the reason the emergence of AGI is called "the singularity" is because human history beyond that point is completely unpredictable by us. — 180 Proof

The singularity proposed at the big bang does not stop humans ruminating about what might have existed before it, what might have caused it and what the fate of this universe may be. I would therefore push back against your claim of 'completely unpredictable' by us.
Have a look at (if you have not already):

The computer generated narrator voice states the same 'unpredictable' status that you state for a future AGI but it then offers two predictions for the consequences of a future 'singularity' state it calls ASI. 'Extinction' or 'Immortality.'
Not as unpredictable as it first claimed then. Perhaps there are more possibilities, but its sill a great wee 7min offering. What do you think of it?

religious belief in "God", however, I suspect will rapidly die out as advances in molecular medicine (and nanotech) reduce death to a treatable condition from an irreparable inevitability – again, AGI, etc will probably cure us of that defect, and thereby exorcise "our" emotional need for "God". Without fear of death, what use is "God"? — 180 Proof

:clap: Reads completely rational to me!

We were barred from the "Tree of Life" once we'd tasted "Forbidden Knowledge" because, as scripture says "Lest they become like us", that is, like gods who are immortal with knowledge and no longer needing "God". This insight of the ancient Hebrews is quite telling. Like animism and polytheism, monotheism might soon (e.g. post-Singularity) become nothing but a museum relic (and psychiatric disorder of delusional outliers). — 180 Proof

Great example. A god portrayed as worried about 'lest they become like us.' An omnigod who experiences fear is indeed a contradiction. What response have you had from theists when you pose this? I bet that's one that they claim fits into the category of 'human misinterpretations of the word of god.' Theists cherry pick constantly. 'I am a jealous god,' A deadly sin!! A theist once told me that it should have been interpreted as 'zealous' not 'jealous.' My response was ( a while later but I wish I had thought of it at the time,) may be 'bible' was misinterpreted, and it should have been 'babble.'

Donald Hoffman ... claims that ... "conscious beings have not evolved to perceive the world as it actually is but have evolved to perceive the world in a way that maximizes successful adaptation. — Wayfarer

I've concluded pretty much the same thing, without knowing about Hoffman. Parts of me believe the illusion (and cannot un-believe) even though other parts of me know it is wrong. It's not hard to work out actually. You just need to recognize and have the willingness to let go of your axioms.

Your response was big and detailed and I want to do it justice, so I will split up my response as it will probably get too big and cumbersome, if I dont. — universeness

I tend to combine into one large post, but I compose in an offsite editor. Less chance of losing a lot of work. There's a lot to cover in your responses, so forgive me the time it takes to do so. Your definintion of 'objectively true' seems to mean 'always true' as opposed to 'most of the time', or 'probably'. That contrasts heavily with how I would have used the word, which is more like 'true regardless of context'. I'll use yours of course.

My exemplification of the importance of the carbon process to our existence, was just that, exemplification. I am attempting to trace a path towards an 'objective truth' about lifeforms, that I know currently has no extraterrestrial evidence for. I am just trying to consider what we do currently know, to see if there is anything in there that might convince others, to give a high or very high credence level to the proposal that the human condition is not being valued appropriately by too many humans. The pessimists, the theists, the theosophists, the doomsters and worst of all, the antinatalists. — universeness

I don't see any connection between Earth life being based on a carbon chemical process (as opposed to a different process) and the value of the human condition, and the prospects of our race moving forward. You target the antinatalists, but our inability to curb our population growth rate will inevitably run Earth's resources out quite abruptly. The antinatalists, as defined, seem to want to take this too far and produce zero offspring, which admittedly doesn't solve our problem even if it solves the problems of all the other species falling victim to the Holocene extinction event. Evolution doesn't favor an antinatalist. They are quickly bred out.

That's interesting to me from the standpoint of my search for 'something' that's common to all life in the universe.

All life is likely to contain carbon. It seems unlikely that all life would be based on the chemistry of carbon, a big difference. What about a plasma life form, just to name something weird?

2. The definition we have for the term 'alive.'

That varies, and is subject to debate, even on the sample size of one we have here on Earth. I know of no standard definition that would apply to a random extraterrestrial entity. What are our moral obligations to something we find if we cannot decide if it’s alive, or if it being alive is a requirement for said moral obligation?

3. The 'I think therefore I am,' proposal.

Fallacious reasoning in my opinion, especially when translated thus. Descartes worded it more carefully, but still fallacious.

4. The proposal that only life, can demonstrate intent and purpose.

Just that, a mere proposal, and very wrong given the word ‘demonstrate’ in there.

Is there anything within or related to the 4 categories above that you would give a high credence to, if it was posited as 'likely true' of all sentient lifeforms in the universe, regardless of the fact we haven't met them all yet.

I don’t think they’re necessarily true here, so no. You 1st bullet maybe. All life here is sort of carbon based, but much of it (the oldest stuff) isn’t oxygen based, so right there you have a big difference in chemical constituency.

As for my suggestion that all lifeforms in the universe contain protons, neutrons, electrons etc. I expected you to reject the 'all life in the universe is baryonic' label as useless, as everything with mass is baryonic

I have a really hard time with non-baryonic life, so I’m not on record disagreeing with that. Call it a truth then. The bolded bit is wrong. Dark matter accounts for far more mass than does baryonic matter.

All life is based on a single cell fundamental is a good one.

But life existed on Earth long before the first cells came along. That’s a complicated invention that took time.

My goal is to find more powerful, convincing, high credence arguments against pessimists, doomsters, theists, antinatalists etc, who in my opinion, currently devalue the human experience, in very unfair and imbalanced ways.

Again with this list. You build an argument against them by showing how they’re wrong. This would be hard to do if they’re not wrong, so you must also consider their arguments. Admittedly, the arguments for both sides are often thin.

:lol: Are you a doomster noAxioms?

Sort of. It’s simple mathematics. We’re consuming resources at a pace far in excess of their renewal rate. That cannot be sustained. Technology just makes it happen faster. Eventually the population must crash, as does the population of bacteria in a petri dish of nutrients. That might not wipe us out, but it might very well reduce us back to the way things were 500 years ago, and more permanently this time. Humans are taking zero steps to mitigate all this. In fact, our (gilded age) code of morals forbids such measures.

I could give you many, many examples of human actions that benefit our species as a whole, such as memorialising information

I already brought that up. We memorialize it in a form inaccessible to a low-technology state. Little is in actual books, and even those are printed on paper that might last only decades if well stored. But I’m talking about action that actually attempts to prevent the crash mentioned above. Nobody even proposes any viable ideas. We all yammer about the problems (global warming is obvious), but not a single actual suggestion as to how to prevent it (and not just walk slower off the edge of the cliff). As I said before, we need a mommy, because only a mommy has the authority to do that sort of thing. A sufficiently advance race shouldn’t need a mommy, but we’re not sufficiently advanced.

A computer processor at its base level is a series of logic gates, which open and close.

And you also can be similarly described at a base level. Pretty much gates that open and close (neurons that fire or not).

Computers produce output on screens, printout paper etc.

That’s only to communicate with a different species. A computer does not communicate with another this way.

They don't have 'understanding,' therefore they don't know what information is.

This seems only to be your refusal to apply the language term to something you don’t want it being applied. The dualists attempt to justify such a distinction by asserting that a human has this supernatural entity that the machine supposedly lacks.

No hardware/software combination has convincingly passed the turing test yet.

See my post above about this (to 180). It merely tests something’s ability to imitate something it is not. It isn’t a measure of something that ‘understands’, a test of intelligence, or something that is superior to something else. I don’t think any AI will ever pass the Turing test, but who knows.

So, how important do you think it is to convince as many theists as possible to reject theism?

Probably a bad idea, but on the other hand when they start using their god as an excuse to do immoral things (as almost all of them have), then it requires resistance. I’ve never seen a religious motivated conflict resolved by convincing them that their reasoning is wrong.

Do you think that a global majority rejection of theism would benefit our species and this planet?

Getting people to actually think instead of letting others tell them what to think would be a great start, but humans seem absurdly bad at this.
A short term benefit to our species may not be good for a more long term goal for our species, and our planet doesn’t seem to have goals, so not sure how one can go about benefiting one.

Then why do we ask questions?

Because we want to know stuff. My comment to which this was a reply was about the universe having goals, and the universe isn’t a thing that asks questions any more than does a classroom.

Definitely, at the start, but do you think there is any possibility in terraforming?

It’s always a possibility. Where do the resources come from? Good solar farming up there for energy, at least if you don’t mind the two-week nights. Getting the heavy equipment out there isn’t exactly in our capability anytime soon. The cost/benefit of such an outpost dwarfs trying to do something similar here on Earth.

Well, I often disagreed with HarryHindu and I do again, in this case. 2+3=5 must be objectively true everywhere in this universe, even inside or on the event horizon of a black hole

Ah, but is it true in the absence of our universe? This gets into my definition of objective truth vs the one you gave. HH didn’t suggest it was not true anywhere in this universe. The suggestion was more along the lines of the necessity of something real to count, which makes mathematics only valid for counting numbers.

I am with your sister-in-law.

Another fine mind lost to technology. My condolences.

Rubble pile asteroids might be the best places to build space habitats — universeness

Read Joe Haldeman's Worlds trilogy is set in such a scenario, a sizeable nickle-iron asteroid captured, brought (over the course of many years) into Earth orbit, and terraformed into the largest off-planet outpost anywhere, and its ability to sustain the collapse of civilization on the planet below.

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him. -- Clark — 180 Proof

Awfully on-target of him considering the age of that quote.

Let's assume then that we are not extinct within another 10,000 years time duration.
Would you be willing to 'steelman' that situation by offering me a brief musing of what you think 'a day in the life of,' a typical human/transhuman might be by then? Do you think theism will still have a significant following for example? — universeness

Theism will be probably higher than it is now, but far more diverse with no following held over a large area. People may not be literate, so I envision something like the culture of the American natives before Europeans came. This assumes that in only 10000 years the climate has settled into something workable for humans. If not, we're probably extinct, so that assumption must be made.

I said human history is unpredictable after – on the other side of – "The Singularity", not cosmological history. :roll:

Does it matter how early in your life you ask such questions? Do the 'big' existential questions not just get more relevant and deeper as you get older? — universeness

Mostly, one seeks their "niche" in society without a lot of soul searching. If such existential questions persist into old age, one needs to get out of the house and move around, not sit in contemplation of these niggling abstractions - unless one is a real philosopher, seeking conceptual stability amid the chaos. If the latter, then there's always a singularity around the mental corner.

The only singularities I contemplate are mathematical and present no existential threat.

Mostly, one seeks their "niche" in society without a lot of soul searching. If such existential questions persist into old age, one needs to get out of the house and move around, not sit in contemplation of these niggling abstractions — jgill

Agree. I contemplate no singularities. There's enough to be getting on with in the day to day.

Yep.

Is it possible that 'the singularity' is the distant echo of 'the One' in Plotinus?

Is it possible that 'the singularity' is the distant echo of 'the One' in Plotinus? — Wayfarer

Analogously, "the Big Bang" maybe, not e.g. the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Certainly not the prospect of a tech singularity.

:up: Yes, that is what I had in mind.

Analogously, "the Big Bang" maybe, not e.g. the black hole at the center of our galaxy. — 180 Proof

What about Eccentrica Gallumbits the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon Six?

There's a lot to cover in your responses, so forgive me the time it takes to do so. — noAxioms

Nothing to forgive. I am just grateful that you invest the time and effort to respond to me at all. You also do so, with considered and interesting counter points, so please, continue to do so, and take whatever time you wish or need to.

Your definintion of 'objectively true' seems to mean 'always true' as opposed to 'most of the time', or 'probably'. That contrasts heavily with how I would have used the word, which is more like 'true regardless of context'. I'll use yours of course. — noAxioms

In general I try to go with 'dictionary definitions,' but I know that these can be too rigid when it comes to trying to understand where another is coming from when they employ a particular term in a particular context. I like the wiki definition of 'objective truth:'

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence. Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it. Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through subjectivity.

But In general, I would burden the term 'objective truth' as having to be true everywhere in the universe. For example, 'every electron has identical properties.' This was considered so objectively true that it spawned the 'one electron universe hypothesis.'

I don't see any connection between Earth life being based on a carbon chemical process (as opposed to a different process) and the value of the human condition, and the prospects of our race moving forward. — noAxioms

I accept that the carbon process I cited is only paramount if it is an objective truth about all life in the universe. My search for such an 'objective truth' about all lifeforms continues. I repeat the purpose of my thread here, as I perceive it. I am trying to trace a path to an objective truth about all lifeforms in the universe based on what we currently know about all life on Earth.
I appreciate that my source data set is too small to do that under the rules of the scientific method BUT, I am requesting that we try anyway. I think such CAN INDEED have an effect on 'the human condition.'
People can be convinced and can redirect, refocus, their energies and efforts if they do become convinced that a proposal has high credence.
My goal is to put certain concepts that I have, through the TPF test and see what happens to them.
I want to defeat the doomsters, the pessimists, the theists, the theosophists, the antinatalists, the capitalists etc and I want to fully test drive any tool that I think might help in doing so.
Based on my exchanges with TPF folks such as yourself, on this thread, so far, I am moving towards assigning high credence to the 'intent' and 'purpose' aspects of humanity as two aspects of humanity, that may have a very high credence level, for being objectively true, as aspects of all lifeforms, who can demonstrate a certain level of sentience and intelligence, anywhere in the universe. I think human intent and purpose may be a very good means of countering the negativity of the attitudes of many people I already labelled above.

What about a plasma life form, just to name something weird? — noAxioms

I have read some stuff on this such as:
Example 1, example 2.
Neither of these examples matches your 'plasma lifeform,' suggestion but the possibility of the existence of 'massless' lifeforms, would not negate my 'intent' and 'purpose' properties. If 'plasma' lifeforms existed and have the necessary level of sentience and intelligence to be able to demonstrate such properties then they would add to my 'objective truth about all sentient lifeforms,' evidence.
I agree that such a statement contains a SCREAMING if.

2. The definition we have for the term 'alive.'
That varies, and is subject to debate, even on the sample size of one we have here on Earth. I know of no standard definition that would apply to a random extraterrestrial entity. What are our moral obligations to something we find if we cannot decide if it’s alive, or if it being alive is a requirement for said moral obligation? — noAxioms

I broadly agree.

3. The 'I think therefore I am,' proposal.
Fallacious reasoning in my opinion, especially when translated thus. Descartes worded it more carefully, but still fallacious. — noAxioms

You would need to explain why you think 'cogito ergo sum,' is fallacious. But perhaps we could put that one aside based on the results I got from searching TPF with the keywords 'cogito ergo sum threads.' Why do I always think of @Agent Smith, anytime I type latin?

4. The proposal that only life, can demonstrate intent and purpose.
Just that, a mere proposal, and very wrong given the word ‘demonstrate’ in there. — noAxioms

No lifeform on Earth can demonstrate intent and purpose more than humans can.
Do you have any sources of significant evidence which counters this claim?
Why do I more and more, think about @180 Proof, when I embolden text and underline it to?

As for my suggestion that all lifeforms in the universe contain protons, neutrons, electrons etc. I expected you to reject the 'all life in the universe is baryonic' label as useless, as everything with mass is baryonic
I have a really hard time with non-baryonic life, so I’m not on record disagreeing with that. Call it a truth then. The bolded bit is wrong. Dark matter accounts for far more mass than does baryonic matter. — noAxioms

The bolded bit is not wrong as dark matter is not yet confirmed and if it ever is then it might just mean the 'baryons,' category gets some new members. All baryons have mass, do they not? So, any dark matter candidate (let's go with Roger Penrose's erebon) must have mass and would therefore qualify as a baryon (if actually detected.)

:lol: Are you a doomster noAxioms?
Sort of. It’s simple mathematics. We’re consuming resources at a pace far in excess of their renewal rate. That cannot be sustained. Technology just makes it happen faster. Eventually the population must crash, as does the population of bacteria in a petri dish of nutrients. That might not wipe us out, but it might very well reduce us back to the way things were 500 years ago, and more permanently this time. Humans are taking zero steps to mitigate all this. In fact, our (gilded age) code of morals forbids such measures. — noAxioms

Many humans are trying and working very hard indeed to counter the negative and dangerous activities and practices employed by mostly nefarious or dimwitted humans. It's only simple mathematics, if it continues completely unchecked. It's already too late in some areas and I agree there will be some fallout that we will all suffer but I remain convinced we will avoid anything, anywhere near, an extinction level threat.

Nobody even proposes any viable ideas. We all yammer about the problems (global warming is obvious), but not a single actual suggestion as to how to prevent it (and not just walk slower off the edge of the cliff). As I said before, we need a mommy, because only a mommy has the authority to do that sort of thing. A sufficiently advance race shouldn’t need a mommy, but we’re not sufficiently advanced. — noAxioms

Carbon capture systems.
Tree planting
Renewable energy systems and the move away from fossil fuels.
Legislation to protect rainforrests, ocean environments such as coral reefs, endangered species, with some endangered species now saved, etc , etc
Vertical farming, genetically modified food production.
Human population control initiatives.
Anti-capitalist political movements.
Civil disobedience as protest methods against climate abuse and abuse of the resources of the Earth for profit only.
Atheist movements against theist suggestions that this Earth is disposable, due to their insistence that god exists.
I don't want to make this list too big as it would soon become bigger that your biggest post ever noAxioms! Stop being such a doomster, join the people (if you are not already with them) who are trying to defeat the nefarious and the dimwitted.

A computer processor at its base level is a series of logic gates, which open and close.
And you also can be similarly described at a base level. Pretty much gates that open and close (neurons that fire or not). — noAxioms

Not so, as the cumulated affects demonstrated in humans due to base brain activity has a far wider capability and functionality, compared to logic gate based electronic computers, based on manipulating binary.

Computers produce output on screens, printout paper etc.
That’s only to communicate with a different species. A computer does not communicate with another this way. — noAxioms

Computers have not yet demonstrated self-awareness and they certainly have not considered such issues as solipsism, so they don't 'communicate,' in any significant way that could be considered equal to the ways humans communicate. Computers remain currently completely stupid. They are very useful IPO systems, nothing more ........ yet!

I don’t think any AI will ever pass the Turing test, but who knows. — noAxioms

:lol: We keep bouncing off each other in our dodgem cars noAxioms! I think you are going a step too far with the quote above! I would make a protest from incredulity! I think AI will pass the turing test in quite spectacular fashion one day but I think it will be a while yet and not the 2045 date, predicted by some.

Why do I always think of Agent Smith, anytime I type latin? — universeness

Muchas gracias for the compliment. I'm learning Latin ... in fits and starts. Wish me luck.

Getting people to actually think instead of letting others tell them what to think would be a great start, but humans seem absurdly bad at this.
A short term benefit to our species may not be good for a more long term goal for our species, and our planet doesn’t seem to have goals, so not sure how one can go about benefiting one. — noAxioms

That's you in you doomster hat again. I have witnessed many examples of humans who 'actually think instead of letting others tell them what to think,' and I bet you have to. I experience examples of such people almost every day. I also experience humans who seem exactly as you describe but you seem to concentrate on that half empty section. Throw that silly doomster hat away! How does it help?
Even if the odds are very much against you, (to quote Delenn and Sheridan from Babylon 5).
"If you are falling from a tall building, you might as well flap your arms!"
I don't think the current human situation in anywhere near as bad as that but I still agree with the desperate act. Perhaps you can grab a flagpole on the way down. :scream: :lol: :fear:

Then why do we ask questions?
Because we want to know stuff. My comment to which this was a reply was about the universe having goals, and the universe isn’t a thing that asks questions any more than does a classroom. — noAxioms

But I already responded to this! WE ARE OF THE UNIVERSE! We ask the questions because we have intent and purpose so our purpose are products of what has happened in the universe since the big bang. Our intent, purpose, actions are not separable from the universe, even when they are diametrically opposed.

Ah, but is it true in the absence of our universe? This gets into my definition of objective truth vs the one you gave. HH didn’t suggest it was not true anywhere in this universe. The suggestion was more along the lines of the necessity of something real to count, which makes mathematics only valid for counting numbers. — noAxioms

I think we should focus on the problems in one universe at a time.

I am with your sister-in-law.
Another fine mind lost to technology. My condolences. — noAxioms

I (and I'm sure your sister-in-law) thank you for your 'fine mind' compliment and I return it in kind.
I also bat back your 'condolences' label and I target it towards your doomster hat, in the hope of knocking it clean off your head and all the way into quick sand or even a black hole!

Theism will be probably higher than it is now, but far more diverse with no following held over a large area. People may not be literate, so I envision something like the culture of the American natives before Europeans came. This assumes that in only 10000 years the climate has settled into something workable for humans. If not, we're probably extinct, so that assumption must be made. — noAxioms

:rofl: Such a big doomster hat!

I said human history is unpredictable after – on the other side of – "The Singularity", not cosmological history. :roll: — 180 Proof

:roll: :roll: (Hah! I hope this doesn't start a 'roll' competition between us :lol: )
Human history is part of cosmological history so if the cosmological future is open to prediction then so is the future of humanity after a so called AGI or ASI 'singularity.' Of course this is just my opinion from incredulity. I heard Matt Dillahunty, use this phrase on 'The Line' call-in Sunday show (8th Jan) (or last night) on YouTube. 'Argument from incredulity.' He used it to suggest a 'weak' position to argue from but I must have liked the phrase as I have now used it twice today, on this thread. I seem to be a sucker for novelty!

Mostly, one seeks their "niche" in society without a lot of soul searching. If such existential questions persist into old age, one needs to get out of the house and move around, not sit in contemplation of these niggling abstractions - unless one is a real philosopher, seeking conceptual stability amid the chaos. If the latter, then there's always a singularity around the mental corner. — jgill

I think I do both and I think I experience fewer existential mental conflicts because of it.
I ponder and I get out and move around. My 'conceptual stability,' has been quite good for many years now and may it stay that way and consolidate further.

What about Eccentrica Gallumbits the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon Six? — Tom Storm

Did she also appear in 'Total recall?'

No problem. I am sure you will consume Latin and gain fluency, you are indeed a cunning linguist!

“When discussing complex systems like brains and other societies, it is easy to oversimplify: I call this Occam’s lobotomy.” ~I.J. Good

No lifeform on Earth can demonstrate intent and purpose more than humans can. — universeness

Primates, cetaceans, elephantidae and cephalopods, as examples, recognizably exhibit to h. sapiens (esp. cognitive zoologists) varying degrees of "intent and purpose" as (non-anthropomorphized) intents and purposes in their actions and activities, so the implication that other "life forms" are less than human in this regard seems to me a trivially speciesist non sequitur.

Treat your inferiors in the way in which you would like to be treated by your own superiors. — Seneca

Caveat: Humans shouldn't think of other sapient life forms in ways they don't ever want machines to think of humans.

No problem. I am sure you will consume Latin and gain fluency, you are indeed a cunning linguist! — universeness

:rofl:

I think it's always wise not to be 'concrete' in your personal proclamations of what you are trying to label 'an objective truth.' I fully accept your cautionary 'woah' signal, if you think I am stretching the importance of the human ability to demonstrate intent and purpose as being 'superior' or 'more pronounced' than any other lifeform, too far.
I am interested on the credence level others might ascribe to my proposal regarding human intent and purpose. I am just tool testing here, at the moment.
Until

Primates, cetaceans, elephantidae and cephalopods — 180 Proof

built cities, communities (good or bad), which are equivalent to human efforts.
Until such can demonstrate an ability to do science or memorialise information in the way we do. I will continue to insist that human intent and human purpose has the strongest potential to directly affect the content of the universe, and we can empirically demonstrate this, and god(s) just cant, and there is zero evidence that they can, other than the pathetic evidence offered by those who claim to have personally witnessed the supernatural.

I am certainly not suggesting in any way! That my claim that human intent and purpose is more powerful that any other lifeform on Earth, gives humans any right whatsoever to ride roughshod over any other species or lifeform. I think that it gives us increased responsibility to fight against any such activity.
That has not yet made me become a vegetarian, for example, but my reasoning there is probably for other threads. I have read quite a bit on the cognitive abilities of other species on Earth. I am a big fan of folks like Jane Goodall etc and many others who work in this area, but I see no attempt by any other species to be become organised enough to study us and impact us as we can impact them.
I know that universal happenstance could wipe out our species before I finish typing on TPF today, so I type as loudly as I can, that I am not suggesting, humans are all powerful in any way, BUT that which IS emergent in us, as a totality, has the strongest potential for impacting the contents of this universe, in the current 'league table of known lifeforms in the universe.'

... that which IS emergent in us as a totality has the strongest potential for impacting the contents of this universe ... — universeness

:up: Yes, we agree on this, more or less; to wit:

An 'Artificial General Intelligence —> Artificial Super Intelligence metacognitive explosion' aka "singularity" might be the limit of h. sapiens' "affect on the contents of the universe" (re: the last invention humanity will ever make). — 180 Proof

:nerd:

:up: Yes, we agree on this, more or less; to wit: — 180 Proof

:grin: Great, now help me convince everyone else on TPF! :strong: Especially the pessimists, doomsters, theists, theosophists and antinatalists! You have time to use up anyway, as we wait for the ASI.

Great, now help me convince everyone else on TPF! — universeness

It's only a speculation, not a mission statement or article of faith. Discussion, not convincing / conversion is my goal. I'll only add this diagram to illustrate that "great potential" we (possibly) have:

[NHS [HS [ ANI > AGI > ASI < ? ]]] — from *Apotheosis or Bust!*

:cool: ~There is no spoon, kids.

NHS - nonhuman sapience (caterpillar)
HS - human sapience (chrysalis)
ANI - artificial Narrow intelligence (butterfly⁰)
AGI - artificial General intelligence (butterfly¹)
ASI - artificial Super intelligence (butterfly²)
? (inconceivable to us)

Discussion, not convincing / conversion is my goal. — 180 Proof

Fair enough!
From wiki:
In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.

out of little acorns, big oak trees grow. I am willing to try to convince/convert others, all by myself.

If you haven't already, check out my series of recent posts on a current thread about the prospects / hazards of "one world government" where I speculate (try to convince / convert???) that only after "the Singularity" might that even be possiible ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/768537 :nerd:

Yeah, I have read that thread. I am an advocate for world unity but I am now against party politics.
I do think global governance would be wise and I agree that it is only feasible alongside a vast increase in automated systems but I don't think we need ASI, posited as a tech singularity.
I also think we need global UBI first and eventually, the removal of money as a means of exchange and the establishment of national and then international resource based economy.
I hope space exploration and development will handshake with these and emerge in parallel.