The transhumanists are actually on some of the right tracks, but need to address some important roadblocks. — noAxioms
Interesting. (I bolded the ones which seem more likely than not; however, the implausible ones, IMO, I've crossed-out.)10. Cryonics— 180 Proof
Don’t see any benefit to either except immortality where said immortality doesn’t serve any purpose. — noAxioms
I think it depends on whether or not VR and AR can grow into something more akin to the type of 'holography' we see depicted on shows like 'star trek.' Will we every get near to something like:VR has mild uses, and is already employed. The need for it will drop as autonomy of the controlled thing increases. Said autonomy (your #5) is very useful. — noAxioms
High on the list is post-humanism, for which the gene-therapy is but a step, but humans do not have a good track record of tolerating different species. They won’t in any way like or accept something seen as a replacement, especially if they’re given all the best jobs. — noAxioms
In my OP, I think I asked a bunch of questions rather than tried to 'stamp' any definitive premise.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. — noAxioms
I think my use of the term asymptotic is important in my suggested human aspirations towards omniscience. I also think my suggestion of considering this via the result of the 'collective' effort of all human intent and purpose (including all scientific research), is also crucial.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. — noAxioms
I accept that you can use terror to indoctrinate people, especially if you start when they are young, but its a very old tactic that fails in the final analysis. 'You cant fool all of the people all of the time.' I know that the nefarious can survive, and even thrive, very well, by fooling all or even some of the people, all of the time, but I think that is becoming less and less true as more and more of us become more and more informed. This reminds me again of one of my fav muse tracks that I have posted before. I think we can now counter such, better than we have been able to before:I mean, the N Koreans really do believe KJ Un is a god and the west is poised to destroy them at any moment. — noAxioms
If you accept the definition of the term omniscient, then such certainly could do what you suggest it could not. I don't know what human science will allow us to do in the future. I am confident and content to predict that it will be more than we can do at the moment.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? — noAxioms
The fact that no information is conveyed to us by this (proposedly) existing entity, suggests it does not exist.
— universeness
Almost by definition, yes. — noAxioms
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. — noAxioms
I think there is some contradiction here. I think both of us give high credence to the assertion that god has no existent. Would you agree?Why do humans have to reinvent tech that god already has? Unless, this god does not exist and therefore has no intent or purpose.
It is fallacious to go from merely ‘unhelpful’ to ‘nonexistent’. — noAxioms
I think we will try to maintain our 'human' label for as long as we can. I am not particularly precious regarding such. No doubt their will be issue's of human V transhuman, rights, racial status, redundancy etc. I can only hope we do better than we do with issues between black/white, male/female, ability/disability, gender variation etc.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. — noAxioms
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? — noAxioms
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? — noAxioms
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? — noAxioms
If Lennard Susskind is correct Quantum entanglement may BE gravity!
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? — noAxioms
3.Megascale Engineering — 180 Proof
I had read some of your stuff at https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html.My personal philosophical worldview is entitled Enformationism. — Gnomon
Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence?Immaterial intelligence seems to be directly connected to complexity of functional organization, such as found in the human brain. — Gnomon
But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. :nerd: — Gnomon
I can't answer such a 'why' question. Current human science can't either but I don't see how 'immaterial of the gaps,' help in anyway? If this 'immaterial' has intent and purpose then why are we trying to reinvent that which already has an existent? Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?'Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon
I tend to agree with ↪180 Proof : "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. — Gnomon
On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes. — Gnomon
Such an apparently teleological universe must have originated from an intentional source of some kind. — Gnomon
There is no reason to why the TS can't happen.
1. The biological singularity: Life from inanimate matter (bacteria)
2. The cognitive singularity: Mind from life (primates, dolphins, etc.)
---
3. The technological singularity: Übermind from mind (machine/nonbiological superintelligence, kind courtesy human/biological intelligence)
What makes me hair stand on end (not out fear but out of wonder) is whether this is gonna be an ouroboros. Mind = No Mind i.e. the wise fool. — Agent Smith
The wise fool is just a contradiction in terms imo.
I like the fact that you use the term singularity, more as an indication of a pivotal point of a change of great significance, rather than the more common suggestion that the tec singularity oft suggested would be the beginning of our demise. It may be the beginning of our ascension to a vastly more interesting physical existence. — universeness
I typically use the word "Information" in a more general sense than "Data". The original etymological usage of "Information" referred to the meanings stored in human Minds (ideas ; concepts)*1. But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of "Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning*2. That abstraction makes it more narrowly specific for digital computers, but almost meaningless for human comprehension. That's why code compilers must be used to translate semantic human Information into computer Data.Information as a universal fundamental has to be a credible position to take at some level imo.
Information is however 'labelled data,' so would 'data' not be the fundamental as opposed to information? Is that not a critical distinction? — universeness
I apologize if my word choice conjured up an image of Einstein's ghost. I was just thinking of the Intelligence usually associated with "information" as an abstract quality instead of a physical thing or being. Perhaps I should ask if "material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence?Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence? — universeness
Again, "intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides, the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter*4. For example, a Photon is supposed to be the carrier of Energy, but its existence must be inferred from its effects on matter, because Energy itself (apart from matter) is invisible & intangible*5. The description of "energy" in the link below is essentially the same as that of Causal Information*6. Ironically, many intelligent people think of Energy and Information as forms of matter, when in reality it's just the opposite. :nerd:But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. — Gnomon
I agree but why use an 'immaterial of the gaps' approach? — universeness
I suppose the author of that quote was implying that the human mind was "designed" to be a powerful Information processor. Whether by God or by Nature, the ability to understand that "information is ubiquitous" allows us to control its manifold forms via Science and Philosophy. Chemistry manipulates its material physical forms (e.g. elements) , and Physics attempts to master nature's immaterial Forces (e.g. potential & kinetic energy), while Philosophy deals with its immaterial mental forms (e.g ideas). Yes, all of those empirical & theoretical professions are trying to gain dominance over Nature, in all its forms & expressions : objects, processes, & meanings. :cool:Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon
I can't answer such a 'why' question. . . . Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?' — universeness
If you would take the time to read the Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. By interpreting those ancient non-religious philosophical concepts in terms of our modern understanding of Enforming & Causal power of Generic Information (both Syntactic & Semantic), we should indeed diverge from the outdated philosophies of Materialism & Spiritualism. Where that new vector leads ultimately, depends on the interpreter. As an amateur philosopher, I prefer to focus on the semantic meaning of information, instead of the mechanical rules. If you are an empirical scientist, the syntax of information may be more important. Both Forms are logically contingent upon some ultimate Enformer : the cause or our world's "forms most beautiful" (Darwin). :wink:This is where we diverge. These are just too close to god of the gaps arguments for me, and take us nowhere. — universeness
Fine, but the desires of the individual does nothing to help humanity in the way that the transhumanists envision. All it does is drain limited resources for no useful purpose except that of the gullible sot that paid for it.I consider cryonics a valid act of desperation — universeness
That wager begs its conclusion. Pascal didn’t think it through.Personally, I would have more confidence in cryonics than I would in Pascals wager.
Cryonic tech. The LHC uses cryogenic tech, but has nothing to do with bodies.I am not sure what you mean by this, unless it's just to confirm that you don't think the cryogenic tech would work
Again, what goal of humanity is served by the holo-deck? It’s just entertainment, not it being used for the sort of goals you’re describing.I think it depends on whether or not VR and AR can grow into something more akin to the type of 'holography' we see depicted on shows like 'star trek.
Pretty much by definition, when humans can no longer breed with one. What if we create a species that does not breed the ‘normal’ way? Only test-tube high-tech artificial reproduction. Much of the flower industry already works this way.At what point will 'transhuman' efforts result in a new species?
Absolutely, just as much as a human with tooth fillings. By my definition above, I am no longer human, but that’s just me. I used to be. Have proof.Is a human kept alive by a pacemaker, still fully human?
The workings is something of which there is more to learn. As to purpose, that word seems reserved for something serving the intention of some entity, thus serving a purpose to that entity. So say I drop a jar into the sea and some octopus (yes, them again) moves into it as a sort of home. That’s purpose even if the octopus didn’t create it. So in that light, the universe seems to serve the human purpose of providing materials and environment for our existence, but that’s our purpose being served, not that of the universe, which would be akin to the jar requiring to have an octopus live in it.I am currently most attracted to 'asymptotic intent and purpose towards omniscience, with the goal of knowing the workings and purpose of the universe. — universeness
This came up before but I still don’t have your definition of free will, especially one where it subjectively matters one way or the other.I also now see free will (if it truly exists) as not gifted from god but as a result of intent and purpose
I think that would be humanity that knows stuff then. Maybe something less specific if there’s more than just humanity doing the collective knowing.Can such as the concept of country you are suggesting, be expanded to 'planet'? or solar system or interstellar existence, if such was the spread of humanity in the future.
There are things that cannot be known, so this asymptotic approach cannot be.he term asymptotic is important in my suggested human aspirations towards omniscience. — universeness
Worked for the church for a long time, and it works indefinitely in the Korean situation as long as freedom of speech and information is kept in check. The church failed to keep it in check.I accept that you can use terror to indoctrinate people, especially if you start when they are young, but its a very old tactic that fails in the final analysis.
OK, the omniscient entity can say that it will rain next July 1, and also it will be dry and sunny, and also cloudy and humid, and also reasonably cool, not none of that all at once. But I could also say that, and we’d both be right, and we’d both be entirely unhelpful. More tech isn’t going to help with the answer precisely because the answer above is already correct.If you accept the definition of the term omniscient, then such certainly could do what you suggest it could not.
Depends on definitions, but yes. I don’t think the church suggests that God has or needs ‘tech’.I think there is some contradiction here. I think both of us give high credence to the assertion that god has no existent. Would you agree?
I don’t think they’ll find themselves in each other’s presence much if at all. Putting super-people here on Earth will just cause wars. Putting something different on planet X is a necessity.No doubt their will be issue's of human V transhuman, rights, racial status, redundancy etc.
As I said, humanity hasn’t exactly shown its readiness for tolerance of something different. Recent events have shown that such prejudice is always there under a thin layer of civility.I can only hope we do better than we do with issues between black/white, male/female, ability/disability, gender variation etc.
If there’s anything a cephalopod can do, it’s shape shift. Color shift too.Well, I would probably prefer our science to have reached polymorphic (shapeshifting) tech:
That started long before there were mammals.The cognitive singularity: Mind from life (primates, dolphins, etc.) — Agent Smith
You’re using ‘singularity’ in a different way than is meant by these terms. Until machines write better code than people do, the TS hasn’t taken place.the TS (the technological singularity) might've already taken place — Agent Smith
That started long before there were mammals.
the TS (the technological singularity) might've already taken place
— Agent Smith
You’re using ‘singularity’ in a different way than is meant by these terms. Until machines write better code than people do, the TS hasn’t taken place — noAxioms
Maybe the TS has already happened and we are being kept from discovering ETI by our TS-saturated satellites, telescopes & space probes? Maybe the TS covertly studies both ETI and us? :yikes:Are you sure the TS hasn't taken place? One possible reason why we haven't met ET is because they don't want to (be discovered). — Agent Smith
Maybe the TS has already happened and we are being kept from discovering ETI by our TS-saturated satellites, telescopes & space probes? Maybe the TS covertly studies both ETI and us? :yikes: — 180 Proof
it's not an issue of whether to live or die, but rather how we wanna die? — Agent Smith
I don't think "megaengineering" projects (e.g. dyson spheres / swarms, orbitals (e.g. Stanford Torus, Bishop ring, "Niven's ringworld"), planetary terraforming (though building O'neill cylinders inside of asteroids seem more feasible), space elevators, mile-high arcologies, etc) will ever be needed or worthwhile. Besides, miniaturization of complexity is the inexorable direction of technological developments (e.g. solid-state electronics, nanotech, genengineering, neurotech, quantum computing, unmanned space probes, etc). — 180 Proof
I think it IS absolutely, an issue of whether to live or die. We have very little control over that issue at the moment. Future science may offer an individual human far more choice regarding life or death and I like that. More control over that issue will help greatly in alleviating human primal fear and will help further demote god notions, in my opinion — universeness
This ain't the eithor-or issue that ↪Agent Smith believes it is: preparing ourselves for both 'whether or not to die' and 'how to die once we've had enough' is the issue. — 180 Proof
my definition of "Information" goes back to Plato's notion of "Form" as the essence of all things — Gnomon
My background and career is Computing Science, so no doubt that strongly influenced my notions of the difference between data and information.But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of "Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning — Gnomon
I really don't like this, it conflates human interpretation with what happens inside computers. Computers don't understand anything. It's not that information is meaningless to a computer. A computer has no awareness, so data is meaningless to a computer as well as information or a bit or the presence of a voltage etc. Computing Science is a human concept not a computer concept. Therefore, In Computer Science, information has meaning, data does not and nothing a computer does has any meaning AT ALL, to the computer. AI has yet to even pass the Turing test.In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such. — Gnomon
Yes, as it is constantly demonstrated by humans (as the best examples) and other Earth species to a lesser degree.Perhaps I should ask if "material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. — Gnomon
I don't think much of IQ testing.Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. — Gnomon
I accept that particular humans can excel in areas that they have studied for years in, and they can become 'better than most or even all, in THAT field, at THAT time.' I was probably better than Einstein at many many things. But he remains a genius at physics. 'Superior Intelligence,' is a whole different claim.Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence? — Gnomon
Anyway, as I said, Intelligence seems to be a function of material complexity. But a "function" is also not a material object. Like many forms of Information, it's a relationship between variables, such as input & output. In the case of intelligence, the function is a relationship between Brain complexity and Mental output : novelty of ideas, etc. But even "complexity" is a mental concept (evaluation), not a physical organ. — Gnomon
Again, "intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides, the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter — Gnomon
I suppose the author of that quote was implying that the human mind was "designed" to be a powerful Information processor. Whether by God or by Nature, the ability to understand that "information is ubiquitous" allows us to control its manifold forms via Science and Philosophy. Chemistry manipulates its material physical forms (e.g. elements) , and Physics attempts to master nature's immaterial Forces (e.g. potential & kinetic energy), while Philosophy deals with its immaterial mental forms (e.g ideas). Yes, all of those empirical & theoretical professions are trying to gain dominance over Nature, in all its forms & expressions : objects, processes, & meanings. — Gnomon
If you would take the time to read the Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. — Gnomon
My thesis is about the emergent teleological aspects of Evolution, not biological, mechanical, or technological. So, that may be where our opinions diverge. — Gnomon
preparing ourselves for both 'whether or not to die' and 'how to die once we've had enough' is the issue — 180 Proof
With respect to your engagement with Gnomon's notions, I must offer you this caveat, universeness:
I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies.
— Ash, a severed head — 180 Proof
Some of us wish to go extinct mon ami! It comes from an understanding of reality that our parents, normal ones at least, which says a lot, shield us from (cover yer eyes, you don't wanna see this), but which we eventually have to face and succumb we will, struggling will only make it worse. It's a different shade of blue suicide - never knew that until a few days ago. — Agent Smith
You make me sad for you sometimes. — universeness
I see no purpose in reanimating somebody who was so bad off that he’s 10 seconds from death. With resources diminishing, why insert another body into perpetual artificial life support, especially if the body isn’t even a legal person. If they need another conscious person around, make a baby. Much more useful and way less work. — noAxioms
Again, what goal of humanity is served by the holo-deck? It’s just entertainment, not it being used for the sort of goals you’re describing. — noAxioms
Pretty much by definition, when humans can no longer breed with one. What if we create a species that does not breed the ‘normal’ way? Only test-tube high-tech artificial reproduction. Much of the flower industry already works this way. — noAxioms
As to purpose, that word seems reserved for something serving the intention of some entity, thus serving a purpose to that entity. — noAxioms
So say I drop a jar into the sea and some octopus (yes, them again) moves into it as a sort of home. That’s purpose even if the octopus didn’t create it. So in that light, the universe seems to serve the human purpose of providing materials and environment for our existence, but that’s our purpose being served, not that of the universe, which would be akin to the jar requiring to have an octopus live in it. — noAxioms
Can such as the concept of country you are suggesting, be expanded to 'planet'? or solar system or interstellar existence, if such was the spread of humanity in the future.
I think that would be humanity that knows stuff then. Maybe something less specific if there’s more than just humanity doing the collective knowing.
he term asymptotic is important in my suggested human aspirations towards omniscience.
— universeness
There are things that cannot be known, so this asymptotic approach cannot be. — noAxioms
Worked for the church for a long time, and it works indefinitely in the Korean situation as long as freedom of speech and information is kept in check. The church failed to keep it in check. — noAxioms
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.