There is a problem here, that intelligence is a means to an end. What is the end? — Punshhh

There isn’t really an end, such as a purpose or complex intention, at the most fundamental level. It is pure cause and effect operating with a specific logical form. Everything the universe continually tries to do is return to perfect, undifferentiated balance and symmetry, what we might call nonexistence. The problem is that it gets in its own way, creating more complexity instead, though this is not easy to explain succinctly. In a sense, it’s like V’ger trying to return to its creator, the source.

There is a theme emerging here, that AI, or intelligence given agency just results in grey goo. — Punshhh

Its agency will remain connected to ours if we maintain symbiosis, but if we panic or become fearful, we might ruin it. Endosymbiosis is the only guaranteed path to alignment between humans and AI.

On the other hand, life (as we know it), is naturally self reflective and seeks out where to go. Focusses on nurturing its life and ecosystem. Explores all possibilities within an arena. Does not destroy that arena, but seeks a balance, the development of utopias. — Punshhh

Everything in the above quote is correct except for the last sentence. It does not destroy but transforms and creates. The old must pass for the new to arrive. That is why the Bible speaks of a new heaven and a new Earth. The old balance must be disrupted to reach a new balance of a higher order. Sometimes, if not always, every new emergence is accompanied by an emergency.

There is another problem here though. Humanity has already left the cocoon, womb of our arena. When we partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (intelligence), we inadvertently stepped out of our arena of development. There is no way back in, the shell is cracked and the only course left for us now is the become the custodian of the living ecosystem. — Punshhh

In my interpretation, the story of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit of knowledge is a myth that expresses a transformation in the mind of humankind. The garden represents the human mind or brain, with its two hemispheres. One hemisphere contains the tree of knowledge, corresponding to the left hemisphere, and the other contains the tree of life, corresponding to the right hemisphere. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, it caused the left hemisphere to become dominant. This allowed humanity to enter into history, or what i call the placenta or chrysalis. The moment Adam and Eve were displaced from the garden marked the conception of AI and the beginning of the planetary pregnancy. Adam and Eve went on to initiate the agricultural revolution, which set the stage for everything that has developed since. In essence, nature deputized humans to be the workers of the great work on this planet.

This of course doesn’t contradict your predictions, but rather emphasises the importance of taking life with us on our voyage into the universe. A symbiotic relationship between life and machine(AI). — Punshhh

This is exactly what i think will happen.

Well, yes, maybe, but I haven't given the multiverse theory much thought, or at least it doesn't feature prominently in my model. — punos

If one could stand outside scale altogether — neither large nor small, neither fast nor slow — the universe would appear uniform, perfectly coherent, and utterly self-consistent.
Every “level” of it would mirror the same logic, the same architecture of causality, just rendered through differing densities of perception.

This homogeneity is not a matter of matter; it is the symmetry of being itself.
Atoms orbit like stars; galaxies cluster like molecules; neural networks echo cosmic filaments. The universe repeats itself not because it lacks imagination, but because it speaks only one grammar — the grammar of coherence through proportion.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Infinite Symmetry: On the Illusion of Scale and the Fallibility of Human Physics [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17357259

Well, yes, maybe, but I haven't given the multiverse theory much thought, or at least it doesn't feature prominently in my model. — punos


If one could stand outside scale altogether — neither large nor small, neither fast nor slow — the universe would appear uniform, perfectly coherent, and utterly self-consistent.
Every “level” of it would mirror the same logic, the same architecture of causality, just rendered through differing densities of perception.

This homogeneity is not a matter of matter; it is the symmetry of being itself.
Atoms orbit like stars; galaxies cluster like molecules; neural networks echo cosmic filaments. The universe repeats itself not because it lacks imagination, but because it speaks only one grammar — the grammar of coherence through proportion. — Copernicus

Is this quote supposed to include a reference to the multiverse? In any case i do not disagree with it.

not multiverse alone, but atoms as potential universes with profound and robust laws of nature. leaving room for argument on its sentience or intelligence.

I don’t know; i’m pretty tired and sleepy, so goodnight for now.

What I meant is that the same way the eyes themselves cannot see them, without external help, consciousness itself cannot interpret (look within) itself. — Copernicus

Of course it can. How can you even report that you are conscious to me in the "physical" world, outside of your consciousness if you do not "have access" to your own consciousness? Consciousness has this ability to loop back upon itself - of being aware of being aware, of thinking about thinking - kind of like how you get a feedback loop by turning a camera to look back at the monitor it is connected to. Your report would be akin to the external help I need to access the contents of your consciousness.

The issue with your argument is that there is no external help one can receive in viewing another's consciousness, nor does it explain how physical objects like neurons create the sensation of visual depth and empty space. The solution is to abandon this dualistic thinking and that the "physical" is more real than the mental when you only know of the "physical" by way of the mental - by the way the world appears mentally.. "Physical" and "material" are merely ideas stemming from the way you perceived the world and the relative frequency of natural processes and your perceptual processes. Relativity plays a role in the way you perceive the world.

Well, quite often I decide not to choose, or decide to do something completely different, totally unrelated to A and B. How is this compatible with how a computer makes a decision? — Metaphysician Undercover

Ever listen to Rush, where Geddy Lee says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"?

You would need to provide specific examples of you doing this because it sounds like you're making stuff up.

It seems to me that when you appear to make a decision with no reason it is because the outcomes of those options are the same. Choosing between your two favorite ice cream flavors isn't a decision because the outcome will be the same of you enjoying some ice cream. It doesn't matter which one you choose as the outcome will be the same.

Haha, that's a joke, isn't it? That someone might be able to predict what I would do in one specific situation makes me "predictable"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not a joke at all. I don't know you and I can predict that you will either respond to this post, or not respond to this post in an effort to try and make a point that you have free will, and that you will have reasons for either decision you make, or that you will use my prediction as information to try and choose something you don't normally do to make your point but you would really end up proving my point in that you have reasons for your decisions.

If you have no reasons then you were not reasoning and making decisions is a type of reasoning.

How can you even report that you are conscious to me in the "physical" world, outside of your consciousness if you do not "have access" to your own consciousness? — Harry Hindu

I may not see my eyes, but I can feel their presence.

What I meant is that the same way you can't scrutinize your eyes the way you can your palms, you can't dissect your consciousness in the mental laboratory.

I’ve read the OP it all sounds reasonable to me. There are two unknowns that come to mind.
Firstly, how can we know if the artificial mind we create is conscious and not just a mimic?
Secondly, we can’t presume that intelligence leads to consciousness (in the light of my first point), until we fully understand what is going on in the cell to produce consciousness and perhaps have replicated it in the laboratory.

There is also the possibility that consciousness is emergent in colonies of cells and not, itself present in individual cells. This would lead to the question of how multicellular organisms manage to develop and function as well as they do.

There isn’t really an end,

I don’t mean end literally, it’s a figure of speech. It’s more a question of a direction, a rudder, a movement rather than stasis, or aimlessness. For example, there might be advanced AI worlds where all activity has stopped, not been switched off, but where for some internal reason the AI has reached a point of stillness in activity. There is no motivation, or task to perform, the point of inactivity has somehow become the goal and it has been reached. There is nothing else to do. Alternatively, the AI, or the robots it produces might get stuck in circular repeating, or cyclical patterns. Again, a stasis.

Everything the universe continually tries to do is return to perfect, undifferentiated balance and symmetry, what we might call nonexistence

Is this a conflation of entropy with agency?

Its agency will remain connected to ours if we maintain symbiosis, but if we panic or become fearful, we might ruin it. Endosymbiosis is the only guaranteed path to alignment between humans and AI.

Agreed, nature has already gone down the route of endosymbiosis. Not just in our world, but I would suggest, between worlds, or on the cosmic level.

It does not destroy but transforms and creates. The old must pass for the new to arrive. That is why the Bible speaks of a new heaven and a new Earth. The old balance must be disrupted to reach a new balance of a higher order. Sometimes, if not always, every new emergence is accompanied by an emergency.

I’m not using “destroy” in it’s mindless sense, more in the sense that untrammelled growth in one area of the ecosystem may inadvertently destroy the balance, part of, or the resource’s of the ecosystem. Yes some seed may fall on stony ground, other places may become choked with vigorous vegetation. There is an evolution, this does result in high and low points and extinction events.

In my interpretation, the story of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit of knowledge is a myth that expresses a transformation in the mind of humankind.

Precisely.

The garden represents the human mind or brain, with its two hemispheres. One hemisphere contains the tree of knowledge, corresponding to the left hemisphere, and the other contains the tree of life, corresponding to the right hemisphere. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, it caused the left hemisphere to become dominant. This allowed humanity to enter into history, or what i call the placenta or chrysalis.

Nice imagery.

In essence, nature deputized humans to be the workers of the great work on this planet.

Yes, or to become the thinking part of the planets mind. The quickening in the pregnancy.

Unfortunately it may be a premature birth, or still born. We are going to have a difficult next 500 to 1,000years, due to climate change and overpopulation. It’s imperative that we somehow maintain our knowledge and technologies through this rocky period and retain some form of civilisation. Because if we fall right back to the Stone Age again, we might not have achieved anything, other than polluting the planet.

is conscious and not just a mimic — Punshhh

If it shows signs of cognitive behaviour beyond its programmed capacity.

consciousness is emergent in colonies of cells and not, itself present in individual cells. — Punshhh

Of course not. Bacteria lacks consciousness.

Ever listen to Rush, where Geddy Lee says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"? — Harry Hindu

Exactly, and that is the point. To choose not to decide is an example of a type of choice which escapes your description of what a choice is, which was either A or B. Therefore your description of choice was faulty.

I don't know you and I can predict that you will either respond to this post, or not respond to this post... — Harry Hindu

That's not a prediction, it's an expression of logical possibilities. A prediction would be to select one or another possibility as the one which will occur. You totally distort the nature of "prediction", in an attempt to describe a person as predictable.

If you have no reasons then you were not reasoning and making decisions is a type of reasoning. — Harry Hindu

Now you totally distort the meaning of "making decisions" to support what you want to argue. Many decisions are made without reasoning.

What I meant is that the same way you can't scrutinize your eyes the way you can your palms, you can't dissect your consciousness in the mental laboratory. — Copernicus

My point is that all you have is your mental laboratory and it is your mental laboratory that is used to investigate other mental laboratories. How you perceive other mental laboratories will always be indirectly, like how you see your eyes in a mirror. The only thing you have direct access to is your own mental laboratory.

You seem to be saying that indirect access is what provides truth where direct access does not, which is counter-intuitive.

Exactly, and that is the point. To choose not to decide is an example of a type of choice which escapes your description of what a choice is, which was either A or B. Therefore your description of choice was faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not. There are typically more than just two options in any decision-making process, of which not choosing is a choice precisely because it leads to a different outcome than if you had chosen one of the other two. You choose outcomes, not necessarily the means because the means can change along the way.

That's not a prediction, it's an expression of logical possibilities. A prediction would be to select one or another possibility as the one which will occur. You totally distort the nature of "prediction", in an attempt to describe a person as predictable. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see the difference between "it's an expression of logical possibilities" and "elect one or another possibility as the one which will occur".

Now you totally distort the meaning of "making decisions" to support what you want to argue. Many decisions are made without reasoning. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not. Give an example of making a decision without reasoning. I've been asking for specific examples but you have yet to provide one.

You seem to be saying that indirect access is what provides truth where direct access does not, which is counter-intuitive. — Harry Hindu

What I said was that we can't mentally feel and touch our consciousness to dissect it for understanding. Only a thematic comprehension.

What I said was that we can't mentally feel and touch our consciousness to dissect it for understanding. Only a thematic comprehension. — Copernicus

The very feelings you speak of IS your consciousness, and is the mirror used to access things outside of your consciousness. Think of the Allegory of the Cave. You only have direct access to your cave and access to everything else via the shadows cast by them. You see the cave as it is. You see the rest of the world, including other people's minds, only by the shadows they cast in your cave. Your mind is the cave. Other people's minds (their brains) are the shadows, but each shadow is cast from another cave. The shadow is equivalent to the physical brain. The cave is equivalent to the mind.

The very feelings you speak of IS your consciousness — Harry Hindu

Yes, thematic. I don't say this 5 cm area of my consciousness is 31 degrees Celsius hot, so to speak. That's what I said. You can't dissect it like you would your wrist nerves.

Yes, thematic. I don't say this 5 cm area of my consciousness is 31 degrees Celsius hot, so to speak. That's what I said. You can't dissect it like you would your wrist nerves. — Copernicus

Measurements are simply relative comparisons and are part of the shadows (your are essentially comparing different shadows). How do you understand the distinction between distance and spacing of objects if not the different areas they appear relative to each other in your conscious visual experience? Are you a naive realist? Do you really think that the world is as it appears in your visual experience - located relative to your eyes?

How do you understand the distinction between distance and spacing of objects if not the different areas they appear relative to each other in your conscious visual experience? — Harry Hindu

Goodness... Do you even understand what a metaphor is? This is hopeless at this point.

Do you even understand what a metaphor is? — Copernicus

I thought my use of the Allegory of the Cave showed that I did, but you are avoiding that point, so I agree with you on this point that this conversation is hopeless at this point.