please, continue to do so, and take whatever time you wish or need to. — universeness

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.
The content is growing. Your aggregate replies consumed 5 pages of Libre yesterday, and 7 today.

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

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.

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?

I am moving towards assigning high credence to the 'intent' and 'purpose' aspects of humanity as two aspects of humanity

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.

Why do I always think of Agent Smith, anytime I type latin? — universeness

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur: Anything said in Latin sounds profound. There’s actually a rationalwiki page on this quote.

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.

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.)

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.

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 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.

I remain convinced we will avoid anything, anywhere near, an extinction level threat.

I suspect this as well, maybe without your confidence level.

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

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.

Vertical farming, genetically modified food production.

Actually increasing the momentum towards the cliff.

Human population control initiatives.

Only works if globally enforced. Needs a mommy. This also just slows things, doesn’t solve anything.

Anti-capitalist political movements.

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.

Atheist movements against theist suggestions that this Earth is disposable, due to their insistence that god exists.

Trying to figure out which side you’re against here.

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

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.

The effects of a lot of neurons firing negates the fact that it’s just neurons firing? Or did I read that wrong?

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

Indeed. They’re found on the forums for instance, a large part of the attraction to such sites.

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.

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!

Hats stick to the surface of both things, at least so I’ve been told.

Such a big doomster hat!

So knock it off with logic instead of weight of optimism.

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.

... 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

Ditto with that agreement, but probably the way you read those words.

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

:grin: Nice to know we both have lives outside of TPF.

The content is growing. Your aggregate replies consumed 5 pages of Libre yesterday, and 7 today. — 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.

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

Yeah, I broadly agree with the 7 criteria from biology:
In biology, whether life is present is determined based on the following seven criteria:
1. It should maintain some balanced conditions in its inner structure. This is called Homeostasis
2. Its structure is highly organized.
3. It should be able to break down or build up nutrients to release or store energy based on need. This is called Metabolism
4. It should grow, which means its structure changes as time goes by in an advantageous manner.
5. It should show adaptation to the environment.
6. It should be able to respond to environmental stimuli on demand (as opposed to adaptation, which occurs over time).
7. It should be able to reproduce itself.

I give a very low credence to some lifeforms proposed in sci-fi such as 'The Q' in 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, has intent, has purpose then they would fit with my notion of an 'objective truth' about all such lifeforms in the universe that can 'affect' the contents of the universe in the way we can. This would further confirm to me that the doomsters, pessimists, theists, theosophists, antinatalists etc are on the wrong path, and I have another strong tool against their point of view.

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

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.

Doomsters and pessimists are wrong, as life with intent and purpose is compelled towards progressing that intent and purpose. It makes no sense to keep emitting personal 'we are doomed to fail' or 'the glass is half empty' signals, as they are 'pointless' and do nothing to progress intent and purpose. I understand that individuals can have intent and purpose to 'destroy the universe,' but others like me can have the intent and purpose to stop them. These seem to be 'valid states,' of intent and purpose.

Antinatalists are wrong because life happened in the universe and would happen again if it went extinct.
It happened because it could happen and it can always happen, even if it is intermittently made extinct.
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. So it does not need anything to exist 'outside.' I am NOT suggesting panpsychism here. I am suggesting an 'emergence.' Life with growing/changing intent and purpose. If we take this as an emerging 'totality,' of consciousness, then this may be a natural happenstance, which has the potential for the universe to 'know' and 'understand', how, what and perhaps (the much more difficult) WHY, it IS.
Life is the only 'property' of the universe that may be able to achieve this.
The existence of life 'within' the system of the universe means no 'outside' agent (such as god) is required.

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

There is no evidence of rabbits memorialising science in the way we do and passing such on to the next generation. WE coined the name Rabbit. They did not coin the name Human. What's in a name? Human intent and purpose!
A hammer made of candy will never break a stone wall no matter how often you try. Humans can make a much stronger hammer and break through the wall because their intent and purpose is much stronger that that of rabbits or bees.

Human intent and purpose comes from internal combinatorial activity. The hard problem of consciousness remains but it is there is no dualism involved, in my opinion. Humans are cell based but exactly how all the fundamental ingredients combine to produce human intent and purpose, at the levels humans can demonstrate it, is of course, still not fully understood. But WE intend to figure it out. One of our purposes, is to employ the scientific method to find empirical evidence that explains the source of consciousness. Again, remember, 'we choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.'

I am fine with your 'bee' model of the hive mind and comparing it with human settlement constructs. These are just variations on a theme to me. I see no ultimate barrier to the global unity of our species, as a consequence of statements such as "I don’t see humanity as a whole in any way acting like this."
If you think we need a common enemy to achieve such a unison, then perhaps climate change/capitalism/national autocratic exemplars will become (or are already) those common enemies you suggest.

I think I already addressed your 'doomster position,' question in my previous post to this one.

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

The proposal numbered 4 is asserted before asserting that humans demonstrate intent better than any other species on Earth. I don't see the logic problem you are trying to establish here.

I looked up the definition of baryon and it seems electrons do not qualify — noAxioms

Yeah, it's just human categorisation. YOU ARE completely baryonic, imo. Leptons are just light weight baryons. Humans love sub-categories. :roll: If a neutrino does indeed have some mass then it will also be a lepton. Does the erebon exist as a dark matter particle? will it be categorised as a baryon or a lepton. Only CERN might find out, or perhaps we will need new tech to find out.

Trying to figure out which side you’re against here. — noAxioms

I have already declared myself as a socialist/secular humanist many times on TPF threads, so I think my likely viewpoints on the main sociopolitical positions are easily garnished from those labels.

The effects of a lot of neurons firing negates the fact that it’s just neurons firing? Or did I read that wrong? — noAxioms

It may not just be neurons firing, that's the point. There may be much more complexity involved.
I know @180 Proof and others do not assign much credence to the idea that quantum effects are an integral part of human consciousness, as is suggested by folks like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, see this thread. I am not so sure I think quantum fluctuations, entanglement, superposition and quantum tunnelling may well be involved in human consciousness.

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

You sound like a nice person noAxioms!

So knock it off with logic instead of weight of optimism. — noAxioms

:lol: I am trying noAxioms, but you are a very apt and able (but very rational) artful dodger.

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

: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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I understand that individuals can have intent and purpose to 'destroy the universe,'

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.

Antinatalists are wrong because life happened in the universe and would happen again if it went extinct.

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.

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.

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.

A hammer made of candy will never break a stone wall not matter how often you try.

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.

The hard problem of consciousness remains

From one monist to another, there is no hard problem of consciousness.

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

OK. I thought you were attempting to justify it, not just put it out there as a premise.

It may not just be neurons firing, that's the point. There may be much more complexity involved.

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.

I know 180 Proof and others do not assign much credence to the idea that quantum effects are an integral part of human consciousness

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 am not so sure I think quantum fluctuations, entanglement, superposition and quantum tunnelling may well be involved in 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.

You sound like a nice person 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.

I can think of forms that don’t reproduce. — noAxioms

Then, unless they are immortal, they are doomed.

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

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.

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

I think it does follow. I have already given my reasons. What's the point of asking questions, if god already has all the answers? But WE DO ask questions and WE DO have intent and purpose.
WHY? If god exists, we would not experience such compulsions. For me, this IS evidence that god cannot exist. I accept that others (especially theists), wont agree.

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

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?

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

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.

Really? Like to see them try to make a dent in it, positive or negative. — noAxioms

Well, perhaps I went too far by referring to destroying the universe. I am happy to restrict their threat to life on Earth.

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

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'. The people give meaning to the existence of the bus. They do the same for the universe.

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

So yes, the purpose and intent of rabbits is a poor comparison with the intent and purpose of humans.
Rabbits cant impact their environment like humans can.

From one monist to another, there is no hard problem of consciousness. — 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.

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

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. We don't know enough yet imo, to make any exciting fundamental comparisons between electronic computers and the human brain.
There are plenty of similarities, yes but none of the current comparisons overwhelm me .... yet.

This bit started from your assertion that computers cannot be information processors, but I’m looking for the distinction that makes this so. — 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).
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 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. The computer does not understand why it connects this low level operation to its HCI (human computer interface) system which places the output bit map displaying the image of '2' on a screen. The computer assigns no meaning whatsoever to the process it just performed or the output it placed on the screen. IT IS A BRAINLESS MACHINE!

else creatures would long ago have evolved mechanisms to take advantage of it. — noAxioms

From [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]
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.

Also you might like this, if you have not watched it already:

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

I repeat and even more so, since your posting of the humble story above.
You sound like a nice person noAxioms but I add, you have a nice family to.
'Ribbing,' those you love most, is a very strong part of my own Scottish tradition.

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

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.

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?

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.

WHY? If god exists, we would not experience such compulsions.

I just don’t agree with this connection. I have no trouble envisioning question-asking in a setup with a god.

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?

Yes to that.

They advocate for their own extinction as part of their goal of ending all suffering, based on their convoluted moral imperative.

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.

Well, perhaps I went too far by referring to destroying the universe. I am happy to restrict their threat to life on Earth.

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.

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

Agree to all, but with the implications of being useful/functional to the people. You go from that to “the bus knows itself”.

So yes, the purpose and intent of rabbits is a poor comparison with the intent and purpose of humans.

I think I was asking about the purpose of humanity, as opposed to the purpose of humans/people, something which I’ve acknowledged.

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.
.

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.

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).

The distinction is that current computers have no self-awareness and do not demonstrate any ability to 'understand.

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.

In binary addition, 1+1 is 10. A human and a computer can both do this calculation but only a human 'understands' it.

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.

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.

A computer has no more awareness of that than you do of a specific nerve firing.

IT IS A BRAINLESS MACHINE!

That it is.

From [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

This sounds really interesting. No link provided. I found this: cbc.ca/news/science/quantum-weirdness-used-by-plants-animals-1.912061
It’s a pop article written by somebody who sounds like they just learned of quantum stuff an hour ago, so plenty of mistakes. All matter depends on QM physics, so just because quantum stuff is going on doesn’t imply an exploitation of the weirdness. For instance, the photoelectric effect utilized a quantum effect, but a solar cell on say your calculator is essentially a classical device. As said before, both nerves and transistors utilize tunneling, but their function is classical. So what does this article say? Yes, it mentions the tunneling.
“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. More detail is needed to see what they’ve actually found in regards to this. There cannot be information gained in entanglement. There’s no way Lloyd (with the credentials listed) would have said it that way, except perhaps condescending to a very naive audience.
“Physics experiments show that certain entangled electrons are also very sensitive to the orientation of weak magnetic fields, and the birds' behaviour suggests they are using that to navigate.”
That one sounds more plausible, but it doesn’t give any clue as to how or why entangled electrons would be more sensitive. A link to the actual paper would be nice, but I wonder how readable it is. I presume that both electrons are under control of the bird.
The part about the quantum walk sounds awesome. Everything seems to be using QM to do some natural thing. None of them are gathering information from ‘beyond’ as would be expected in a dualistic setup where quantum probabilities are violated.

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

Many natural happenstances could wipe out all life on Earth, before I finish typing this post. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct. But that misses the point here. Has any other species that you know of or that has existed on Earth, visited the moon or built a space station or a city?
Have any of them memorialised information in some equivalent system to books? Did any of them reach the scientific knowledge we have or created tech which is anywhere near the equal of ours?
We are even beginning to create tech/solutions to such existential threats that killed the dinosaurs, such as the recently, successful DART mission. What the humans are doing on Earth was and is very intended. Some of the consequences are very bad indeed but the base purpose and original intentions (good and/or bad,) are irrefutable. For example, 'I intend to settle here and grow food, farm animals, control water flow,' etc 'our purpose is to build a city here, and mine available resources to do so, and to maintain and grow the city and ...... I shall be king (let's not forget the nefarious b********. We have still to deal with them effectively.) These are irrefutable examples of human intent and purpose, with the ultimate goal of reaching the omnis.

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

The reasons 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.
3. We aspire to the omni states, because they do not currently exist. Why would you aspire to creating a wheel, if a wheel already exists? By the same logic, why would we aspire to omniscience if an omniscient already exists?
You yourself make the statement 'If there is an omniscient god, it keeps its secrets.' Then we are being rational, when we conclude that this god suggestion, has no existent and it is irrational to suggest it exists. This is an example of where a statement such as 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' fails. As the evidence that god does not exist is very strong (I accept that it's not yet strong enough to irrefutably 'disprove' god, but all it has left, are pathetic god of the gaps suggestions.)
In the case of a posited creator of everything and the posit that it has all the omni properties, the fact that it refuses to reveal it's existence, irrefutably, to everyone on Earth, IS, a very strong reason to conclude that it does not exist. 1, 2 and 3 above are also very strong reasons. Free will, if it truly exists, is a natural happenstance, it was never given to us and its consequences are emergent.

I just don’t agree with this connection. I have no trouble envisioning question-asking in a setup with a god. — 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.
Time for humans to stop scapegoating gods and take full ownership of free will and emerging capability.
A nonexistent god, free's life such as humans and allows us to continue to be emergent and eventually become whatever we are able to become, within the time frame offered by the life time of a universe, constrained within an entropic future. Human's could exist for many many 'billions' of more years.
How long will the theists tolerate the complete absence and silence of their supernatural superhero?
They need to stop being afraid of what's outside of our caves! We need to trust each other, to allay our fears. The Klingon stated what theists need to do (in their heads) , quite well with:

Agree to all, but with the implications of being useful/functional to the people. You go from that to “the bus knows itself”. — noAxioms

No I don't, as the difference is, the bus is OF us, it is our tech. WE ARE OF THE UNIVERSE! I agree there is no evidence that we come from it's intent (as this let's god in again). We came from happenstance. BUT we have emergent properties. Properties that can grow in strength and extent of influence. We have the potential of affecting a larger and larger extent of the content of the universe.
Fast forward this, and through lifeforms such as us, the universe may become a system that ultimately grows a communicative system that can affect every part of its 'body.' I don't think that such an anthropocentric projection of a 'networked mind' which will eventually become, say, intergalactic, is impossible. I would assume that the reality will be quite different from my suggestion here, but it is still much more exciting to me than any future suggested by theism, theosophy or the moronic antinatalists.
The question of exactly who's future musings are correct here, remains to be realised.
We must all plant our flag/make our choice or we will stay forever fogged.

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

From wiki:
Monism attributes oneness or singleness to a concept, e.g. existence. Various kinds of monism can be distinguished. So basically monism traces everything back to a single origin, which suits big bang theory or the idea of a t.o.e (theory of everything,) but it does not engage any multiverse theories or cyclical universe theories etc and it can also be used to support monotheism.
Monism is a term from philosophy (I think), so, perhaps someone like @180 Proof or @Banno could confirm I am not misusing the term here and if I am, they could perhaps correct me.

This sounds really interesting. No link provided. — 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?

When I clicked on the link you posted, it took me to the OP of this thread??

You then go on to discuss some aspects of quantum physics in the biological world but I remain confused as to what source you are using.

I don't know what you mean by:

“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

A change in one IS immediately experienced by the entangled object, regardless of the distance between them. No signal physically travels between the entangled particles.
Quantum entanglement experiment

I don't think monism entails anything about "origins" (e.g. BBT) and seems to me more consistent with pertaining to a timeless entity or property.

Reading wiki's description of the history of the term I read:
"The term monism was introduced in the 18th century by Christian von Wolff, in his work Logic (1728), to designate types of philosophical thought in which the attempt was made to eliminate the dichotomy of body and mind and explain all phenomena by one unifying principle, or as manifestations of a single substance.

The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain. The problem was addressed by René Descartes in the 17th century, resulting in Cartesian dualism, and by pre-Aristotelian philosophers, in Avicennian philosophy, and in earlier Asian and more specifically Indian traditions.

It was later also applied to the theory of absolute identity set forth by Hegel and Schelling. Thereafter the term was more broadly used, for any theory postulating a unifying principle. The opponent thesis of dualism also was broadened, to include pluralism. According to Urmson, as a result of this extended use, the term is "systematically ambiguous".

According to Jonathan Schaffer, monism lost popularity due to the emergence of analytic philosophy in the early twentieth century, which revolted against the neo-Hegelians. Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who were strong proponents of positivism, "ridiculed the whole question as incoherent mysticism".

The mind–body problem has reemerged in social psychology and related fields, with the interest in mind–body interaction and the rejection of Cartesian mind–body dualism in the identity thesis, a modern form of monism. Monism is also still relevant to the philosophy of mind, where various positions are defended.

I focussed on the words 'and explain all phenomena by one unifying principle.' This seems to me that monism suggests that ultimately, everything comes from a single source ( hence my connection to the search for a t.o.e.) In your description, can there be more than one eternal? (timeless entity or property). Do you agree that monism is used in ontology based arguments such as the Kalam?
Is monotheism a monism?

Monism is an ancient concept and I'll stick with that as more recent reformulations only complicate things unnecessarily. Also, I think it makes more sense to use monism in terms of epistemology rather than as an ontological concept.

Ok, thanks for your input!

continue to do so, and take whatever time you wish or need to. — universeness

Taking you up on this. Been too busy last couple days to respond to posts.

Did any of them reach the scientific knowledge we have or created tech which is anywhere near the equal of ours? — 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.
Anyway, point taken. We do human some things better than do other things, and we exhibit collective intent to a point. 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.

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.

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.

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. We ask questions because we’re in present need of information, not because we have some impossible goal.
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.

Why would you aspire to creating a wheel, if a wheel already exists?

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.

This is an example of where a statement such as 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' fails.

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.

Free will, if it truly exists, is a natural happenstance, it was never given to us and its consequences are emergent.

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.

Time for humans to stop scapegoating gods and take full ownership of free will and emerging capability.

Scapegoating the gods has a purpose, but probably not one that serves humanity as a whole.

Human's could exist for many many 'billions' of more years.

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?

How long will the theists tolerate the complete absence and silence of their supernatural superhero?

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.

Monism is a term from philosophy — universeness

I don’t mean the word by the definition you quote. I simply meant not-dualism, no supernatural mind.

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

No, I didn’t see any link, but it was pretty easy to search given what you posted. I watched it.

When I clicked on the link you posted, it took me to the OP of this thread??

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?

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.
The link you gave works. It’s to a page about historical experiments, culminating in a refutation of local realism.
The article doesn’t say anything like a change being experienced by the other, but maybe you’re reading that into a line that I missed.

A change in one IS immediately experienced by the entangled object, — universeness

A change? No, a measurement of one is somehow connected to a measurement of the other. At different frames of reference one or the other can seem to be "first". "Collapse of the wave function" seems to run strongly here, but I still suspect it has more to do with solutions of differential equations "existing" simultaneously: superposition. For example, a particle is at z=1+2i, but the equation describing its position has solutions z=1+2i and z=1-2i. Which holds? Make the measurement and find out. Collapse the damn thing.

I'm naive about this subject, I admit. It just feels better to circumvent the woo when possible. :cool:

I'm naive about this subject, I admit. It just feels better to circumvent the woo when possible. :cool: — jgill

:up:

Taking you up on this. Been too busy last couple days to respond to posts. — noAxioms

Not a problem!

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

I cant fly like a bird but I can strap a jet pack to my back or get on an aeroplane. I don't ignore the abilities other species can demonstrate. I assert that humans can affect their surroundings/environment and potentially, the extraterrestial contents of the universe, much more significantly than any other species on Earth. We can also think, externally memorialise and leave legacy in ways that no other species on Earth can. Can tigers discuss the history of tigers. amongst other tigers? Do tigers even know they have been labelled tigers by us?

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

Transhumanism 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)

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 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.

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

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.
I don't have enough proof of anything I claim in this thread, to create a strongly convincing logical syllogism. I have already stated that I am interested in what percentage credence level, others would assign, to what I am typing in this thread. I am not suggesting that my claims here, are far superior to the claims made by theism. They ask for high credence levels to be assigned to their claims all the time.
I am just interested in, whether or not, intelligent folks, would find the kind of claims I am putting forward here, as more convincing, when compared to, the 'god is responsible for it all,' claim.
Knowing the speed of light in a vacuum to the nth decimal point is 'impossible,' if you make n big enough. That's why I suggest our attempts are asymptotic but we will still always 'aspire' to omniscience.

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

The fact that no information is conveyed to us by this (proposedly) existing entity, suggests it does not exist. We would only need to do what this god needed us to do, if it was in communication with us. Why is that absurd? I agree that such a slave like role for us is unpalatable but what is the point of us learning stuff, if we are merely finding some stuff out that this god already knows. What would be the point of us aspiring to anything? How would that serve this entity? All we could do with any scraps of knowledge from it's table, is try to improve our experiences, but it could do that for us to the nth degree, anytime it chose to. It seems to me that if god exists, then the antinatalists have a good case!

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

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.
God then, has no lifeforce of it's own. Any god property only exists in lifeforms like humans who (asymptotically) aspire to the omnis.

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

If we are not existing in interstellar space within the next billion years then we deserve to be extinct imo.
Yeah, doing everything we can to protect the Earth will always be an imperative I think.
Selective evolution is the state which which supersedes natural evolution. 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.
'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?
I would welcome increased longevity, robustness and functionality. I would be willing to become more 'biomorphic,' so I could exist in many environments. I don't feel particularly attached to 'looking' human.
It would depend on the existence of others who were 'like me' or who were willing to 'accept' me for what I had 'become.'

:smile: :up:

:up:

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

:clap:

I simply meant not-dualism, no supernatural mind. — noAxioms

Ok.

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

Based on what @jgill posted, it seems my choice of words here was poor.

A change? No, a measurement of one is somehow connected to a measurement of the other. — jgill

I was basing my words on descriptions like:
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
From: https://www.space.com/31933-quantum-entanglement-action-at-a-distance.html

Wiki has:
Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance.

From the The science exchange based at Caltech:
When researchers study entanglement, they often use a special kind of crystal to generate two entangled particles from one. The entangled particles are then sent off to different locations. For this example, let's say the researchers want to measure the direction the particles are spinning, which can be either up or down along a given axis. Before the particles are measured, each will be in a state of superposition, or both "spin up" and "spin down" at the same time.

If the researcher measures the direction of one particle's spin and then repeats the measurement on its distant, entangled partner, that researcher will always find that the pair are correlated: if one particle's spin is up, the other's will be down (the spins may instead both be up or both be down, depending on how the experiment is designed, but there will always be a correlation). Returning to our dancer metaphor, this would be like observing one dancer and finding them in a pirouette, and then automatically knowing the other dancer must also be performing a pirouette. The beauty of entanglement is that just knowing the state of one particle automatically tells you something about its companion, even when they are far apart.

In consideration of the above sources, I am happy to replace my sentence with @jgill's.
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.
If Lennard Susskind is correct Quantum entanglement may BE gravity!
If you can find the time, have a listen to 'debunking quantum gravity,' from youtube, shown below:

Transhumanism does have currently running science projects. — universeness

The transhumanists are actually on some of the right tracks, but need to address some important roadblocks.
Cryonics is about as useless as mind uploading. Don’t see any benefit to either except immortality where said immortality doesn’t serve any purpose. By current law, and person resulting from such a state has no legal rights.
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.
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.

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.

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 have already stated that I am interested in what percentage credence level, others would assign, to what I am typing in this thread.

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.

[Theists] ask for high credence levels to be assigned to their claims all the time.

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.

Knowing the speed of light in a vacuum to the nth decimal point is 'impossible,' if you make n big enough.

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?

The fact that no information is conveyed to us by this (proposedly) existing entity, suggests it does not exist. — universeness

Almost by definition, yes.

what is the point of us learning stuff, if we are merely finding some stuff out that this god already knows.

Already answered that. Because we need to know it as well.

Why would you aspire to creating a wheel, if a wheel already exists? — universeness

No, the question becomes, why are you having to reinvent the wheel?

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.

why did the existing supernatural not just provide you with a 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 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’.

If we are not existing in interstellar space within the next billion years then we deserve to be extinct imo.

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.

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.

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.

'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?

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?

I would welcome increased longevity

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.

It would depend on the existence of others who were 'like me' or who were willing to 'accept' me for what I had 'become.'

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?

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

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.

Some non-local interpretations (Bohmian mechanics) suggest such communication.

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?

To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

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.

Immaterial intelligence seems to be directly connected to complexity of functional organization, such as found in the human brain. 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:

Integrated Information :
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?
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page13.html

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — 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:


Technological Singularity :
Futurist & transhumanist Ray Kurtzweil has optimistically conjectured that a mindless-but-lawful universe is accidentally stumbling toward a universal mind of god-like proportions. And cognitive historian Y.N. Harari, in Homo Deus, foresees the emergence of a “cosmic data processing system . . . like God”, yet entirely natural and matter-based. 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. Historically and theoretically, Evolution proceeds via the inventive interaction between random Chance and contextual Choice. That progressive process is not aimless though, as some would have it, but pointed in a positive direction, as measured by one-way Time, as recorded in human history, as inferred from Archeology, and as conjectured in Cosmology. Such an apparently teleological universe must have originated from an intentional source of some kind. Since mathematical Information seems to be the coded language of evolution, I like to call that cosmic “Programmer”, the “Enformer”.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

Transhumanism 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

Interesting. (I bolded the ones which seem more likely than not; however, the implausible ones, IMO, I've crossed-out.)

Like @180 Proof says, the TS (the technological singularity) might've already taken place - we're just failing to notice it, just like some of us fail to see God (deux ex machina - read the short, short story Answer by Fredric Brown).

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.