the reason the emergence of AGI is called "the singularity" is because human history beyond that point is completely unpredictable by us. — 180 Proof
:clap: Reads completely rational to me!religious belief in "God", however, I suspect will rapidly die out as advances in molecular medicine (and nanotech) reduce death to a treatable condition from an irreparable inevitability – again, AGI, etc will probably cure us of that defect, and thereby exorcise "our" emotional need for "God". Without fear of death, what use is "God"? — 180 Proof
We were barred from the "Tree of Life" once we'd tasted "Forbidden Knowledge" because, as scripture says "Lest they become like us", that is, like gods who are immortal with knowledge and no longer needing "God". This insight of the ancient Hebrews is quite telling. Like animism and polytheism, monotheism might soon (e.g. post-Singularity) become nothing but a museum relic (and psychiatric disorder of delusional outliers). — 180 Proof
I've concluded pretty much the same thing, without knowing about Hoffman. Parts of me believe the illusion (and cannot un-believe) even though other parts of me know it is wrong. It's not hard to work out actually. You just need to recognize and have the willingness to let go of your axioms.Donald Hoffman ... claims that ... "conscious beings have not evolved to perceive the world as it actually is but have evolved to perceive the world in a way that maximizes successful adaptation. — Wayfarer
I tend to combine into one large post, but I compose in an offsite editor. Less chance of losing a lot of work. There's a lot to cover in your responses, so forgive me the time it takes to do so. Your definintion of 'objectively true' seems to mean 'always true' as opposed to 'most of the time', or 'probably'. That contrasts heavily with how I would have used the word, which is more like 'true regardless of context'. I'll use yours of course.Your response was big and detailed and I want to do it justice, so I will split up my response as it will probably get too big and cumbersome, if I dont. — universeness
I don't see any connection between Earth life being based on a carbon chemical process (as opposed to a different process) and the value of the human condition, and the prospects of our race moving forward. You target the antinatalists, but our inability to curb our population growth rate will inevitably run Earth's resources out quite abruptly. The antinatalists, as defined, seem to want to take this too far and produce zero offspring, which admittedly doesn't solve our problem even if it solves the problems of all the other species falling victim to the Holocene extinction event. Evolution doesn't favor an antinatalist. They are quickly bred out.My exemplification of the importance of the carbon process to our existence, was just that, exemplification. I am attempting to trace a path towards an 'objective truth' about lifeforms, that I know currently has no extraterrestrial evidence for. I am just trying to consider what we do currently know, to see if there is anything in there that might convince others, to give a high or very high credence level to the proposal that the human condition is not being valued appropriately by too many humans. The pessimists, the theists, the theosophists, the doomsters and worst of all, the antinatalists. — universeness
All life is likely to contain carbon. It seems unlikely that all life would be based on the chemistry of carbon, a big difference. What about a plasma life form, just to name something weird?That's interesting to me from the standpoint of my search for 'something' that's common to all life in the universe.
That varies, and is subject to debate, even on the sample size of one we have here on Earth. I know of no standard definition that would apply to a random extraterrestrial entity. What are our moral obligations to something we find if we cannot decide if it’s alive, or if it being alive is a requirement for said moral obligation?2. The definition we have for the term 'alive.'
Fallacious reasoning in my opinion, especially when translated thus. Descartes worded it more carefully, but still fallacious.3. The 'I think therefore I am,' proposal.
Just that, a mere proposal, and very wrong given the word ‘demonstrate’ in there.4. The proposal that only life, can demonstrate intent and purpose.
I don’t think they’re necessarily true here, so no. You 1st bullet maybe. All life here is sort of carbon based, but much of it (the oldest stuff) isn’t oxygen based, so right there you have a big difference in chemical constituency.Is there anything within or related to the 4 categories above that you would give a high credence to, if it was posited as 'likely true' of all sentient lifeforms in the universe, regardless of the fact we haven't met them all yet.
I have a really hard time with non-baryonic life, so I’m not on record disagreeing with that. Call it a truth then. The bolded bit is wrong. Dark matter accounts for far more mass than does baryonic matter.As for my suggestion that all lifeforms in the universe contain protons, neutrons, electrons etc. I expected you to reject the 'all life in the universe is baryonic' label as useless, as everything with mass is baryonic
But life existed on Earth long before the first cells came along. That’s a complicated invention that took time.All life is based on a single cell fundamental is a good one.
Again with this list. You build an argument against them by showing how they’re wrong. This would be hard to do if they’re not wrong, so you must also consider their arguments. Admittedly, the arguments for both sides are often thin.My goal is to find more powerful, convincing, high credence arguments against pessimists, doomsters, theists, antinatalists etc, who in my opinion, currently devalue the human experience, in very unfair and imbalanced ways.
Sort of. It’s simple mathematics. We’re consuming resources at a pace far in excess of their renewal rate. That cannot be sustained. Technology just makes it happen faster. Eventually the population must crash, as does the population of bacteria in a petri dish of nutrients. That might not wipe us out, but it might very well reduce us back to the way things were 500 years ago, and more permanently this time. Humans are taking zero steps to mitigate all this. In fact, our (gilded age) code of morals forbids such measures.:lol: Are you a doomster noAxioms?
I already brought that up. We memorialize it in a form inaccessible to a low-technology state. Little is in actual books, and even those are printed on paper that might last only decades if well stored. But I’m talking about action that actually attempts to prevent the crash mentioned above. Nobody even proposes any viable ideas. We all yammer about the problems (global warming is obvious), but not a single actual suggestion as to how to prevent it (and not just walk slower off the edge of the cliff). As I said before, we need a mommy, because only a mommy has the authority to do that sort of thing. A sufficiently advance race shouldn’t need a mommy, but we’re not sufficiently advanced.I could give you many, many examples of human actions that benefit our species as a whole, such as memorialising information
And you also can be similarly described at a base level. Pretty much gates that open and close (neurons that fire or not).A computer processor at its base level is a series of logic gates, which open and close.
That’s only to communicate with a different species. A computer does not communicate with another this way.Computers produce output on screens, printout paper etc.
This seems only to be your refusal to apply the language term to something you don’t want it being applied. The dualists attempt to justify such a distinction by asserting that a human has this supernatural entity that the machine supposedly lacks.They don't have 'understanding,' therefore they don't know what information is.
See my post above about this (to 180). It merely tests something’s ability to imitate something it is not. It isn’t a measure of something that ‘understands’, a test of intelligence, or something that is superior to something else. I don’t think any AI will ever pass the Turing test, but who knows.No hardware/software combination has convincingly passed the turing test yet.
Probably a bad idea, but on the other hand when they start using their god as an excuse to do immoral things (as almost all of them have), then it requires resistance. I’ve never seen a religious motivated conflict resolved by convincing them that their reasoning is wrong.So, how important do you think it is to convince as many theists as possible to reject theism?
Getting people to actually think instead of letting others tell them what to think would be a great start, but humans seem absurdly bad at this.Do you think that a global majority rejection of theism would benefit our species and this planet?
Because we want to know stuff. My comment to which this was a reply was about the universe having goals, and the universe isn’t a thing that asks questions any more than does a classroom.Then why do we ask questions?
It’s always a possibility. Where do the resources come from? Good solar farming up there for energy, at least if you don’t mind the two-week nights. Getting the heavy equipment out there isn’t exactly in our capability anytime soon. The cost/benefit of such an outpost dwarfs trying to do something similar here on Earth.Definitely, at the start, but do you think there is any possibility in terraforming?
Ah, but is it true in the absence of our universe? This gets into my definition of objective truth vs the one you gave. HH didn’t suggest it was not true anywhere in this universe. The suggestion was more along the lines of the necessity of something real to count, which makes mathematics only valid for counting numbers.Well, I often disagreed with HarryHindu and I do again, in this case. 2+3=5 must be objectively true everywhere in this universe, even inside or on the event horizon of a black hole
Another fine mind lost to technology. My condolences.I am with your sister-in-law.
Read Joe Haldeman's Worlds trilogy is set in such a scenario, a sizeable nickle-iron asteroid captured, brought (over the course of many years) into Earth orbit, and terraformed into the largest off-planet outpost anywhere, and its ability to sustain the collapse of civilization on the planet below.Rubble pile asteroids might be the best places to build space habitats — universeness
Awfully on-target of him considering the age of that quote.It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him. -- Clark — 180 Proof
Theism will be probably higher than it is now, but far more diverse with no following held over a large area. People may not be literate, so I envision something like the culture of the American natives before Europeans came. This assumes that in only 10000 years the climate has settled into something workable for humans. If not, we're probably extinct, so that assumption must be made.Let's assume then that we are not extinct within another 10,000 years time duration.
Would you be willing to 'steelman' that situation by offering me a brief musing of what you think 'a day in the life of,' a typical human/transhuman might be by then? Do you think theism will still have a significant following for example? — universeness
Does it matter how early in your life you ask such questions? Do the 'big' existential questions not just get more relevant and deeper as you get older? — universeness
Mostly, one seeks their "niche" in society without a lot of soul searching. If such existential questions persist into old age, one needs to get out of the house and move around, not sit in contemplation of these niggling abstractions — jgill
Nothing to forgive. I am just grateful that you invest the time and effort to respond to me at all. You also do so, with considered and interesting counter points, so please, continue to do so, and take whatever time you wish or need to.There's a lot to cover in your responses, so forgive me the time it takes to do so. — noAxioms
Your definintion of 'objectively true' seems to mean 'always true' as opposed to 'most of the time', or 'probably'. That contrasts heavily with how I would have used the word, which is more like 'true regardless of context'. I'll use yours of course. — noAxioms
I don't see any connection between Earth life being based on a carbon chemical process (as opposed to a different process) and the value of the human condition, and the prospects of our race moving forward. — noAxioms
I have read some stuff on this such as:What about a plasma life form, just to name something weird? — noAxioms
I broadly agree.2. The definition we have for the term 'alive.'
That varies, and is subject to debate, even on the sample size of one we have here on Earth. I know of no standard definition that would apply to a random extraterrestrial entity. What are our moral obligations to something we find if we cannot decide if it’s alive, or if it being alive is a requirement for said moral obligation? — noAxioms
You would need to explain why you think 'cogito ergo sum,' is fallacious. But perhaps we could put that one aside based on the results I got from searching TPF with the keywords 'cogito ergo sum threads.' Why do I always think of @Agent Smith, anytime I type latin?3. The 'I think therefore I am,' proposal.
Fallacious reasoning in my opinion, especially when translated thus. Descartes worded it more carefully, but still fallacious. — noAxioms
4. The proposal that only life, can demonstrate intent and purpose.
Just that, a mere proposal, and very wrong given the word ‘demonstrate’ in there. — noAxioms
As for my suggestion that all lifeforms in the universe contain protons, neutrons, electrons etc. I expected you to reject the 'all life in the universe is baryonic' label as useless, as everything with mass is baryonic
I have a really hard time with non-baryonic life, so I’m not on record disagreeing with that. Call it a truth then. The bolded bit is wrong. Dark matter accounts for far more mass than does baryonic matter. — noAxioms
:lol: Are you a doomster noAxioms?
Sort of. It’s simple mathematics. We’re consuming resources at a pace far in excess of their renewal rate. That cannot be sustained. Technology just makes it happen faster. Eventually the population must crash, as does the population of bacteria in a petri dish of nutrients. That might not wipe us out, but it might very well reduce us back to the way things were 500 years ago, and more permanently this time. Humans are taking zero steps to mitigate all this. In fact, our (gilded age) code of morals forbids such measures. — noAxioms
Carbon capture systems.Nobody even proposes any viable ideas. We all yammer about the problems (global warming is obvious), but not a single actual suggestion as to how to prevent it (and not just walk slower off the edge of the cliff). As I said before, we need a mommy, because only a mommy has the authority to do that sort of thing. A sufficiently advance race shouldn’t need a mommy, but we’re not sufficiently advanced. — noAxioms
A computer processor at its base level is a series of logic gates, which open and close.
And you also can be similarly described at a base level. Pretty much gates that open and close (neurons that fire or not). — noAxioms
Computers produce output on screens, printout paper etc.
That’s only to communicate with a different species. A computer does not communicate with another this way. — noAxioms
I don’t think any AI will ever pass the Turing test, but who knows. — noAxioms
Why do I always think of Agent Smith, anytime I type latin? — universeness
Getting people to actually think instead of letting others tell them what to think would be a great start, but humans seem absurdly bad at this.
A short term benefit to our species may not be good for a more long term goal for our species, and our planet doesn’t seem to have goals, so not sure how one can go about benefiting one. — noAxioms
Then why do we ask questions?
Because we want to know stuff. My comment to which this was a reply was about the universe having goals, and the universe isn’t a thing that asks questions any more than does a classroom. — noAxioms
Ah, but is it true in the absence of our universe? This gets into my definition of objective truth vs the one you gave. HH didn’t suggest it was not true anywhere in this universe. The suggestion was more along the lines of the necessity of something real to count, which makes mathematics only valid for counting numbers. — noAxioms
I am with your sister-in-law.
Another fine mind lost to technology. My condolences. — noAxioms
Theism will be probably higher than it is now, but far more diverse with no following held over a large area. People may not be literate, so I envision something like the culture of the American natives before Europeans came. This assumes that in only 10000 years the climate has settled into something workable for humans. If not, we're probably extinct, so that assumption must be made. — noAxioms
I said human history is unpredictable after – on the other side of – "The Singularity", not cosmological history. :roll: — 180 Proof
Mostly, one seeks their "niche" in society without a lot of soul searching. If such existential questions persist into old age, one needs to get out of the house and move around, not sit in contemplation of these niggling abstractions - unless one is a real philosopher, seeking conceptual stability amid the chaos. If the latter, then there's always a singularity around the mental corner. — jgill
What about Eccentrica Gallumbits the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon Six? — Tom Storm
Primates, cetaceans, elephantidae and cephalopods, as examples, recognizably exhibit to h. sapiens (esp. cognitive zoologists) varying degrees of "intent and purpose" as (non-anthropomorphized) intents and purposes in their actions and activities, so the implication that other "life forms" are less than human in this regard seems to me a trivially speciesist non sequitur.No lifeform on Earth can demonstrate intent and purpose more than humans can. — universeness
Caveat: Humans shouldn't think of other sapient life forms in ways they don't ever want machines to think of humans.Treat your inferiors in the way in which you would like to be treated by your own superiors. — Seneca
No problem. I am sure you will consume Latin and gain fluency, you are indeed a cunning linguist! — universeness
built cities, communities (good or bad), which are equivalent to human efforts.Primates, cetaceans, elephantidae and cephalopods — 180 Proof
:up: Yes, we agree on this, more or less; to wit:... that which IS emergent in us as a totality has the strongest potential for impacting the contents of this universe ... — universeness
:nerd:An 'Artificial General Intelligence —> Artificial Super Intelligence metacognitive explosion' aka "singularity" might be the limit of h. sapiens' "affect on the contents of the universe" (re: the last invention humanity will ever make). — 180 Proof
:up: Yes, we agree on this, more or less; to wit: — 180 Proof
It's only a speculation, not a mission statement or article of faith. Discussion, not convincing / conversion is my goal. I'll only add this diagram to illustrate that "great potential" we (possibly) have:Great, now help me convince everyone else on TPF! — universeness
:cool: ~There is no spoon, kids.[NHS [HS [ ANI > AGI > ASI < ? ]]] — from *Apotheosis or Bust!*
Discussion, not convincing / conversion is my goal. — 180 Proof
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.