Do you think these issues are solvable, and is technological ascendancy possible? or are we doomed to suffer and ultimately die out? — SpaceDweller

Yes. I don't think they are mutually exclusive possibilities; however, the latter seems, by far, more probable than the former.

; however, the latter seems, by far, more probable than the former. — 180 Proof

:100: :up:

It’s funny we should be talking about the philosophers, philosophy, Stephen Hawking, technology, the technologist, science and scientists. Why just the other day I was looking upon a layer, a stratum, not unlike the K-T Boundary which was laid down just the other day. Only the one I saw, I was actually a part of, and contributed to. It was thicker, surrounded the whole planet, and was made of more durable stuff.

But there it was, itself gone a short time later. Sedimentary in nature, it had taken a dive, become metamorphic, some even igneous only to rise again, dive again, several times over until the layer was no more. It seems like only yesterday. Because it was. Toss in a few meteorites to stir the goop and I’ve nothing left to consider. Not even that piece on the Moon, Mars, other planets and places, hurtling off into inter-stellar (hell, even intergalactic, by now) space. Nothing. Nothing. Never was.

And still time for something else to do it all over again; many, many times. Just like the ones before us.

A related question would be whether any alien civilizations have technologically ascended. That would clue us in to the possibility. Of course we would need to detect one, which raises the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter solution as a possibility. No civilizations ascend.

Or maybe it's just very rare that one does, and so it's likely we wouldn't see one nearby. I'm pretty confident human civilization will survive this century and slowly spread out into the solar system. But whether we'll solve our long standing problems or just create new ones with new technology, I don't know.

(iv)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature."
~Schroeder's Law — 180 Proof

A "technological ascendant" xeno-civilization is, much more likely than not, undetectable by our comparatively primitive technologies. We're observing one or more now and interpreting them only as natural phenomena (i.e. background radiation, etc) like a mayfly obliviously buzzing around a dog park in the heart of Los Angeles, Rome or Bangkok.

K-T Boundary — James Riley

And still time for something else to do it all over again; many, many times. Just like the ones before us. — James Riley

Awesome insight!

This makes me think of understanding evolution as being split into multiple "boundaries" that span millions of years, where each next one contributes to:
1. Higher state a being or intellect
2. Renewal of available energy thanks to long time span

whether any alien civilizations have technologically ascended. That would clue us in to the possibility. Of course we would need to detect one, which raises the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter solution as a possibility. No civilizations ascend. — Marchesk

A "technology ascendent" xeno-civilization is, much more likely than not, undetectable by our comparatively primitive technologies. We're observing one or more now and interpreting them only as natural phenomena (i.e. background radiation, etc) like a mayfly obliviously buzzing around a dog park in the heart of Los Angeles, Rome or Bangkok. — 180 Proof

Good point,
Possibility of an alien life exists, but whether is it intelligent or not I think this is not a question of discovering alien life alone, but rather discovering alien life multiple times over until intelligent one is found, a logic which reduces the chance of intelligent life but not alien life.
Driven by this logic, further the chance to discover intelligent life that ascended technologically is therefore very low compared to just discovering alien life.

One explanation however, in addition to our limitations could be, if there is intelligent life near us it's possible they got their hands on some sort of stealth technology that prevents us from discovering them.
For example, just because planets in our solar system seem baren, this doesn't necessarily mean no one is out there.

The point I try to make with link (quoting from an older post wherein I elaborate further) in my previous post is that any alien intelligence developed enough to be "technological ascendant" (even before that point but much closer to it than we are currently) had long ago advanced past the need for any kind of "stealth technology".

It might be harder to see bio-signature light years away than a techno-signature. And even if the alien probes are in stealth mode, to hide their home system from us, they would have had to start being stealthy before giving off light that would be reaching us when we look.

That and they would probably have been observing us for some time before we observed them. So they would know quite a bit about us, if any such ascendant aliens are close enough for us to potentially see them.

:up:

I see you already grasped alien life beyond what I ever imagined :up:

However, is there any reason why would some super advanced space kind interfere into our technological advancement?

Technological advancement isn't the only thing that counts toward superiority, if "they" are naturally more intelligent than us then that's the only thing that matters to retain safety.

For example, animals for us as just animals and we don't have to care about animals getting more powerful because animals will never reach our cognitive capabilities.
We may look like animals compared to some alien life.

However, is there any reason why would some super advanced space kind interfere into our technological advancement? — SpaceDweller

You can read The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin for a fictional account of a nearby alien race dong that.

My guess is that we "talking animals" will, if we ever do, encounter only extraterrestrial intelligent machines, and our species probably won't be the first close encounter of 'technological animals' like us for those ETI machines. Also, comparative levels of technoscience will be the most significant, or determinant, differences between us and them rather than mere evolved intelligence. The cognitive capabilities of the biological engineers of (the initial, operational prototype of) those ETI machines, who perhaps will be long extinct (or "ascendant"), will be a nonfactor (and long rendered obsolete by their machine descendants) when they initiate contact with us (or our machine descendants). Just my 2 bytes.

It makes sense to think about ascention as evolution from biological into machine in a sense of transhumanism or AI-machine with human memories that control it.
It also makes sense because it's not new to us to have desire to leave traces, for example pharaons built pyramids to be remembered for thousands of years because pyramids (structures) stand the test of time more than anything else we found.

Robotics, AI and transhumanism would sound like stupidity to our ancestors 400+ years ago, but same way life that is neither biologic nor AI\memory driven machine may sound like stupidity to us today.

Why would alien life have to be either biologic or machine\AI?
Or why wouldn't intelligent alien life be of microscopic scale like < 5cm or like 20+ meters?
Or why would alien being have to be visible to human eye or touchable by our body? (ex. stealth suit)
Or why to think about machines as computer or electricity driven systems?

I think of intelligent alien life as something that is extremely unlikely not only to find but also to perceive and understand if found.

I can't answer your questions; they are mostly besides the point and make no sense to me. I also can't see what "transhumanism" in particular has to do with the topic. And, as I've pointed out, we won't find advanced ETI; IMO, they will have to initiate contact if and when they see it as advantageous in some way to expose their existence, and presence, to us given the fact of our primitive, inferior, technological development.

What is Technological ascendancy?

By "Technological ascendancy" I mean a point where no new discoveries would be significant enough compared to existing technological discoveries and possibilities of practical application.

Technological ascendancy may (but is not required) to solve several of the great questions such as theory of everything and possibly rule out some of the great questions as meaningless such as theory of simulation or why is there something rather than nothing, given the scientific tipping point.

Technological ascendancy also solves all of the problems that we face, hunger, needing to go to work, illness etc. in other words people live in utopic world where all major problems are solved and handled by technology with minimum effort. — SpaceDweller

Advance technology may improve certain aspects of our lives but it won't solve all of our problems because as we advance such technology will create new issue, or make us have to address issues that we never did before. The very least of these will be the logistical issues on how to maintain such a technological society and how to best allocate the resources that are made available from it because even in advance civilizations there will be a limit to what resources can be produced and used and there will be an unlimited demand on such limited resources.

Or in other words whatever advance society comes after this post-industrial age (and likely also the one after that), there will be a strain on what the populace demands of it. This might end in several hundred years or maybe it might take thousands but what such a society will look like we do not really know.

Question
Stephen Hawking for example also pointed out both the possible issues of the AI and the need to colonize outer space.
Do you think these issues are solvable, and is technological ascendancy possible? or are we doomed to suffer and ultimately die out? — SpaceDweller

Your question reminds me of a video game that came out in the 90s called "Alpha Centauri" where humans are trying to colonize another world and deal with other factions who have different ideologies of their own.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Alpha_Centauri#Inspirations

Whether or not the technological issues needed for the kind of technological advances described in the game Alpha Centauri or what you call " technological ascendancy" are possible remains to be seen as from what I have seen in my life the time and resources required for any advancement such as AI) are usually much more than we initially envision. As to whether or not society will be able to adapt and use such technology before there is a global catastrophe either caused by nature or by us is also a question that isn't easy to answer since there more variables to such a question that it is unlikely anyone reading this could factor them all together well enough for a accurate answer to it.

IMHO, man kind will have to either become more efficient and/or creative to affectively deal with the issues to move on from our current post-industrial age society to one where the technology allows us to extend our reach much farther then our current one. What will be required for this to happen (ie war, climate change, civil unrest, etc.) I don't know but it is likely it will take quite some time unless there is something to motivate both people and the powers that be that something needs to be done so that we don't remain just as we are.

In the past, I believe most technological and social change happen in a culture when A)they encounter a civilization more advance then them and they have to adapt to existence of such people and their technology B) they are at war and in order to win the war (or in some cases there is a period of several wars) they have to research new technologies/sciences to give them a edge. There may be other conditions where there is some kind of threat that isn't all that different then war (possibly like during the age of colonization where European countries set out to explore/subdue other countries in order to obtain wealth), but in a nutshell it usually requires those that are hording wealth to be scared enough to be willing to spend a large amount of it to save themselves and the rest of their wealth as well as people willing to drastically change their lifestyle in order for them to survive. If there was ever something like an alien encounter/invasion, it would definitely fit the bill for something to motivate everyone to do whatever it takes to ramp up whatever is needed for us to become a more technologically advance society.

What will be required for this to happen (ie war, climate change, civil unrest, etc.) I don't know but it is likely it will take quite some time unless there is something to motivate both people and the powers that be that something needs to be done so that we don't remain just as we are. — dclements

I can't not to agree with all that you said.
For technological advancement, biggest problem seems to be insecurity and wealth inequality, there are 200+ countries each seeking security and spending a lot on military, and then also 85% of global wealth is in hands of 12% of the population which only contributes to social instability and government insecurity, ex:
Distribution Of Global Wealth

I don't see what kind of technology could help solve these seemingly unsolvable issues, not even world war or revolution could help.

If there was ever something like an alien encounter/invasion, it would definitely fit the bill for something to motivate everyone to do whatever it takes to ramp up whatever is needed for us to become a more technologically advance society. — dclements

“There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us.” ~Franz Kafka

If aliens visited Earth, they would hob-nob with the intelligent life (rocks, plants and animals), have a good laugh about the hairless, toothless, two-legged dummies, and then mosey on their way.

Is technological ascendancy possible? — SpaceDweller

Maybe you'll find the following speculation a plausible path from our current Type 0.6 to a Type II civilization on the Kardashev scale:

Firstly, the death of religion, then we'd merge with (be uplifted by) artificial intelligence and perhaps, in the end, attain transcension... — 180 Proof

:nerd:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_(science_fiction)

https://www.universetoday.com/147546/beyond-fermis-paradox-xi-the-transcension-hypothesis/amp/

I have an issue with both premises and how you support them.

"For the premise 1 to be false, non controlled counter measures on a global scale must be implemented to prevent such scenarios, which is very unlikely given the fact we have nukes but no effective countermeasures. (again thirst toward rule and security prevails, offense over defense)"

The effective counter measure to nukes is the possibility of offense (M.A.D.). It's pretty hard to call this ineffective, considering the world hasn't been destroyed by nukes since their creation. Also, consider the fact that we live in the most peaceful time in human history WITH the most powerful weapons.

There's also a problem with how you characterize human nature here. Even if you Disregard the future possibility of "ascended sensibilities", we cannot logical say that human nature is a DEFINITIVE boundary to the perfection of AI being used for the creation of a Utopia. Perhaps there is a psychological angle to this that can dig into.

"The path to technological ascendancy heavily depends on available raw resources and available energy, it's a time game, our planet earth is limited in resources, to break this limitation exploitation and colonization of space is necessary."

Let's talk about some problems with premise 2. You provide no explanation as to what the limit of exploitation on the planet Earth actually is, so I fail to see why the colonization of space is necessary to achieve technological ascendancy. The colonization of space Helps, but I cannot see why it is a necessity to the problem at the present time in human history. However, we can definitely get into the technical side of this issue.

Overall, this is a really good question and it seems possible that we can achieve technological ascendancy. I share the same fears present in both premises, but these fears don't turn me off to the idea that technological ascendancy is possible, for the reasons I listed above.

https://www.universetoday.com/147546/beyond-fermis-paradox-xi-the-transcension-hypothesis/amp/ — 180 Proof

This is very interesting article, I've read almost all :smile:
The idea of perfection of inner space (ex. solar system) sounds more plausible and more possible than colonization of outer space.

Firstly, the death of religion, then we'd merge with (be uplifted by) artificial intelligence and perhaps, in the end, attain transcension... — 180 Proof

This is possible, but I think bio technology, genetic engineering, medicine etc. is way beyond the branch of computation and mechanics.
For transhumanism both is required, it is more likely we'll just stay humans as masters of robots and AI for a very long time.

You provide no explanation as to what the limit of exploitation on the planet Earth actually is, so I fail to see why the colonization of space is necessary to achieve technological ascendancy — Sheffwally

Various metals, types of fuel and similar are not unlimited We are consuming the future

The effective counter measure to nukes is the possibility of offense (M.A.D.). It's pretty hard to call this ineffective, considering the world hasn't been destroyed by nukes since their creation. — Sheffwally

For now yes, but hard to predict, mass destruction weapons are less than 100 years old invention compared to 7K+ years without them.

Also, consider the fact that we live in the most peaceful time in human history WITH the most powerful weapons. — Sheffwally

True, that's truly something but only thanks to advancements in economics and agriculture, trade and business become much more profitable than wars.
However this also resulted in larger population and population growth which can't end up good.

Either global war or "peaceful" depopulation is IMO inevitable.

I'm not convinced that we have a real measure on the resources needed for "technological ascendancy". And even if we focus on the long term problem of resources, I'm not convinced that we need to leave the solar system to mine cosmic objects. Regardless of the actual specifics, the premises in the original post don't stand against thorough investigation in a definitive sense.

True, that's truly something but only thanks to advancements in economics and agriculture, trade and business become much more profitable than wars.
However this also resulted in larger population and population growth which can't end up good. — SpaceDweller

I have two small points here. The horrors of the last world wars have had a definitive affect on our overalls perspective of war, it is not as simple as the profitability of war. I think it's overly pessimistic to disregard this idea. Lastly, the dangers of overpopulation are a myth. It's a very outdated idea as younger working people are struggling to support growing older populations in some of the most population dense places in the world (lopsided populations). This is an interesting topic to research.

Anyway, I can agree that there are many problems that stand in the way of technological ascendancy.

Stephen Hawking said that "philosophy is dead". He believed that philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge" — SpaceDweller

Sorry, I respectfully disagree with Hawking. Guess who the pundits turn to for moral support and consolations during economic collapse, public upheaval, violence, war, misery, angst, and overall unhappiness of the general public ?
The Jordans, the Žižeks, the Singers, the McDowells, etc.

Do you think these issues are solvable, and is technological ascendancy possible? or are we doomed to suffer and ultimately die out? — SpaceDweller

We have already reached technological ascendancy. Many times over. We have everything we need to reach utopia, if that's your goal. The real enemy is greed, which you have alluded to in premise 1. There's no cure for greed, no technology advanced enough to suppress greed. And by greed, I include power-hungry groups and individuals.

Stephen Hawking said that "philosophy is dead".

On the contrary, Stephen Hawking is dead, and philosophy is very much so alive.

philosophy is very much so alive. — _db

Technological ascendancy also solves all of the problems that we face, hunger, needing to go to work, illness etc. in other words people live in utopic world where all major problems are solved and handled by technology with minimum effort. — SpaceDweller

These problems are, in many cases, introduced or exacerbated by technology, and can only be solved with further development of technology; technology is indispensable to the solution of technological problems...the disease provides the cure...

A technological utopia is a programmed society, a well-oiled machine, with all of its members obeying the imperative of efficiency, maximum production. The threat of an AI, if it isn't just a silly sci fi trope, comes precisely from the AIs recognition of the inefficiency of human nature; humans are too unpredictable, too emotional; they experience exhaustion and can think for themselves. The automated society reduces the job of humans to that of maintenance, and if that too can be automated, then there is no need for humans.

If premise 1 is true then given the human nature it is necessary that escalation of war (caused by people) is inevitable either leading to an end of human kind or making enslavement even harder to resist.
Otherwise, if control over the AI is lost, human kind gets either destroyed or dictated by the AI sooner or later.
For the premise 1 to be false, non controlled counter measures on a global scale must be implemented to prevent such scenarios, which is very unlikely given the fact we have nukes but no effective countermeasures. (again thirst toward rule and security prevails, offense over defense) — SpaceDweller

War becomes more prevalent as technological maturity develops, for two reasons:

1. Technology erodes the distinction between offense and defense (re: "pre-emptive war")
2. Technology reduces the psychological trauma of killing (drone warfare -> "video games")

It is the nature of reforms that they only offer a temporary curtail of a historical pattern. Sooner or later they get overturned or ignored. Only a revolutionary shock can abort a historical pattern; reforms are just society's way of slowly adjusting itself to demands placed on it by a pattern.

The farcity of nuclear non-aggression agreements comes from the fact that the threat has not actually been removed, the plug has not been pulled. A piece of paper is not going to stop the nukes. Sooner or later the nukes are going to get dropped.

If premise 2 is true then technological ascendancy is impossible, because it's more likely we'll just die out due to lack of resources. — SpaceDweller

A technological solution to all human problems will never happen, because it would be more expedient to simply remove humans from the equation of efficiency, or modify them so they no longer have these problems. Regardless of the resistance to genetic modification, eventually the floodgates will rupture; humans will become designed, like a poodle.

A technological utopia is a programmed society, a well-oiled machine, with all of its members obeying the imperative of efficiency, maximum production. The threat of an AI, if it isn't just a silly sci fi trope, comes precisely from the AIs recognition of the inefficiency of human nature; humans are too unpredictable, too emotional; they experience exhaustion and can think for themselves. The automated society reduces the job of humans to that of maintenance, and if that too can be automated, then there is no need for humans. — _db

Human obsolescence? :chin:

Perhaps the advent of automatopia will look something like this:

Perhaps one day we'll engineer "gods" (e.g. the Tech Singularity) but they will not be us. If we're lucky they will delay us taking our rightful place among Earth's fossil record by becoming our zookeepers (e.g. the Matrix). — 180 Proof

But why zookeep us? Wouldn't it be more efficient (or something) to exterminate us? [ ... ] we are only one data point of evolved biological intelligence (EBI) and the only such resource with which to (1) run simulations of prospective 'first contacts' with extraterrestial EBIs (xEBI) and (2) run eugenics-like experiments to try to instantiate 'superhuman level machine intelligence' in precisely engineered living, phenomenological bodies (BMI+). At minimum, maybe, these are some reasons to keep Dodo birds like us around ... in ambiguous utopias / post-scarcity cages ... safe secure & controlled. — 180 Proof

I can't not to agree with all that you said.
For technological advancement, biggest problem seems to be insecurity and wealth inequality, there are 200+ countries each seeking security and spending a lot on military, and then also 85% of global wealth is in hands of 12% of the population which only contributes to social instability and government insecurity, ex:
Distribution Of Global Wealth

I don't see what kind of technology could help solve these seemingly unsolvable issues, not even world war or revolution could help. — SpaceDweller

I agree with you that the distribution of wealth is a big problem in our modern time, but you should realize that in almost of human history it has always been a big problem,

Since you are interested in this issue I'll provided you with some links to show you that not only is it as bad as you think but it is even worse:

Motherjones.com - It’s the Inequality, Stupid (and similar articles)
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/07/poor-losers/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/trickle-economy/

Neo-Feudalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-2TEwdRnX0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Charade_of_Changing_the_World

Poor Us: An Animated History of Poverty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxbmjDngois

Why America Throws the Poor in Prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHzLtjR_hdY

The dirty secret of capitalism -- and a new way forward | Nick Hanauer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th3KE_H27bs

Is Capitalism Actually Reducing Poverty? (with Richard Wolff)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4FES0ehyI

What The Monopoly Man Won’t Tell You
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YOsKyueelI

Not only do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the wealthy also have passed laws that allow them to pay less corporate taxes and the burden of paying taxes is now put on the middle class and working poor; when prior to World War II it was the other way around and the majority of taxes came from corporate taxes. And on top of that they use their money and resources to control politicians and what laws are passes.

In a nutshell, those of us who are not rich are basically little more than wage slave and/or cattle for the super rich and the only reason for existence according to the society we live in is to provide a better life for those who are wealthier than ourselves. If you read or watch the above links I think you will get a better picture of what I'm talking about.

Anyways just so you know, in during massive social upheaval things can change quite a bit. During wars corporations and the wealthy are more willing to pay for things because if they don't there exists the possibility of them losing EVERYTHING. Just look at what happened during the French revolution and/or what happens when any army invades and takes over another country. One of the first things they do is sack (or "liberate" if your the invaders) any centers of wealth and use it for their own purposes.

Even in the corporate world one company can steal another's lunch if they build another product that is much better than their own, and if the company that is losing sales does adapt quick enough they may go out of business. This happens quite a lot in the IT sector where a company seems to hold a sort of monopoly on a piece of hardware or software for a few years and then all of a sudden their products start becoming obsolete such as what happen to a company that use to be called Blackberry.

I guess what I'm trying to say is in the last few hundred years the average person life has changed a lot and under times of great change it isn't the elite 10% or 1% that control everything because under rapid change even the elite can't control anything. In fact if you really look at things the wealthy elite can only make it look like they are in control and if at any time the masses don't agree with what they are doing (or world events happen so quickly it disrupts their control), then they no longer maintain the wealth and power that they did and instead become like the rest of us.

“There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us.” ~Franz Kafka — 180 Proof

I'm not sure if that quote is directed to us as human beings individually or the human race as a whole.

What if humans through either evolution and/or augmentation become something OTHER than the kind of human beings you know of that are walking and talking around today? What if somehow scientist are able to create synthetic beings, that are a combination of human/animal biology and today prosthetics and machines that can do some of the work we can (and some that we can't such as space travel) and do it with less problems and less resources that human beings require? Or what about the possibilities that are available if someone is able to create MMI- mind/machine interface technology? Could such technology change us enough for the better so that we are more equipped to deal with our problems than we are today?

I agree with you that human beings are incredibly fallible beings and that the leaders (and wealthy people) running things today are hardly anything more than spoiled rich children that probably more narcissist than any generation before them. But beyond our human fallibility we also can be pretty adaptable beings when we need to be.

I don't know if human evolution (natural or otherwise), augmentation, or any technology will come fast enough to enable us to do what needs to be done when the time comes for us to face the dilemmas we are going to have to face. However I don't think it is a given that we will just snuff ourselves out completely before (or let something else do it) before willing to do something almost radical in the hopes that we survive.

In the past, human beings (as well as other animals) usually have incidents, such as this Cov-Id virus, that hits us and shows us how really unprepared we are for certain threats. Each time we have to deal with a threat, we know a little bit more and become a little wiser. Before the modern era, we were more aware how really powerless we are and perhaps a bit more careful in how we dealt with day to day issues as well as real world problems. Perhaps in the next hundred (or two hundred years) there will be some times where the people in charge will better understand this problem and will be better able to use the resources available to do what needs to be done and the resources available at that time will be a lot better than anything we have today.

I know that saying that there is only a chance we will survive whatever is throw at the human race in the near future, but in reality we have never had anything better than just a chance at survival. If someone thinks that it was a given that the human race was going to do anything/everything we have in history then they are mistaken. We are hardly more than just a candle light burning in a hostile and formidable universe that doesn't give a dam about our existence and since there is no "God" that is going to save us when the cards are down, we are going to find a way to save ourselves (as we always have) since it is a given that nothing - other than perhaps a alien race that is watching us - will do anything to help us.

I guess when that time really comes, we will all see if Kafka was right. Or at least those of us who are still alive when it happens.

You've missed my point (): sentient synthetics will survive us – to carry 'human intelligence' beyond the extinction of human life. This is what Kafka's quote means to me.