posthuman perspective.