You seem to be online a shortish time (but long enough to type all these replies) because you reply quickly to posts during that period. Unfortunately I’m asleep then and our exchange takes place once a day. I guess it gives me time to compose at leisure.please, continue to do so, and take whatever time you wish or need to. — universeness
What do you consider to be life then? Does it need a form? How confined is your criteria? I imagine that the definition of life and the answer to your question go hand in hand. If for instance life must be something that reproduces, then that would become an absolute truth about life, if only by definition.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. — universeness
There’s a proposal on top of a search for some kind of truth about all life?People can be convinced and can redirect, refocus, their energies and efforts if they do become convinced that a proposal has high credence.
What purpose would that be, one say not held by a rabbit? Look at current groups that act as a whole. An animal is a collection of life forms of the same species: cells. Those cells are not aware of any specific purpose, but they’ve managed to evolve into something acting as a unit with more purpose than any held by any cell.I am moving towards assigning high credence to the 'intent' and 'purpose' aspects of humanity as two aspects of humanity
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur: Anything said in Latin sounds profound. There’s actually a rationalwiki page on this quote.Why do I always think of Agent Smith, anytime I type latin? — universeness
The 1st statement (item 4) does not follow from the assertion following it. This is simple logic. Displaying a white swan does not support a proposal that all swans must be white.4. The proposal that only life, can demonstrate intent and purpose
...
No lifeform on Earth can demonstrate intent and purpose more than humans can.
Ah, falsification by recategorization. I looked up the definition of baryon and it seems electrons do not qualify, nor the majority of the zoo. Only heavy stuff. Surprise to me. That means I’m composed of a considerable percentage (by count) of non-baryonic things. Somehow I don’t think that distinction is what they’re talking about when dark matter comes up.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.)
I disagree. They’re only acting to slow them, not actually counter them. Walking more slowly off the cliff is how I think I put it. A counter would be to cork all the oil, gas and coal extraction immediately. You’d totally be Mr popularity if you had the means, authority and spine to do that.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. — universeness
I suspect this as well, maybe without your confidence level.I remain convinced we will avoid anything, anywhere near, an extinction level threat.
The first one helps, but is like trying to prevent flood damage by having everyone take a drink of water. Trees are nice, but don’t remove any carbon from the biosphere. True also of ‘renewable energy’ sources.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
Actually increasing the momentum towards the cliff.Vertical farming, genetically modified food production.
Only works if globally enforced. Needs a mommy. This also just slows things, doesn’t solve anything.Human population control initiatives.
And pro what? I think this problem is beyond politics. I agree that the money-talks system will be the death of the west, but it’s not like corruption isn’t elsewhere. I’m actually very interested in designing a better government from scratch, but I’m too naive to know what I’m talking about.Anti-capitalist political movements.
Trying to figure out which side you’re against here.Atheist movements against theist suggestions that this Earth is disposable, due to their insistence that god exists.
A computer processor at its base level is a series of logic gates, which open and close. — universeness
And you also can be similarly described at a base level. Pretty much gates that open and close (neurons that fire or not). — noAxioms
The effects of a lot of neurons firing negates the fact that it’s just neurons firing? Or did I read that wrong?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.
Indeed. They’re found on the forums for instance, a large part of the attraction to such sites.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. — universeness
Are you kidding? Both of you are fine minds. I will not name those on this forum of whom I think otherwise. I don’t agree with all of them, but my assessment hopefully isn’t biased by that.I (and I'm sure your sister-in-law) thank you for your 'fine mind' compliment and I return it in kind.
Hats stick to the surface of both things, at least so I’ve been told.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!
So knock it off with logic instead of weight of optimism.Such a big doomster hat!
Ditto with that agreement, but probably the way you read those words.... 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; — 180 Proof
:grin: Nice to know we both have lives outside of TPF.You seem to be online a shortish time (but long enough to type all these replies) because you reply quickly to posts during that period. Unfortunately I’m asleep then and our exchange takes place once a day. I guess it gives me time to compose at leisure. — noAxioms
Like the universe, I expand over time. Hopefully my expansion will not accelerate and I predict, it will eventually experience a big crunch on this thread.The content is growing. Your aggregate replies consumed 5 pages of Libre yesterday, and 7 today. — noAxioms
What do you consider to be life then? Does it need a form? How confined is your criteria? I imagine that the definition of life and the answer to your question go hand in hand. If for instance life must be something that reproduces, then that would become an absolute truth about life, if only by definition. — noAxioms
Yes, the proposal is that due to the fact life has intent and purpose, there can be no god. As life as a totality, aspires to the god onmi qualifications. Life naturally imagineers god(s) as what it ultimately wants to become. If the omnigod already exists then such a goal would be utterly pointless and illogical, therefore theism and theosophists (faith in deities/the supernatural/the immaterial) must be completely wrong.People can be convinced and can redirect, refocus, their energies and efforts if they do become convinced that a proposal has high credence.
There’s a proposal on top of a search for some kind of truth about all life? — noAxioms
What purpose would that be, one say not held by a rabbit? Look at current groups that act as a whole. An animal is a collection of life forms of the same species: cells. Those cells are not aware of any specific purpose, but they’ve managed to evolve into something acting as a unit with more purpose than any held by any cell.
On the next level, bees form a hive, pretty much a collection of these higher individuals acting with not individual purpose, but with the collective purpose of the hive. A human village or country seems to act that way, having a purpose. The village one is more like like the hive: A group acting for mutual benefit of the individuals. The country sometimes does this, but it also serves as a unit competing with other such units for this and that. I don’t see humanity as a whole in any way acting like this. Countries only exist because other countries do, and they’re something to be resisted. Human seem not to act for the benefit of humanity mostly because there’s not a common enemy to label. So we don’t form anything with a unified purpose. Hence my asking what you see that purpose to be.
Furthermore, and more importantly, how does identifying a purpose for an intelligent race, especially one that must be held by all sufficiently intelligent races, act as a ‘defeat’ of what you call a ‘doomster’ position? It’s not like having a collective purpose has prevented any species from going extinct as far as we know. — noAxioms
4. The proposal that only life, can demonstrate intent and purpose
...
No lifeform on Earth can demonstrate intent and purpose more than humans can.
The 1st statement (item 4) does not follow from the assertion following it. This is simple logic. Displaying a white swan does not support a proposal that all swans must be white. — noAxioms
I looked up the definition of baryon and it seems electrons do not qualify — noAxioms
Trying to figure out which side you’re against here. — noAxioms
The effects of a lot of neurons firing negates the fact that it’s just neurons firing? Or did I read that wrong? — noAxioms
I (and I'm sure your sister-in-law) thank you for your 'fine mind' compliment and I return it in kind.
Are you kidding? Both of you are fine minds. I will not name those on this forum of whom I think otherwise. I don’t agree with all of them, but my assessment hopefully isn’t biased by that. — noAxioms
So knock it off with logic instead of weight of optimism. — noAxioms
:grin: My 85 year old mother has terminal breast cancer and has also way outlived her expertly predicted time. She has had no treatment but continues to battle on. She is even planning a cataract removal in the next few months. She lives with me and demonstrates to me everyday, how to live and how to face death.I'll give you this: The doomsters have been predicting dates for a long time: We'll last only X years. Almost all of them have gone by, kind of like my Brother in law whose doctor said he'd buy him a steak if he was alive in 5 years. His prognosis was a couple months. He missed the free steak by 3 weeks. Tough bastard, even if I didn't agree with almost anything he said. Humanity has earned its steak. Hat off to that. — noAxioms
OK, I’m mostly familiar with the list, but it seems to only apply to that already designated ‘biology’, leaving it open as to whether the thing in question is biological or not. How about a computer virus that mutates on the fly? It arguably doesn’t grow. I can think of forms that don’t reproduce.Yeah, I broadly agree with the 7 criteria from biology:
In biology, whether life is present is determined based on the following seven criteria — universeness
Now we’re asking if it’s intelligent, not if it’s life. Something can be either and not the other, so it’s a different question.I give a very low credence to some lifeforms proposed in sci-fi such as 'The Q' is Star Trek or the various 'energy only' lifeforms but then again, if such turns up and demonstrates abilities such as sentience, awareness of self, ability to communicate, intelligence, ability to do science
Doesn’t seem to follow. Most argue the opposite, that it is the god that supplies the purpose otherwise absent. Your proposal of inherent purpose is equivalent to that of objective morality without involvement of actual commands.the proposal is that due to the fact life has intent and purpose, there can be no god.
Excuse me, but I never said I (people in general) didn’t have purpose.Doomsters and pessimists are wrong, as life with intent and purpose is compelled towards progressing that intent and purpose.
Really? Like to see them try to make a dent in it, positive or negative. We can perhaps take action that will ring through the galaxy, but further? The universe?? That’s not even allowed by physics.I understand that individuals can have intent and purpose to 'destroy the universe,'
What is an antinatalist to you? You bring it up a lot. Do they propose letting the human race go extinct by not having any kids? All that will do is make antinatalism go extinct, sort of like the Jim Jones colony.Antinatalists are wrong because life happened in the universe and would happen again if it went extinct.
No idea what you suggest by this. An example would help. A bus hasn’t intent just because everyone on it wants to go to the same destination.Life changed the universe into a system which contained intent and purpose. A demonstrable ability for a system (the universe) to know itself from the inside.
That’s what’s in a human name. Not sure how this was relevant to my text to which it was a reply.There is no evidence of rabbits memorialising science in the way we do and passing such on to the next generation of libraries. WE coined the name Rabbit. They did not coin the name Human. What's in a name? Human intent and purpose! — universeness
This isn’t a physics forum, but that’s a fun one to refute. How fast must a ping-pong ball hit Earth (from space) to come out the other side? OK, the ball doesn’t come out intact, but neither does the Earth.A hammer made of candy will never break a stone wall not matter how often you try.
From one monist to another, there is no hard problem of consciousness.The hard problem of consciousness remains
OK. I thought you were attempting to justify it, not just put it out there as a premise.The proposal numbered 4 is asserted before the asserting that humans demonstrate intent better than any other species on Earth does. I don't see the logic problem you are trying to establish here. — universeness
Whereas the logic gates in a computer require no more complexity to do whatever they do? I mean, there are more parts than just neurons and logic gates to both things. Humans neurons for instance are very sensitive to chemicals. Logic gates are very sensitive to supply voltages, but the latter doesn’t gather information from said voltage variances. In the end, both are machines made of simple primitives, an argument that doesn’t preclude an arbitrary complex process from taking place. This bit started from your assertion that computers cannot be information processors, but I’m looking for the distinction that makes this so.It may not just be neurons firing, that's the point. There may be much more complexity involved.
I am on that list as well. There’s no evidence that neural activity in any way leverages quantum indeterminacy. I mean, it leverages quantum effects since matter cannot exist in the first place without quantum mechanics, but what a neuron does can be done (very inefficiently) with levers and gears and such. It’s a classic process. There’s no information to be had in quantum measurements, else creatures would long ago have evolved mechanisms to take advantage of it.I know 180 Proof and others do not assign much credence to the idea that quantum effects are an integral part of human consciousness
Tunneling is. Just like transistors, it is used to get a signal through what would otherwise be an impenetrable potential barrier. But as I said, that can be done less efficiently with classic means like say relays or railroad trains.I am not so sure I think quantum fluctuations, entanglement, superposition and quantum tunnelling may well be involved in human consciousness.
I must refute this assertion of yours.You sound like a nice person noAxioms!
Then, unless they are immortal, they are doomed.I can think of forms that don’t reproduce. — noAxioms
Remember, my 'objective truth' candidate is now life that can demonstrate intent and purpose to a minimum level of being able to affect it's environment(planet) (and potentially its interstellar neighbourhood) in the same way we humans can. So my criteria for qualification, is currently, very much in flux. I am hoping that I can fine tune it effectively, due to interaction with folks like yourself.Now we’re asking if it’s intelligent, not if it’s life. Something can be either and not the other, so it’s a different question. — noAxioms
the proposal is that due to the fact life has intent and purpose, there can be no god.
Doesn’t seem to follow. Most argue the opposite, that it is the god that supplies the purpose otherwise absent. Your proposal of inherent purpose is equivalent to that of objective morality without involvement of actual commands. — noAxioms
Doomsters and pessimists are wrong, as life with intent and purpose is compelled towards progressing that intent and purpose.
Excuse me, but I never said I (people in general) didn’t have purpose. — noAxioms
They advocate for their own extinction as part of their goal of ending all suffering, based on their convoluted moral imperative. They are not benign. They have, for example, a vile organisation in the USA that think that perhaps they should try to help the extinction of our species happen, if they cant get our consent. They are total kook's, yes, but we ignore any growth of such at our peril.What is an antinatalist to you? You bring it up a lot. Do they propose letting the human race go extinct by not having any kids? All that will do is make antinatalism go extinct, sort of like the Jim Jones colony. — noAxioms
Really? Like to see them try to make a dent in it, positive or negative. — noAxioms
Life changed the universe into a system which contained intent and purpose. A demonstrable ability for a system (the universe) to know itself from the inside.
No idea what you suggest by this. An example would help. A bus hasn’t intent just because everyone on it wants to go to the same destination. — noAxioms
What purpose would that be, one say not held by a rabbit? — noAxioms
There is no evidence of rabbits memorialising science in the way we do and passing such on to the next generation of libraries. WE coined the name Rabbit. They did not coin the name Human. What's in a name? Human intent and purpose!
— universeness
That’s what’s in a human name. Not sure how this was relevant to my text to which it was a reply. — noAxioms
From one monist to another, there is no hard problem of consciousness. — noAxioms
Whereas the logic gates in a computer require no more complexity to do whatever they do? I mean, there are more parts than just neurons and logic gates to both things — noAxioms
The distinction is that current computers have no self-awareness and do not demonstrate any ability to 'understand.' That includes demonstrating 'understanding' of what 'information' IS, (labelled data).This bit started from your assertion that computers cannot be information processors, but I’m looking for the distinction that makes this so. — noAxioms
else creatures would long ago have evolved mechanisms to take advantage of it. — noAxioms
I must refute this assertion of yours.
I’m in an Alaska ice cream shop 9 years ago awaiting my turn. I know what I want for me and the kids and I have the cash already counted out, sales tax included. I order and have the exact change on the counter before she says the total. “How did you do that?” she asks. I reply dismissively “It’s just math”. Take the cones and exit the place. After I’ve left, she remarks to the next customer: “What a mean old man!”. Next customer was my brother. The label stuck and I embrace it. I’m now known in my family as the mean old man. We’re all still laughing about it. — noAxioms
Humans were not the first to do this. A huge extinction event 2.7 BY ago took place upon the emergence of Aerobic Metabolism, wiping out or at least driving into hiding the prevalent anaerobic life at the time. That dwarfed the change that humans so far have had on the planet. It wasn’t particularly intended, but neither is what the humans are doing.Remember, my 'objective truth' candidate is now life that can demonstrate intent and purpose to a minimum level of being able to affect it's environment(planet) (and potentially its interstellar neighbourhood) in the same way we humans can. — universeness
Remind me of the reasons. I seem to have missed it, unless the question-asking thing is it.I think [Purposeful life precluding god] does follow. I have already given my reasons. What's the point of asking questions, if god already has all the answers?
I just don’t agree with this connection. I have no trouble envisioning question-asking in a setup with a god.WHY? If god exists, we would not experience such compulsions.
Yes to that.Consider yourself excused! I am glad you agree people have purpose! Do you agree that god is not needed to produce such a property of life?
Makes suffering sound like a bad thing. If I could take a pill that removed my suffering, I’d not take it. And as I said, they seem to advocate only the extinction of antinatalism.They advocate for their own extinction as part of their goal of ending all suffering, based on their convoluted moral imperative.
I don’t think that is within the realm of human capability either, even if we do manage to trim over 80% of the species. Life will continue, being exceptionally difficult to stamp out. I don’t think another Theia event would suffice.Well, perhaps I went too far by referring to destroying the universe. I am happy to restrict their threat to life on Earth.
Agree to all, but with the implications of being useful/functional to the people. You go from that to “the bus knows itself”.The intent of the people on the bus dictates the direction of the bus and therefore the bus is 'useful,' has a function,' 'SERVES a purpose'. — universeness
I think I was asking about the purpose of humanity, as opposed to the purpose of humans/people, something which I’ve acknowledged.So yes, the purpose and intent of rabbits is a poor comparison with the intent and purpose of humans.
Didn’t understand any of that. Maybe I should say naturalism: The lack of need of supernatural to explain what happens.I think the term monism has weaknesses. Priority monism or the concept of existence monism, can be used as arguments in support of god, such as in BS ontological arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument. I am monistic in the sense of the credence level I assign to the existence of, and the search for a t.o.e.
Logic gates are not fundamental in the way that quarks are to matter. Gates are made of transistors and other components for instance. I was roughly equating a gate to a neuron, both classical constructs with classical behavior. This seems to be the fundamental of consciousness, despite your assertion otherwise. As I said, the same function can be performed by a different sort of switch with similar results, the China-brain being a sort of thought-experiment on the subject (not to be confused with China-room which is something else and fairly fallacious).Logic gates and binary are fully understood and are as 'fundamental' in computing as quarks are in physics. We don't yet know the fundamentals of human consciousness.
My opinion is otherwise. Neither statement constitutes evidence one way or another, but one can always choose to never apply the word to something nonhuman. It sparks fear in me if we ever encounter an alien race because of the tendency to refuse to apply human language to anything non-human.The distinction is that current computers have no self-awareness and do not demonstrate any ability to 'understand.
Plenty of evidence to the contrary, else things like ChatGPT wouldn’t know when to apply the operation. Not all computers add in binary. I had one that didn’t. Not all humans do math in decimal, myself included sometimes. Sometimes I do calculus in analog (kind of like a bird does), which gets results faster by orders of magnitude.In binary addition, 1+1 is 10. A human and a computer can both do this calculation but only a human 'understands' it.
A computer has no more awareness of that than you do of a specific nerve firing.A computer processes 'on' + 'on' as two closed gates representing two 1's in the binary 'units' numerical column and produces an open gate in that column and a closed gate in a representation of the decimal 'two's' column.
That it is.IT IS A BRAINLESS MACHINE!
This sounds really interesting. No link provided. I found this: cbc.ca/news/science/quantum-weirdness-used-by-plants-animals-1.912061From [url=http://Birds like the European robin have an internal compass which appears to make use of a phenomenon called quantum entanglement. ((Vasily Fedosenko/Reuters)) Bird navigation, plant photosynthesis and the human sense of smell all represent ways living things appear to exploit the oddities of quantum physics, scientists are finding.]here[/url] — universeness
Humans were not the first to do this. A huge extinction event 2.7 BY ago took place upon the emergence of Aerobic Metabolism, wiping out or at least driving into hiding the prevalent anaerobic life at the time. That dwarfed the change that humans so far have had on the planet. It wasn’t particularly intended, but neither is what the humans are doing. — noAxioms
Remind me of the reasons. I seem to have missed it, unless the question-asking thing is it.
The reason we ask questions in the face of an omniscient god is that said god seems to not communicate those answers. Be great to have a god that acted like a google search, but we both know there’s no such interface. If there is an omniscient god, it keeps its secrets. — noAxioms
Then, try running your thought forward. We are emergent, god is not, so omnigod cannot develop, grow, improve, aspire, etc. We can. We have purpose, it has no purpose at all, so it might as well not exist and I am suggesting that it is therefore rational and in fact irresistible to declare god, nonexistent.I just don’t agree with this connection. I have no trouble envisioning question-asking in a setup with a god. — noAxioms
Agree to all, but with the implications of being useful/functional to the people. You go from that to “the bus knows itself”. — noAxioms
I think the term monism has weaknesses. Priority monism or the concept of existence monism, can be used as arguments in support of god, such as in BS ontological arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument. I am monistic in the sense of the credence level I assign to the existence of, and the search for a t.o.e.
Didn’t understand any of that. Maybe I should say naturalism: The lack of need of supernatural to explain what happens. — noAxioms
What do you mean 'No link provided'? Did you not see the video I posted by Jim Al-Khalili about how quantum physics is employed in the biological world?This sounds really interesting. No link provided. — noAxioms
“appears to make use of quantum entanglement — a linkage of two or more very small objects so that any change to one is immediately experienced by another”
Entangled particles do no such thing. Information could be sent faster than light if this were true. — noAxioms
Taking you up on this. Been too busy last couple days to respond to posts.continue to do so, and take whatever time you wish or need to. — universeness
Ah, ‘near the equal’ like there is some sort of single scale by which nothing else measures up. You name all these human things that other species haven’t done, but ignore all the marvels that other species do that humans have not and can not.Did any of them reach the scientific knowledge we have or created tech which is anywhere near the equal of ours? — universeness
Number 2 doesn’t follow from the first premise, so I take it as (two) additional premises. I’m willing to accept them, but additional premises weaken an argument that the first premise is sufficient. I’d like it better if premise 2b was that there is no evidence of gods. The comment as worded leaves it open that there is an omniscient god that isn’t involved in the creation of anything.The reasons [that question-asking precludes an existing god] are:
1. We ask questions
2. We demonstrate intent and purpose, that can significantly change our surroundings and potentially, the contents of the universe. There is no evidence of god(s) creating anything.
This is a 4th premise now, and one I don’t accept. We cannot aspire to an impossible state. We ask questions because we’re in present need of information, not because we have some impossible goal.3. We aspire to the omni states, because they do not currently exist.
Because I need a wheel to move my stuff and the existing wheel isn’t accessible to me. The question seems to presume there is no need for two of anything, even to the point of two people both knowing the same fact.Why would you aspire to creating a wheel, if a wheel already exists?
Well, it depends on one’s definition of ‘exists’. I hold a definition that involves measurement by a specific thing, so indeed, absence of measurement is nonexistence relative to that thing by that definition, but most people use a different definition.This is an example of where a statement such as 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' fails.
Free will is another thing with all sorts of definitions. I define it as not being remote-controlled (possessed) by some external entity. An example is a slug that gets some parasite that makes it change color and sit in prominent places and wiggle enticingly, in violation of the will of the slug. It lacks the free will of an unaffected slug which is in charge of its own sluggy destiny. Again, that’s just my definition.Free will, if it truly exists, is a natural happenstance, it was never given to us and its consequences are emergent.
Scapegoating the gods has a purpose, but probably not one that serves humanity as a whole.Time for humans to stop scapegoating gods and take full ownership of free will and emerging capability.
Given that our planet will not be fit for multicellular life in about a billion years, where exactly should we do this existing, and how will we still be human if we change enough to be fit for that place? It’s not like star trek where 80% of planets are ‘class M’ meaning we don’t have to burden the wardrobe dept with making space suits today. If we can terraform some other world, what’s stopping us from terraforming Earth back to where it’s an environment where we’re fit?Human's could exist for many many 'billions' of more years.
They admittedly seem rather bent on forcing the issue given their public policies. I have to admit extreme cynicism when it comes to religious leaders and pundits. It seems incompatible to hold a top position in organized religion and also hold to the beliefs taught, which means they’re not actually trying to force God’s hand with the dangerous policies.How long will the theists tolerate the complete absence and silence of their supernatural superhero?
I don’t mean the word by the definition you quote. I simply meant not-dualism, no supernatural mind.Monism is a term from philosophy — universeness
No, I didn’t see any link, but it was pretty easy to search given what you posted. I watched it.What do you mean 'No link provided'? Did you not see the video I posted by Jim Al-Khalili about how quantum physics is employed in the biological world? — universeness
So it does, but if you copy and paste it into a url bar, it goes to the right place. Is the linking messed up on this site?When I clicked on the link you posted, it took me to the OP of this thread??
This is not true. Not sure where you’re getting your physics. Again, a message could be sent faster than light if this was true.A change in one IS immediately experienced by the entangled object
A change in one IS immediately experienced by the entangled object, — universeness
Not a problem!Taking you up on this. Been too busy last couple days to respond to posts. — noAxioms
Ah, ‘near the equal’ like there is some sort of single scale by which nothing else measures up. You name all these human things that other species haven’t done, but ignore all the marvels that other species do that humans have not and can not. — noAxioms
We’ve put a man on the moon for a few hours but that doesn’t make us nearly as fit for those offworld environments as some creatures. Be interesting to explore what would be needed to change that, and what the implications of those changes would be. — noAxioms
I don't mind that possibility. A god that has nothing to do with us and did not create us and cannot or chooses not to involve itself with us is completely irrelevant to us and always will be.The comment as worded leaves it open that there is an omniscient god that isn’t involved in the creation of anything. — noAxioms
I don't see these as separate premise's to my main premise that 'humans are a way for a system to know how and why it IS, from the inside out. We are emergent in this purpose and intent.' Any other assertion I make would be consequential to this main assertion.3. We aspire to the omni states, because they do not currently exist.
This is a 4th premise now, and one I don’t accept. We cannot aspire to an impossible state. — noAxioms
The converse of the proposal suggests that given the existence of a god that knows everything, we’d have no need of information at all despite the fact that no information is conveyed to us by this existing entity. That’s absurd. — noAxioms
No, the question becomes, why are you having to reinvent the wheel? why did the existing supernatural not just provide you with a wheel? or an 'anti-grav travel platform,' or just teleport your stuff to wherever you need it. Why do humans have to reinvent tech that god already has? Unless, this god does not exist and therefore has no intent or purpose.Because I need a wheel to move my stuff and the existing wheel isn’t accessible to me. The question seems to presume there is no need for two of anything, even to the point of two people both knowing the same fact. — noAxioms
Given that our planet will not be fit for multicellular life in about a billion years, where exactly should we do this existing, and how will we still be human if we change enough to be fit for that place? It’s not like star trek where 80% of planets are ‘class M’ meaning we don’t have to burden the wardrobe dept with making space suits today. If we can terraform some other world, what’s stopping us from terraforming Earth back to where it’s an environment where we’re fit? — noAxioms
They admittedly seem rather bent on forcing the issue given their public policies. I have to admit extreme cynicism when it comes to religious leaders and pundits. It seems incompatible to hold a top position in organized religion and also hold to the beliefs taught, which means they’re not actually trying to force God’s hand with the dangerous policies. — noAxioms
I simply meant not-dualism, no supernatural mind. — noAxioms
A change in one IS immediately experienced by the entangled object
This is not true. Not sure where you’re getting your physics. Again, a message could be sent faster than light if this was true. — noAxioms
A change? No, a measurement of one is somehow connected to a measurement of the other. — jgill
The transhumanists are actually on some of the right tracks, but need to address some important roadblocks.Transhumanism does have currently running science projects. — universeness
That wasn’t listed as a premise. Are we starting anew with the ‘proof’ or are we steering away from the subject? What system is doing the knowing here, because I cannot think of a way in which this can work. My country doesn’t know most of what I know for instance, despite me being part of the country. Any yes, a country, unlike say the universe, is arguably something that knows stuff.I don't see these as separate premise's to my main premise that 'humans are a way for a system to know how and why it IS, from the inside out.
OK. I give very low credence to people aspiring to being omniscient, like I can’t think of anybody besides you who might agree to such a thing.I have already stated that I am interested in what percentage credence level, others would assign, to what I am typing in this thread.
Well, they encourage it with impossibly high stakes with which to multiply the otherwise low probability claims, and of course there’s also the indoctrination since early childhood. I mean, the N Koreans really do believe KJ Un is a god and the west is poised to destroy them at any moment. It’s not that they are low intelligence over there, but rather that they’ve no evidence to contradict that. The purpose of the claims is not to be an explanation or to be an actual best attempt at truth. Neither has the same purpose as science.[Theists] ask for high credence levels to be assigned to their claims all the time.
And yet knowing where the next dot will land in a double-slit setup can no better be known 1000 years from now than it can be today. Ditto for the weather next July 1. But then, given certain interpretations of QM, not even an omniscient entity could make either prediction, which is sort of contradiction, no?Knowing the speed of light in a vacuum to the nth decimal point is 'impossible,' if you make n big enough.
Almost by definition, yes.The fact that no information is conveyed to us by this (proposedly) existing entity, suggests it does not exist. — universeness
Already answered that. Because we need to know it as well.what is the point of us learning stuff, if we are merely finding some stuff out that this god already knows.
Why would you aspire to creating a wheel, if a wheel already exists? — universeness
You asked why we should create one, not why we should invent one. I should invent one because I have no access to (or even knowledge of) the invention made by the guy a month’s walk from here.No, the question becomes, why are you having to reinvent the wheel?
If a supernatural entity provided me with all my needs at all times, I wouldn’t need the wheel. For that matter, I wouldn’t need senses, or kidneys, or anything else. I think heaven is supposed to be that sort of torture.why did the existing supernatural not just provide you with a wheel?
It is fallacious to go from merely ‘unhelpful’ to ‘nonexistent’.Why do humans have to reinvent tech that god already has? Unless, this god does not exist and therefore has no intent or purpose.
Interstellar space is not an environment in which the human animal has evolved to thrive. We’ll need to change into something else to be fit out there. That’s the posthuman thing they talk about in the transhumanist literature. Point is, post-human isn’t human anymore any more than we are still a rodent.If we are not existing in interstellar space within the next billion years then we deserve to be extinct imo.
I’m kind of all for it, but for the social issues I brought up at the top of this post. It’s considered immoral by many.I don't mean that natural evolution ever stops, I just mean that science tech will have a much faster effect and can be fully controlled via intent. Our manipulation of agriculture and domesticated animals is proof of that.
So if we find a possible wet planet best suited to something like an octopus, and we instill similar/better intellectual ability/identity and physical functionality (they’ve already got most of all that), but still essentially a cephalopod by DNA, you’d be OK with calling it human? It’s a word that indicates capability and not primate lineage at all?'Human' is a template, do we need to be so precious about it? Are the aesthetics of being human, as important, as having the same intellectual ability/identity and physical functionality of being human?
Death by age is an adaptation added to certain branches a long time ago due to its benefits. It enabled the very complexity that you’re trying to encourage in these post. Sure you want to take that away? I agree that some extra time would be nice to help increase the productive-to-education time ratio. Humans become adults now almost a decade later than they did not too long ago.I would welcome increased longevity
Engineering a new form isn’t done to you. It’s done to a new generation, so the question is, would you accept your kids for what they’ve been engineered into?It would depend on the existence of others who were 'like me' or who were willing to 'accept' me for what I had 'become.'
I was basing my words on descriptions like:
“… Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.”
That space.com quote is wrong, but typical for a pop article actually. jgill gets it closer. Measurements (in the same way) of each of entangled particles will be found to be correlated when later compared. I’m fine with the wiki * Caltech quotes. Neither suggests that a change to one affects the other.
— universeness
Some non-local interpretations (Bohmian mechanics) suggest such communication.My main point was that I don't think any information travels between the two when a measurement of one or the other is made.
That was a long vid. Haven’t the time to look. Does it make predictions? Is there a falsification test for his idea vs the consensus? Is there even a consensus quantum gravity candidate yet?If Lennard Susskind is correct Quantum entanglement may BE gravity!
My personal philosophical worldview is entitled Enformationism. It's based on emerging evidence that the whole universe is an information-processing system, similar to a cosmic computer program. Evolution is the general program for causing novel forms of matter to emerge from the interaction of Energy & Natural Laws (computer operating system?). That inherent code (evolutionary DNA?) contains the information necessary to combine causal Energy & malleable Matter into more & more complex forms ; hence the emergence of sophisticated organisms from simpler raw materials.To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness
I tend to agree with : "I guess it's plausible but not inevitable." The notion of human Culture playing the role of technological evolution, by producing novel systems of organization, makes sense if you understand that Culture itself is an emergent organization from Natural Evolution. But, like all complex novelty-generating processes, the future of uber-complex Culture is unpredictable, and no particular projection from now-to-then is inevitable. :smile:How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness
Interesting. (I bolded the ones which seem more likely than not; however, the implausible ones, IMO, I'veTranshumanism does have currently running science projects. Here is a top ten, based on a search for
'transhuman projects'
10. Cryonics
9. Virtual Reality
8. Gene Therapy/RNA Interference
7. Space Colonization
6. Cybernetics
5. Autonomous Self-Replicating Robotics
4. Molecular Manufacturing
3. Megascale Engineering
2. Mind Uploading
1. Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.