It seems that the whole agenda of endless minority rights (fostering polarization in a climate of endlessly competing petty virtues) is the ultimate misdirection of the smallest minority of them all, the privileged elite. The most universal set of human rights should serve all minorities equally well. — Pantagruel

:clap:

Why do you think that the judgement of the majority will prevail? — Agree-to-Disagree

I support that which I consider fair and just. Many people do, perhaps a majority do. So I think the majority will prevail, as that has always been my goal. If a majority agrees with me and I with them, then we can make such happen. Do you agree? or do you consider the majority to be unable to ever achieve such an outcome no matter what methods they use or how often they try?

For example, a small minority with nuclear weapons may disagree. — Agree-to-Disagree

Such situations can be very difficult to deal with, but in previous examples of extreme brinksmanship, (such as the cuban misses crisis, or the current danger of global conflict/nuclear war due to Russia/Ukraine or/and Israel/Gaza,) M.a.d has been the main deterrent imo. The second main hope in such situations is that the small minority you mention who have access and control over nuclear weapons are often a nefarious elite, who don't have majority support in the nation/state they have managed to gain autocratic control over. Perhaps somewhere like North Korea or Iran could be as you describe, if they had nuclear weapons. A small nation with nuclear weapons, is unlikely to have enough of them to destroy the world, but they would be utterly annihilated themselves, if they chose that action. If the small minority you describe, are in control of a powerful nation like Russia or China, then the rest of the human population only has m.a.d or hope of an internal uprising, in the country threatening to end us, as a globally dominant or globally existent species.

How much credence do you personally give to the possibility that we will destroy ourselves via such as nuclear war? For me, I think such threats as climate change, is a greater clear and present danger, but in all honesty, if we allowed either to happen, then we would absolutely deserve our fate, yes?
That being the case, I think the best option is to do all that you can do, within the limitations of your own life pressures, to help prevent such an end to the human story.

Collective and cooperative effort at a global scale sounds like global communism. — Agree-to-Disagree

Others may call such efforts democratic socialism or even secular humanism or perhaps even common sense. I don't think the chosen label matters, as much as the judgment by the majority, as to whether of not the results of the application of cooperation and compromise, is more beneficial to every stakeholder involved, compared to the results of the application of competition and prioritising self-interest or/and prioritising the flourishing of global elites and celebrity status.

These do seem very obvious words to type, even as I type them, but they are just not realised on a day to day basis, between every one of us. 'Co-operation and compromise is the way forward, not competition and narrow self-interest.' I agree with the main message of your OP.

So do I friend, whenever I come across one.

I happen to find post-human fables more believable and uplifting than super-human (or supernatural) fantasies. — 180 Proof

There is always, hopefully, enough room to accept the personal taste of others.

You just can't peer over that anthropobsessive barrier, can you? — Vera Mont

There is no such barrier apart from the one you have imagineered.

Your ASI, as you describe it, seems every bit as bad as the gods of theism.
I think us low bioforms are already far more moral and useful in the universe than the ASI you have imagineered, could ever be.

I don't think those are lies from your POV: it's what you told me regarding dinosaurs. — Vera Mont

That's because 'no significant achievements' is true for dinos but not for humans.

Oh, goodie! Only 110 armed conflicts. Come to think of it, even fewer cities were bombed - or attacked by any means - on this day in 3023 BCE. Progress? — Vera Mont

Well, a more accurate comparison might be that in 3023 BCE, there was probably far more slaughter between human groups than there is today. The military hardware involved was worse in those days, imo, as it meant a lot more of the slaughter was up close and personal.

What has that to do with the question at hand? Alien life-forms, whether biological, artificial or some combination, do not require my approval and do not operate according to my preference. — Vera Mont

It has to do with the human ability to create goals, intent, purpose, rules of behavior, legislation etc, etc.
We will be the creators of AGI. There are many many experts in that field, working very hard, to create an AGI that 'learns' what humans are discovering/identifying/exemplifying as the most desirable aspects of the notion of human morality. This is a major part of the project. The Asimov laws are only a very basic example. So the battle between installing human morality within automated/autonomous intelligent systems is no half-hearted attempt to achieve that goal. If we are successful and can defeat all attempts to create immoral, uncaring 'borg drone' style AGI, and we are able to contain/destroy any immoral uncaring AGI that is produced by nefarious humans, then we will gain far far more benefits, working in symbiosis with AGI rather than trying to compete with it. If AGI ever creates ASI then it will do so in accordance with the human morality that hopefully by then, will be absolutely fundamental to its function and its goals and its purpose for existing.

So, there's your answer. The future life-forms will be aware that we once existed, made no progress and went extinct. — Vera Mont

So you predict a future based on lies?

Based on current indications. And progress. — Vera Mont

Absafragginlootly!
The vast majority of the human cities currently existing on this planet, were not bombed today!
The vast majority of humans currently alive today were not raped, shot or slaughtered today!
Most of the human nations/tribes of the world are not currently at war today!

No. I think our notion of morality would be alien and irrelevant to it. — Vera Mont

which would also be irrelevant to it. — Vera Mont

I am sure a Borg drone would agree with you, if any existed, do you think Borg drone, is a good prophecy for the future of humans?

I see no reason for this psychological anomaly to infect an artificial intelligence. — Vera Mont

Do you consider that a good or bad decision for a future ASI to make, or do you think like an imagineered Borg drone, that such psychological anomalies, as humanitarian-based secular morality, is irrelevant?

The way you appreciate dinosaurs? — Vera Mont

I have given no indications regarding my 'appreciation' towards individual dinos or species of them. I opined on their achievements not on whether or not I 'appreciate' them or the fact they existed. I do appreciate their existence, as they exemplified that the conditions on Earth allowed for life to evolve, long before humans ever existed, no gods required. I don't think there were any dino gods. Don't know for sure of course.

No humans would slaughter one another's children over land, water and religion anymore, right? — Vera Mont

I have no recollection of posting such a suggestion!
I hope that such is an absolute fact about humans at some point in the future, however.
I also think our future will realise a global population of humans, none of whom, or a tiny minority of whom, perceive themselves as 'religious,' in any way, shape, or form.

The house is built by discrete bricks. — Existential Hope

I just thought of myself as a total 'brick' for a moment there, and I though how some on TPF would want to change one letter of that term. :rofl: :lol: Sorry, just laughing at my own attempts at self-deprecation. I think it's healthy now and again to appreciate how others may see us.

Oh my Gelos. — wonderer1

:grin: A nice attempt to move away from 'oh my god!' if that was part of your intent. Gelos still being a divine reference. A divine manifestation of laughter, according to google. Forest Valkai (on-line atheist/biologist who invites theists to call-in for a debate on theism) uses the exclamation, 'Oh my glob!' I have tried to stick to 'oh for goodness sake,' but old habits die hard.

Thank you very much for responding to my call. Your insights are, as I expected, far better than any I could have offered @Vera Mont, on the possible reasons behind Gandhi's particular advice towards this desperate man during such awful events.
I wish there was a Gandhi today, in power, on both sides of the Russian/Ukraine and Israeli/Palestinian conflicts. Many innocent lives would be saved I think. India certainly is in desperate need of such people today, as Gandhi and Nehru. I hope their modern equivalents are around somewhere and they keep coming forward to try to help.

What does 'moral' mean in this context? — Vera Mont

A code of ethical behaviour of course, do you think an advanced artificial intelligence such as @180 Proof's presentation of an ineffable future ASI (at least from the reference frame of us poor wee bioform incapables) would face the issue of morality? If it's solution is to act like a god of theism or to ignore or not care about most existents in the Universe, then in the opinion of this wee incapable bioform, such an ASI would be inferior and doomed to extinction as it would have developed poor precedence on which to base its future goals, and purpose.

By what standards? — Vera Mont

Human standards.

For what reason? — Vera Mont

My contention that enlightenment/adding more and more extent to your personal knowledge, produces a moral code that is more and more compelled to nurture all existents in the universe and defeat/contain/reverse that which threatens such. If that is not the outcome of enlightenment then what ever you did to try to enlighten yourself, failed badly, so you need to try again.

What would impel it? — Vera Mont

A need to establish good reasons for continuing to exist.

Not as it has applied to human agents through history. — Vera Mont

Which human agents? All humans agents?

Certainly not to human sentiments regarding insects. — Vera Mont

They why did/do humans ask questions and seek answers about insects, to the extent that they created Entomology? Why do we not choose to just ignore such low bio forms in the same way @180 Proof suggests an ASI would be justified in ignoring the low human bioforms?( that just happen to be responsible for its existence).

Why would it apply to a non-human? — Vera Mont

Don't forget, in the case of a future ASI, that non-human's existence would be a product of AGI, which is 100%, a product produced by us. Do you not think such an advanced ASI would have to appreciate that, if it is so intelligent? If humans create gods, do you not think those gods would owe us at least our continued existence and they would be seriously flawed if they chose to ignore as @180 Proof, suggests C would be justified in ignoring A?

True, it's not my m.o., except when warranted by your silly "myriad of possible reasons" for why any attosecond (10-¹⁸ s) ASI would ever take any notice of any comparatively unthinking milli/deci-second (10-³/10-¹ s) lumpen biomass such as an individual (or swarming) specimen of the h. sapiens species. Just more special pleading "Roddenberryesque" anthropocentric utopianism on your part which, if I may say so, mate, is quite illogical! (\\//, :nerd: ) — 180 Proof

:lol: Fair enough mate! We have nowhere to take this. You think I am not making much sense and I think the same regarding your position on this topic/area. Hopefully some of our other, future exchanges, will demonstrate more of the common cause and common ground we have occupied, in many of our past exchanges. :rofl: I even recall one TPF member warning another to 'look out for me,' as I was one of your sidekicks (a paraphrase, on my part). :scream: :flower:

Adopt as many orphans as you can provide a safe and loving home for. Why complicate things or perpetuate religious indoctrination? — Vera Mont

He killed the child not just because it was a child but because it was a moslem child.
I think Gandhi's challenge was to prostrate yourself before that which you came to hate so much, that you would choose to equal the atrocity committed against you, by committing the same atrocity to a random child, labelled as, moslem. Gandhi believed in a non-violent response towards those who may choose to kill you, or those you love. It would be much easier to simply look after/adopt any children, than to bring up a child, in a faith you hate and whose representatives had murdered your son. But the atonement must be very difficult indeed if it is to become 'the ticket out of hell,' that Gandhi might have perceived. At least that's my probably very poor attempt, to explain Gandhi's logic here. As a Hindu, and a person who knows Gandhi's life story very well, or at least far better than I do, perhaps @Existential Hope would offer his opinion on this story about Gandhi.

The lowest level of data (bits) is fundamental — Nils Loc

Maybe! As the scientists in the video you posted demonstrated, they as experts in their relevant fields ,cannot reach consensus yet, on the notion that 'data' is a fundamental 'real' constituent of the universe at sub-atomic scales.
Does data exist at the Planck scale? I would suggest, probably, yes, smaller than that, and we get to black holes, does data exist inside black holes? We know hardly anything about black holes! All my brain offers me at that stage, is an off switch.

I remember when the fighting in Ireland was in the news daily and there were other such conflicts based on prejudice against "them" and being totally confused. How do people know who is one of them and who is when everyone looks the same? It totally mystifies me how people can imagine "we" are not like "them"? Really? How are "we" different from "them"? I like the forum rule- Attack people's ideas not the people.

I like the golden rule that exist in all religions- "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" I try to live by my Grandmother's 3 rules.

We respect all people because we are respectful people. It doesn't matter who the other person is because this is about who we are.

We protect the dignity of others. (that is really hard when someone else appears to be deliberately offensive)

We do everything with integrity. — Athena

The golden rule can also be a secular humanist rule, no need for theistic support, imo but I am glad that some religions do try to employ it. It's certainly true that many religious individuals, have made great sacrifices to help other people, but I personally think that such is demonstrated by non-religious folks as much as it is by religious folks.

I think we all ask ourselves the same moral questions you do Athena and I think generations not even born yet, will ask most of them again. But my main point would be that the majority of the people of Glasgow, Scotland (for example), the nearest big city to me, live better lives now, than at any previous Glasgow that existed in history. But nowhere near what human life potentially could be, for people living in Glasgow. As I posted previously, the dinos had perhaps as much as 177 millions years, and they achieved almost nothing, imo. We are still, by comparison, very new to this universe.

It sounds like your Grandma tried her best to promote a good value system.

People who kept learning and talking to one another, who had no urge to kill or dominate, have always been among humankind. Sometimes they were teachers, healers and sages; sometimes they were leaders. — Vera Mont

Your view of 'ancient' peoples seems to be a caricaturish as your vision of future man. — Vera Mont

I of course, completely disagree.

As if there were some kind of chronological line from inferior to superior forms of man. — Vera Mont

No, but I would claim that there is a chronological line of improvement, in the human experience, for more and more of the human population of Earth, from our beginnings until now.

We still have that organization. It is still in the cycle of internal and external conflicts. It is so entrenched, in fact, that - contrary to the optimistic notion entertained by early SF writers - even a shared existential threat cannot deflect its factions from warring among themselves. — Vera Mont

I accept that is how you see things and such leads you to a statement like:

I don't believe we have changed all that much in the last 30,000 years. — Vera Mont

I won't bore you by starting to list the improvements I think have been made in the human experience in the past 30,000 years using something less researched and more general than Steven Pinker's 77 graphs and charts but I do continue to claim that such, is very much the case.

When I heard that line in the movie, I was appalled. I imagined the life of that child, forced to be Muslim in a Hindu family, resented and reviled by his siblings and classmates, disdained or actively loathed by the mother in whose life he was meant to take the place of her own child, daily, hourly reminded of his differentness. I wouldn't be surprised if he grew up to be a suicide bomber. — Vera Mont

Yeah, I had mixed feelings about the detailed results for the child, if the guy took Gandhi's advice as well. Who do you think he might have grown up to suicide bomb, moslems, hindus or just 'people?' Anyway, I think, considering all the horror involved at the time, it was still better than anything I could have come up with. What advice would you have given the man?

Ok, Let me try it this way, does fastest, most intelligent, strongest, closest to the four omnis, always result in a need to impose totalitarian or autocratic control/dominion over anything less?

You ask such as:

why would C take any notice of A? — 180 Proof

For a myriad of possible reasons, imo:

1. The closer a system gets to the 4 omnis, the more moral it would become. Does 'with great power comes great responsibility,' not ring true for you? Why do you assume more knowledge and faster access to that knowledge and to processing that knowledge into new truths, mean, that C would become uninterested in other existents in the universe, such as A. We humans are interested in all universal existents. Would this not make us morally superior to any ASI system that showed no interest in an existent within the universe? Almost like a divinely hidden god? I am beginning to dislike the attitude of the ASI you present, in a similar way to the gods the theists present. I think an ASI would be far more moral, than any god so far presented in theism.

2. The theist will present their god as something far superior to any ASI, including one that you claim will have such ineffable intelligence that to us, it would be so like the god the theists try to claim already exists. So C might take notice of A because that is what all good gods are supposed to do, as god is good. :roll:

3. An ASI might become like Q in Star Trek or god in theism and need to find new reasons to continue to exist, such as create lower ability systems or maintain and observe the progress or failure of those bio embarrassments, that it might find quite entertaining to observe, as they continue to struggle and move about pointlessly, trying to understand who and what they are and why they exist.

4. To know that it remains superior. How can C know it is so much better than A if no A exists to compare itself to?

5. If C fully understands that without A, it would have no existence then C owes A, at the very least, the maintenance of its own existence or else C is an ungrateful d***head.

I could continue this list but if you choose to just hand wave away the points I am raising then I don't want to waste my time typing more of them. I know that hand waving points away is not normally your style, but I will leave my list at 5, for now.

How do we get at the truth? — Athena

By refusing to ever give up our pursuit of it.

Have you ever done something you knew was wrong? — Athena

Wow, that's a tough one Athena. I have acted through jealousy in the past or because of 'spikes' of anger, when I acted before giving myself enough time to understand what was really going on.
Not so much nowadays but I am not invulnerable to such.
I won't go into details as some such events, can often have a very high cringe factor in the recalling.

What did you do to make that acceptable to you? — Athena

In some cases I would use 'to err is human,' in other cases my responses, actions, decisions have never become acceptable to me. I would respond differently if I had the chance again. 'We learn from our mistakes,' can be a very bitter pill, even though it's true.

I could imagine myself being a suicide bomber when I was communicating with a Palestinian and an Egyptian in a forum. I saw their point of view and felt strongly that Zionism was intolerable and must be stopped. I wrote a letter to the editor opposing Zionism and men called me. One even cried as he thanked me for that letter. They were worried about my safety as they had bad experiences with organized Zionism. Thankfully I have not lived in the region under the power of Zionism, so I was not moved to act on my thoughts other than communicate a different point of view about Zionism and what it has done to Palestinians. — Athena

There is nothing but horror on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I know there are many contentions that feed the conflict, but the religious one is amongst the worse imo.
When I hear the individual stories of what savagery is meeted out, to individual victims, I again can only find a little solace in silent incredulity. I am a white man, living in a (by comparison with Gaza or Israel) safe Scotland, financially ok, and no major troubles in my life. I just have no experience of facing such levels of horror in my life.
The parallels in all such atrocities are just so clear, historically and globally, including recently in the thread by @Existential Hope, about the current political climate and atrocities committed in India.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/838825

When a disturbed man broke through to Gandhi, during his decision to starve himself until the violence between Moslems and Hindus stopped. He threw some bread at Gandhi and told him to eat it. He said 'I am going to hell, but not with your death on my conscience!'
'I killed a child, I smashed its head against a wall.'
Gandhi asked 'why did you do this terrible thing'
'Because the moslems killed my child, my little boy, my Suliman.'
'I know a way out of hell' said Gandhi, 'Find a child that has been orphaned and bring him up as your own.'
'Only make sure that he is a moslem! and that you raise him as one.'

Do you think Gandhi's solution was a wise one? It's certainly wiser than anything I could have come up with.

What else have I got to go on? Wishes? Dreams? Science fiction? — Vera Mont

Like me, you have not tapped into all information available, so like me you will continue to keep learning until the day you die, as will I.

If you want to call that a frame of reference, fine, then we each have one: a version of the truth. We each have some information, observation, experience and reflection on which to build this model, which is a work in constant progress, fated to be forever incomplete. — Vera Mont

So, with that in mind, we keep talking to each other, until we stop wanting to kill or war to impose our will and we can finally dump our garbage leftovers, from our ancient 'survival of the fittest' imperative, forever, and good riddance to it.

My model doesn't match you model; therefore, one of is must be out of alignment. — Vera Mont

We continue to seek common ground, that's the only reason I am part of on-line discussion. To see example of folks debating on-line, finding common cause and common ground and I do see such happening. Not normally in folks who are diametrically opposed but in those who are 'not fully cooked' yet or are open to new try new flavours in their cooking.

I think the word fanatic should be applied more accurately.
— universeness

Not in jest? I'll try harder to be serious, shall I? — Vera Mont

The comment above was not really directed at you.

Clearly, however, you do not offer that, universeness, and you are not open to considering my position step by step because you apparently "despair" of where it might lead to. — 180 Proof

Not at all. If you think that ASI is impossible for us to comprehend then how do you know it won't be completely benevolent towards all lifeforms. Saying we cannot know the mind of ASI is not so different from a theist saying we cannot know the mind of god, imo. Religious idealism?

I didn't say that. It's simply that you seem committed to a version of the truth that doesn't very closely resemble my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour. — Vera Mont

I have always found you to be more open and not restricted to 'my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour.' I hope I am too. I don't like the term 'versions of truth'. I accept different observers can report different emphasis or aspects of truths, about what they observed from their reference frame, but those are part of the same truth imo, only the different frames of reference, create the badly termed 'versions,' of the same underlying truth.
It's the never observed from any reference frame, 'versions of truth' (lies), that folks such as maga evanhellicals and other such fanatics, peddle, that bother me most. I think the word fanatic should be applied more accurately.

I’m much more fanatical and unhinged than anyone here! — 0 thru 9

Except me! — Vera Mont

Stop trying to steal @Jamals descriptions of my psyche.

Pick your Truth, raise your flag, look not to right nor left. Charge!
Some of us find your central assumptions... let's say, not squarely grounded. So we're looking to different sources for little truths to assemble an image of the world as it actually is. — Vera Mont

No, at least not in the style of 'the charge of the light brigade.' I would have stopped such a charge when I saw the cannon to the left and the cannon to the right, as well as the cannon to the front.

As for the rest of this paragraph, I think such actions are absolutely required, for you to earn the healthy title of skeptic. I never accept anything anyones states as truth, merely because they said so.

Yes, sorry I threw a little mud on your idol. I did like him. I suppose I was annoyed by your frequent use of the quotes in big fat letters. Plus, I'm not a fan of monuments. I didn't tear him down, though,
and that little dab of mud won't stick. It's plain to see how much of a change in the attitude of those "powers" his testimony made. — Vera Mont

Apology accepted, and another demonstration of why I think you are an honest interlocutor Vera!
and yes, even though he tried his damnedest, the fools in the senate committee at the time, took no significant action, as a result of Carl's warnings. Everything he predicted regarding climate change proved accurate.

I was not objecting to EVER exploring deep space, just objecting to doing it now with the turmoil you mentioned. — 0 thru 9

I absolutely understand such concerns and your choice to hold such a position.

If we drag ourselves out of the mud, and get our act together, the skies the limit!
And I hope you’re the first person to walk on the surface of Mercury. :starstruck: (just kidding) — 0 thru 9

I would jump at the chance! But not in a fanatical way, :grin: I would want to know a lot more about the protective gear on offer and my chances of returning. I would need a complete new body however as I am a 1 year away from 60, unfit, but still pretty, guy who still enjoys too much beers and cheers at the weekend, to be an astronaut/space farer.

It's a negative. The point is that fanaticism is a bad approach to the truth, because it doesn't actually care about it. — Jamal

I agree that irrational fanaticism is a negative. The love a parent has for a child can be a negative if, as an obsession, it is damaging the psyche and well-being of the child, but a fanatical impulse to protect your offspring from harm, is normally considered a positive and is in fact also a natural imperative for all species. Not all intense or deeply held emotional attractions to an idea, a goal or even an object is negative imo.

I celebrate my core anthropocentrism, as I am convinced that the best attribute humans have, is there ability and overwhelming compulsion, to pose questions and seek new knowledge. That is why we deserve to survive imo, as we know of no other lifeform, that does this to the extent we do.
You are correct that I am not concerned about how long it takes us to discover any piece of new knowledge. But you are completely wrong to suggest than I don't care what it costs to get there.
I already accepted that if reducing suffering means that we have to wait another x years to progress, because we have so many other problems to deal with first, then I support this, if the evidence continues to be as apparent as it is now. Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, the climate change threat, economic imbalance, hunger, abuse of minorities etc, etc all do make me push back the priority of focus on scientific advancement. I complain constantly that the actions of the nefarious f***wits amongst us, and the pernicious every day affects of shit like religion and the money trick, hold us back as a species.
If you consider such complaints fanatic then I think your complaint about the targets of my complaining, is fanatical, or perhaps just irrational.

It seems that, from my reading of histories, at least 19 out of 20 humans have never been anything more than disposable labor in the ten-twenty millennia of (complex, urbanized) civilization – oligarchic dominance hierarchies – and that there aren't any grounds to believe 'the future' will be any less exclusionist with the advent of AGI-accelerated technosciences, especially as that +95% of human beings won't even be needed by then either (1) as exploitable labor or (2) to contribute to & maintain a viable gene pool. Policy-makers in 'the developed world' have been discussing implimenting UBS & global population controls (i.e. "thinning the herds") for a couple of decades now as automation and nonrenewable resources-depletion have accelerated. What I think is "unlikely", universeness, is a post-Singularity – post-scarcity! – future that will, at most, beneficially incorporate more than few million (baseline) human beings. My friend, I'm confident that none of the few will "walk away from Omelas" in solidarity with the masses of Malthusian, climate refugees left behind. — 180 Proof

will only apply to less than a few percent of the human population — 180 Proof

I find some of your positions quite confusing:
In your post scarcity system I assume that the ASI is the most powerful existent and is independent of human control and human ability to challenge its control over all human life, yes? We continue to live only with its sanction, yes?

The universe is vast. 8 billion human existents is absolutely tiny in comparison with even the number of stars in the Milky Way. I don't understand your idea around how very advanced mecha based intelligence, would view the usefulness of the human being as a motivated creature who has a demonstrated almost insatiable compulsion to boldly go ......
I think they would need a lot more than 8 billion of us.
Why are you restricting how ASI will treat humans to your knowledge of how some humans have treated other humans?

I say all this as someone who once said the things you say. I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism. — Jamal

What I am surprised about, is that you can't see that your impression of my fanaticism could be a product of your own. Perhaps even a result of moving from your position of someone who "once said the things I said" to someone who seems fanatical about your current opposition to such.

Such viewpoints remind me of a character portrayed in the book, the ragged trousered philanthropists. A hard working socialist, who worked his heart and soul/shoe soles, to fight for justice, and a more equitable life for all people. But all he ever gets back is grief and mostly from those he was working so hard to try to help.
He joined the capitalists and found his solace and his revenge there.

I am not suggesting that fully describes you, I am just saying your complaints against me, remind me of such. If I am fanatical then so are you.
What is important is which of us is more in line with the truth. Do you think being fanatical about truth, is a negative, if what is professed does turn out to be true?

Closer to the Truth: Does Information Create the Universe? (Youtube) I like Allen Guth's take on the question of whether or not information is fundamental. — Nils Loc

This is a really good episode of 'closer to truth'. I had already watched it before. I also liked Sean Carrol's contribution and Mr Koch's points near the end. I would have preferred that the scientists involved would have used the word data as well, to make the difference with information clearer.
At the fundamental level, there is no demonstration of 'meaning' or 'intent' or 'determinism' imo.
I can conceive of no meaning, intent, feeling or determinism inherent in processes such as particle spin or quantum fluctuations.

Your anthropocentric optimism (à la utopianism, transhumanism, space operatics, etc) is much too much like religious idealism for me, mate. — 180 Proof

I appreciate your very unambiguous statement here. I will continue to celebrate my anthropocentric position and suggest that your position is the one that is more akin to an extreme idealism, but it's been a fun exchange. I thought you had assigned some significant credibility to my suggestion that in the future, humans will live their life span, as they do now (also enjoying any extra longevity science is able to offer, without too much invasive augmentation) and then if death is immanent they can choose to merge with AGI/ASI intelligence and become a hybrid org/mecha symbiont. Why do you think this is so unlikely?


I think you misinterpret Carl with "Don't ask how it will be used and by whom, for what purpose."
Carl spent a lot of his time trying to speak truth to those in power, during his lifetime.
Here he is, doing so to a Senate committee in 1985!
The opening speaker even mentions Chicken Little!


You further ignore the context under which 'shut up and calculate' was used.
David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying often misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin later found insufficiently nuanced. Mermin described the Copenhagen interpretation as coming in different "versions", "varieties", or "flavors".
Like your bad use of a Carl Sagan quote, the Mermin quote had nothing at all, to do with ignoring how nefarious individuals use scientific discovery, in the way your sentence I copied and placed in quotes above, tries to suggest. Your level of conflation here is rather disappointing and way below your usual standards imo.

I'm "optimistic", so to speak, that our – only intelligent enough to create problems which it can solve only by increasing suffering – species is on the verge of 'saving itself from itself' either by bringing about AGI—>ASI or our own premature extinction (or both). I'm looking forward to 'encountering' the butterfly artilects which might come after us caterpillar h. sapiens. After all, universeness, fires only ever "become" smoke & ashes, though errant sparks can also light other fires (e.g. the Sun > biomorphs (intellects) > infomorphs ...) — 180 Proof

And 'up from the ashes,' springs future monoliths. I suppose, as long as you are not 100% convinced that we are doomed to extinction, you don't belong in the surrender monkey, sad old pessimist category. Shall you sit with us optimists or will you remain standing, searching for Dave's monolith?

Maybe in 300 years. — Vera Mont

I for one, am overjoyed by that timeframe. I would happily accept a zero or even three zeros added to the end of your number. Such time scales are insignificant in the cosmic calendar.
We have found a negotiated settlement Vera! I am very willing indeed to wait your 300 years. I am glad to read that you have some confidence that our species will get our priorities and behaviours ready to start moving off planet within the next 300 years.

We embarked on our cosmic voyage with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew with undiminished wonder: What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. - Carl Sagan. — universeness

Carl reckoned we have lingered here long enough but I think he would have also accepted your call for 'an extra 300 years,' needed. If it gained the majority vote. I think we should start now and with the current moves being made towards space exploration and development, I think we have already started, but your 300 years suspension may well be required, depending on whether or not the wars and threats we are currently experiencing can be contained and survived.

I think more and more people are sick of the shit, that causes such wars as Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Gaza.
UB40 said it best: The quickest way to end the war is drop your guns and walk away.

What do you think their meaning or purpose is? — 0 thru 9

I asked you first, but ok, I'll bite. When Hilary was asked why he climbed Everest, he said "because it's there." I think we are the only species we know of that can create meaning and purpose, to the level we demonstrate. I do not see any evidence that any kind of meaning or purpose exists, until life exists in the universe.
So unless there is a source of serious objection, outside of the human race, we can assign/create meaning and purpose for the planets in the solar system. Any objections?

Their way was more pantheistic and animist. — 0 thru 9

Mere varieties of the same basic concept imo.

Hitchens, the patron saint of modern atheists. His evangelical zeal has converted many. — 0 thru 9

No, atheism has no saints or evahellicals, just skeptical thinkers. Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, Jimmy Snow, Dave Warnock, Forrest Valkai, Shannon Q, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and many many more. Some also use more flowery handles such as Gutsick Gibbon, Evewasframed, Paulogia etc. Mr Hitchens was a great addition to such folks, imo.

Apologies if I misunderstood! Glad to hear that then. — 0 thru 9

I am glad you brought it up, as such clarifications are very important to me.

So, if it can't fight back, it's yours to plunder by definition. — Vera Mont

No fight needed, nor 'plundering' suggested. I choose not to anthropomorphise the planets in the solar system but I do want to give them new purpose and significance, in ways that allow our species to move beyond this little pale blue dot. Unless there are really good rational reasons why humans should not do this. So far I have not heard any compelling reasons against.

Not sure what a woodcut home is. — Vera Mont

did not notice that my autocorrect system had changed woodrat to woodcut. I have edited the sentence since I noticed the error.

Then you need to take a look around. — Vera Mont

I often do, I assume you do to. I further assume that doing so from now, until the first human settlement on the moon and then mars, will not change your opinion. Yes, I do know neither of us will be around when that happens, but, it will happen!

Equally? How familiar are you with Native American theology? — Vera Mont

Only what I choose to google or get from proud.native.americans on threads, when I ask them.