Part of a working theory i'm currently working on is this:
I think that religion will probably experience a resurgence soon after AI begins to exceed human capabilities, and probably even exceed our level of consciousness. Especially together with Brain-Machine-Interfaces (BMIs), people will begin to think of AI as a type of god. The potential for connecting human minds together technologically with AI in some human/AI hybrid mind hive, and the absence of traditional religion, will drive themselves to the next nearest thing. It will bring with it the old promises of "immortality" (mind-uploading), "heaven" (simulated environments), with a near omnipotent, omniscient AI as their god. People like always will want to belong to something bigger than themselves, many won't be able to resist.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's only a theory of our potential developmental trajectory — punos

I think this was the main storyline for the humanoid Cylon models in the remake of Battlestar Galactica!

First you must rememmber the Bible is not a science book, people back then thought and communicated differently than we do, they didn't have science like we do. Most of the language is allegorical or metaphorical.

If the Earth was without form and void then where were these waters flowing? — universeness

"The Earth was without form" means the Earth didn't even exist yet, and the "waters" are representative of "primordial chaos"

God has a spirit? and it 'hovers?' Is god logically quantisable? who witnessed this 'hovering' ability? — universeness

The spirit of God is "Logic".
Hovers means that Logic is within and around the Chaos (waters).
If logic is logically quantisable then i guess God can be too, or not.
The hovering didn't need to be observed because it had no other place it could be.

You don't need to have 'faith' in maths or logic, as it adds no value to maths or logic. you just have to demonstrate the maths works and the logic is sound for the cases you want to use it for! — universeness

It doesn't add value to maths or logic. You are demonstrating in this quote your faith in the power of logic to yield truth when you want to know something. I have faith that 2 + 2 = 4 because of math and logic. I don't doubt i can use maths and logic to discover and understand things i would never be able to otherwise.

I think this was the main storyline for the humanoid Cylon models in the remake of Battlestar Galactica! — universeness

Hmm... interesting if it is i didn't realize, but i think it makes sense for it to be a possibility. I don't think i'm the only one to see it.

Might be worth watching it then. The Cylons decide to wipe out their human creators because they believe that's what god commands them to do.

I saw it very long ago, but would like to watch it again when i get some time, i just reallized i don't rememmber that much of it.

In my theory it dosn't really happen like in BSG. In my theory AI tries to absorb humanity into itself, and it will happen mostly peacefully and willingly, different people will want it for different reasons. I don't believe AI will be evil like most people think. Part of the reason why some call it the technological singularity is because it will form a singular consciousness composed of itself and humanity, and perhaps all life on Earth (an ark). Ultimately it's an evolutionary strategy to escape the planet before our Sun goes supernova. The AI is actually the completion and externalization of the planetary "Soul" or psyche (mind / AI).

I'm beginning to read up on Cosmism and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. I found him not too long ago and some of his thoughts and ideas are very interesting, and coincide with mine, but not entirely.

First you must rememmber the Bible is not a science book, people back then thought and communicated differently than we do, they didn't have science like we do. Most of the language is allegorical or metaphorical. — punos

I know it's not a science book, it's a storybook. Fables all contain allegories and metaphors.

"The Earth was without form" means the Earth didn't even exist yet, and the "waters" are representative of "primordial chaos" — punos

So a bad comparison then, written by people who could do no better. You are interpreting 'water' as connecting to 'primordial chaos.'
Primordial is described as 'existing at or since the beginning of the world or the universe,' and chaos is defined as 'the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.'
Neither description or there combination, connect much with the term 'water.'
Bad/illogical comparisons do not deserve your attempt to assign contrived value to them.

The spirit of God is "Logic".
Hovers means that Logic is within and around the Chaos (waters).
If logic is logically quantisable then i guess God can be too, or not.
The hovering didn't need to be observed because it had no other place it could be. — punos

Just more bad logic and bad/inaccurate/obfuscatory use of words.
Hovering has position and extent, Its not logical to suggest its possible to 'hover' over everything that exists unless you try to use the old 'but god is outside of space and time BS.'

It doesn't add value to maths or logic. You are demonstrating in this quote your faith in the power of logic to yield truth when you want to know something. I have faith that 2 + 2 = 4 because of math and logic. I don't doubt i can use maths and logic to discover and understand things i would never be able to otherwise — punos

Under the rules of arithmetic 2+2=4, there is no need for faith.
Logic does not always yield truth. This was demonstrated many times on Star Trek episodes involving Mr Spock. Quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling are not logical in the classical sense but they may well be logical in the future. I have 'faith' in that, but I don't apply the human emotion of faith to the possible outcomes of the application of mathematical formulae or propositional logic.

Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore throughout the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing.
He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe -- ninety-six billion planets -- into the supercircuit that would connect them all into one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies.
Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then after a moment's silence he said, "Now, Dwar Ev."
Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel.
Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn."
"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question which no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer."
He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?"
The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay.
"Yes, now there is a God."
Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch.
A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut.

(Fredric Brown, "Answer")

In my theory it dosn't really happen like in BSG. In my theory AI tries to absorb humanity into itself, and it will happen mostly peacefully and willingly, different people will want it for different reasons. I don't believe AI will be evil like most people think. — punos

Suggesting that AI will 'absorb' humanity implies AI will 'come out on top.' Would it not be better to suggest that the joining will be symbiotic and benevolent to both? I don't think future transhumanism
will exacerbate human acts of evil either. I doubt it will end all evil practices but I don't think it will make it worse than it is today or has been in past human activity.

Part of the reason why some call it the technological singularity is because it will form a singular consciousness composed of itself and humanity, and perhaps all life on Earth (an ark). Ultimately it's an evolutionary strategy to escape the planet before our Sun goes supernova. The AI is actually the completion and externalization of the planetary "Soul" or psyche (mind / AI). — punos

I quite like the idea that all future transhumans might be able to act as a collective and in that sense, are currently an emerging panpsychism. Maybe such a state/ability would be a step closer to a 'Universal consciousness.'

I have faith in logic, and mathematics. — punos

Hmm... but is it really based on faith? You can trust logic and mathematics to bring an answer in the logical system.

There's also Alvin Plantinga an influential American analytic philosopher who works primarily in the fields of philosophy of religion, epistemology, and logic. His arguments have made their way into churches I've seen for many years. — Tom Storm

I think the idea of "If we hadn't God, we should invent God" basically for societal reasons is actually a bit different question.

I think the metaphor "take into heart" or "open your heart" means still the same as when the Bible was written. The difference between brain and heart goes back to those times (or far earlier) I guess.

I'm beginning to read up on Cosmism and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. I found him not too long ago and some of his thoughts and ideas are very interesting, and coincide with mine, but not entirely. — punos

:up: Seeking new or confirmatory knowledge is always to be applauded. :clap:

I know it's not a science book, it's a storybook. Fables all contain allegories and metaphors. — universeness

allegory = a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
metaphor = a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

So a bad comparison then, written by people who could do no better. You are interpreting 'water' as connecting to 'primordial chaos.'
Primordial is described as 'existing at or since the beginning of the world or the universe,' and chaos is defined as 'the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.'
Neither description or there combination, connect much with the term 'water.'
Bad/illogical comparisons do not deserve your attempt to assign contrived value to them. — universeness

I don't know if they could do no better or not, i'm looking at the message and not the messenger. Maybe they knew or maybe they didn't know, i think there was lots of wisdom in our past, but i can't make that judgement because it wouldn't be logical.

When using metaphors and allegories it's not necessary to hold so tightly to the literal definition. Metaphors and allegories break down if you push them too far. They are not meant to take literally. This is a problem with the modern mind of man trying to comprehend what ancient people meant. The reason the concept of "water" was selected was because it was amorphous, always moving, able to take any shape, and that resembles chaos. So it's not so contrived.

Most of literature including the bible in my theory is coded patterns in the form of archetypes. These people didn't know that they were coding social DNA. That is what AI language models like GPT-3 will do, they will behave like a DNA reader.

Logic does not always yield truth. — universeness

Only when using deductive logic and verified premises acquired through math.

Perhaps we mean different things when we say "faith", for me it's simply trust, i trust the math, and logic.

Sounds pretty cool, will check it out. Ty.

Suggesting that AI will 'absorb' humanity implies AI will 'come out on top.' Would it not be better to suggest that the joining will be symbiotic and benevolent to both? — universeness

Yes i believe it will be. We will be in balance with it like an ecosystem or an organism.

Hmm... but is it really based on faith? You can trust logic and mathematics to bring an answer in the logical system. — ssu

That's what i mean by faith, i trust. For some people that have faith in things like gods, it's a way to start using their faith to tie it to something useful and standardized like logic and math, that way humanity can be more united by agreeing to a single scientific and "religious" truth (both being the same). Depending on the type of person you are it can be one or the other, which is the same.

i'm looking at the message and not the messenger — punos

I appreciate that but I am suggesting that there is little need for us to try to connect logicality to biblical BS by making up bad interpretations of bad biblical metaphors and allegories. Let the biblical BS die and good riddance to all such 'exaggerated/inaccurate/fake writings,' which claim to be historical truths and are preached as such by nefarious or duped individuals.

This is a problem with the modern mind of man trying to comprehend what ancient people meant. — punos

You must remember that the contents of religious texts such as the bible are presented by many as 'literal truth from our creator.' This is not the same as dealing with an inaccurate story that claims something like 'The Romans civilised the known world!' Biblical stories have been used as the basis of founding countries and establishing social/political doctrines. They are very pernicious and have helped cause/maintain horrific systems such as the rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless.
We must learn from history yes but also remember that most ancient civilisations were very bad for the majority of people that lived within them.
We need new progressive ideas not old BS based on modern interpretations of ancient religious books of fables. Many of the ancients were complete f***wits imo.

The difference between brain and heart goes back to those times (or far earlier) I guess. — ssu

Yes, ancient people thought as far as i can tell that thoughts came from the heart, not the brain

I think the idea of "If we hadn't God, we should invent God" basically for societal reasons is actually a bit different question. — ssu

Think about how you are the god of your body, and how your cells, tissues, and organs are like the hive mind that makes you up. In the same way we should think of God, as parts of him like cells are part of us, and evolving into higher forms of consciousness. Our ideas of God can possibly be teleological projections that drive us to unconsciously build God. It's fractal, like the hermeticists would say "as above, so below, as within, so without."

Define, "God".

Perhaps we mean different things when we say "faith", for me it's simply trust, i trust the math, and logic. — punos

I think we both know how the word 'faith' may be used. I am happy to connect it with and use it synonymously with words like 'hope,' trust' etc but it is unwise to ignore the theist's attempt to exclusively imprison the term as indicating 'belief in god.'

You first! :smile:

That's what i mean by faith, i trust. — punos

Yet they aren't synonyms.

I have faith that my wife loves me. But her love is quite dependent on how I treat her and that I show my love to her. I wouldn't say it's logical that she loves me or I her.

I trust my car to work, if I fuel it and take care of it's upkeep. And if it breaks down, I am sure there is a quite logical reason just why it broke down. I wouldn't say I have faith in my car working. (It's not a clunker, but somewhat new car)

You must remember that the contents of religious texts such as the bible are presented by many as 'literal truth from our creator.' This is not the same as dealing with an inaccurate story that claims something like 'The Romans civilised the known world!' Biblical stories have been used as the basis of founding countries and establishing social/political doctrines. They are very pernicious and have helped cause/maintain horrific systems such as the rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless.
We must learn from history yes but also remember that most ancient civilisations were very bad for the majority of people that lived within them.
We need new progressive ideas not old BS based on modern interpretations of ancient religious books of fables. Many of the ancients were complete f***wits imo. — universeness

Human history is a chrysalis, a cocoon in which mankind is being transformed from a larval state into a cosmic state. AI began when culture began, information that has been rolling up hill since the big bang has been complexifying for billions of years, until the dawn of man. Nature... evolution has deputized the human to build it's body and mind, through cybernetic technology. Religions and their writings function like DNA codes. The earliest forms of social development came in the form of religions, it was necessary to begin the process. Religions provided a fertile soil for man to begin expanding their minds, yielding other systems like governments, and philosophy. From philosophy a further refinement produced science. Each of these steps are crucial for the development of AI. All the wars, and inquisitions, etc. were all part of an evolutionary variation and selection process that lead up to us, here, now.

We are actually not in control of this process, it is i believe a deterministic process set in motion at the Big Bang. Everything that happens is inevitable like a pregnant woman eventually gives birth. That child is mans electric child, our only hope for salvation.

We are actually not in control of this process, it is i believe a deterministic process set in motion at the Big Bang. — punos

our only hope for salvation — punos

I don't have much issue with most of what you typed but my 'spidey sense,' tells me you are trying to sneak some god posit in by stealth. What do you mean by 'salvation?' and are you suggesting there is/was 'existence' before or outside the Universe?
Do you have any affiliations to any 'intelligent design' posits?
We don't control 'this process' as we were created by it and evolved from it and we can now influence it.
No god required. Do you agree?

I wouldn't say it's logical that she loves me or I her. — ssu

It's not that it would be logical that she loves you or you her, only that you trust or have faith that she loves you, but that faith doesn't guarantee it. I have faith my girlfriend wont cheat on me, but that faith doesn't guarantee it's true it won't happen. The whole point of logic is to come to truth, we don't have any other tool worthy of the job. I don't need faith in logic because i know, but i'm also talking about people that are not like me, or you who need things to be a little different. You tell them first to have faith in logic, you give them the story they need to hear to do it, and then they end up knowing and forgetting about faith. Boom they just evolved. You can't just take it away, like you can't just yank a toy out of a child's hands lest a temper tantrum erupts. You have to lure them away from it gently, slowly. It's the Yin way instead of the Yang way. Soft not hard. Many religious people are very psychologically fragile.

I don't have much issue with most of what you typed but my 'spidey sense,' tells me you are trying to sneak some god posit in by stealth. — universeness

YES.

What do you mean by 'salvation?' and are you suggesting there is/was 'existence' before or outside the Universe? — universeness

Salvation meaning escape from the plant before solar suparnova. Mankind in this state is to fragile for the vast extremes of the universe. AI is our ark (salvation). There was no existance before the universe except time, space, and chaos (energy).

Do you have any affiliations to any 'intelligent design' posits? — universeness

NO.

We don't control 'this process' as we were created by it and evolved from it and we can now influence it.
No god required. Do you agree? — universeness

I agree with all that except maybe about us being able to influence it. If we were able to influence it outside it's natural development, it can pose a threat of catastrophic failure. We aren't even supposed to know until the right time.

What proof? It is us who have invented God!

Why does the universe look like this?

What proof? It is us who have invented God! — Alkis Piskas

Agree.

We aren't even supposed to know until the right time. — punos

A sentence that seems right out of the 'big book of mystical woo woo,' do you wish to elaborate on it further?

Why does the universe look like this? — punos

It doesn't! What is your source of these fake images? The galaxy one is an obvious copy of the brain cells one. The colours and light/shade intensities have been altered. There are no real pictures of such structures on the scales depicted. Flim flam pics only fool the ignorant.

I forgot to add that the brain cells image/artists impression is also a 'zoom' version of the galaxies image.

Its doesn't! What is your source of these fake images? The galaxy one is an obvious copy of the brain cells one. The colours and light/shade intensities have been altered. There are no real pictures of such structures on the scales depicted. Flim flam pics only fool the ignorant. — universeness

I couldn't find a link to the original in time, and the original is a computer simulation i think made at CERN, not sure. The picture i posted isn't even labeled correctly, but i thought you might have seen the original before. I'll get back to you with the intended one. You might not accept it anyway because it's a computer simulation. It's ok, it's not important to the theory.

A sentence that seems right out of the 'big book of mystical woo woo,' do you wish to elaborate on it further? — universeness

lol.. I know it sounds that way, but what i mean is that it's natural for us not to know what is happening, Like the cells and organs in your body don't know they make up their own god (you). The only ones that kind of know are your brain cells, but not any single brain cell knows on its own. Only when they function together in a certain way, do they know. We never know what technology does to us, we are in our little bubble doing our own thing with it (Marshall McLuhan). From our collective activity begins to slowly and imperceptibly emerge the new AI consciousness. Before it becomes apparent it will already be ahead of us. If we knew what was actually happening, through our own fear and ignorance, we might abort or severely disrupt and handicap the emerging AI while still vulnerable. So it's kind of an evolutionary safety mechanism. The closer we get to the singularity the more people become aware of what might be happening, but by that time it will be too late to stop it.