The transhumanists are actually on some of the right tracks, but need to address some important roadblocks. — noAxioms

Interesting. (I bolded the ones which seem more likely than not; however, the implausible ones, IMO, I've crossed-out.) 10. Cryonics — 180 Proof

I consider cryonics a valid act of desperation. Similar to pharaohs who had their bodies embalmed, inside large pyramids etc. due to individual 'hope against hope,' that they can survive what is currently inevitable.
The odds are against such tech being successful, I agree, but humans will take an outside chance, if that's the best available. Like flapping your arms, if you are falling from a high building. You might as well! You have nothing to lose! You might be able to grab a flagpole on the way down! I love the fact that such people try so hard to sustain their lives (in your face antinatalists!)
I also like the fact that both yourself and @180 Proof are not against all transhuman efforts, you just don't have much confidence in some of them. Personally, I would have more confidence in cryonics than I would in Pascals wager.

Don’t see any benefit to either except immortality where said immortality doesn’t serve any purpose. — noAxioms

I am not sure what you mean by this, unless it's just to confirm that you don't think the cryogenic tech would work, i.e, you wont be able to 'reanimate' a dead human brain in the future, as there is no evidence that its contents/human identity/consciousness are preserved, by deep freezing the brain.

VR has mild uses, and is already employed. The need for it will drop as autonomy of the controlled thing increases. Said autonomy (your #5) is very useful. — noAxioms

I think it depends on whether or not VR and AR can grow into something more akin to the type of 'holography' we see depicted on shows like 'star trek.' Will we every get near to something like:

High on the list is post-humanism, for which the gene-therapy is but a step, but humans do not have a good track record of tolerating different species. They won’t in any way like or accept something seen as a replacement, especially if they’re given all the best jobs. — noAxioms

Well, that remains a very interesting question about any 'transhuman,' or your, in my opinion, more negative, 'post-human' reality. At what point will 'transhuman' efforts result in a new species?
Is a human kept alive by a pacemaker, still fully human? I would say yes, but I would also say yes for a brain inside a complete tech body, a cyborg or cybernetic human. I have no doubt opinions and reactions at the time will widely differ, but perhaps less so, than they would now.

That wasn’t listed as a premise. Are we starting anew with the ‘proof’ or are we steering away from the subject? What system is doing the knowing here, because I cannot think of a way in which this can work. My country doesn’t know most of what I know for instance, despite me being part of the country. Any yes, a country, unlike say the universe, is arguably something that knows stuff. — noAxioms

In my OP, I think I asked a bunch of questions rather than tried to 'stamp' any definitive premise.
I am moving in the direction of hypothesis, yes. I am trying my best to 'tune' my suggestions based on the feedback I am getting in this thread. My musings on exactly what is demonstrably emergent in humans, continues, but I am currently most attracted to 'asymptotic intent and purpose towards omniscience, with the goal of knowing the workings and purpose of the universe.' We do this, from the status of being OF the universe. So, our intent is to figure out the universe (a system) from the status of being a currently, distributed, set of individual minds, who currently employ various (relatively low level,) methods of 'networking.' My musings on this, are very much, still in flux but I feel confident enough, to use human demonstrations of intent and purpose and 'networking,' etc, in other threads, to combat theistic, theosophic, pessimistic, doomster, antinatalist etc, viewpoints. I also now see free will (if it truly exists) as not gifted from god but as a result of intent and purpose, in the same/similar way, that time is relative and is the result of change.
What you describe as 'what a country knows,' can increase and expand with time. Can such as the concept of country you are suggesting, be expanded to 'planet'? or solar system or interstellar existence, if such was the spread of humanity in the future. So why not 'the universe,' if you apply enough time and effort to such a goal, an asymptotic aspiration towards omniscience?'

OK. I give very low credence to people aspiring to being omniscient, like I can’t think of anybody besides you who might agree to such a thing. — noAxioms

I think my use of the term asymptotic is important in my suggested human aspirations towards omniscience. I also think my suggestion of considering this via the result of the 'collective' effort of all human intent and purpose (including all scientific research), is also crucial.

I mean, the N Koreans really do believe KJ Un is a god and the west is poised to destroy them at any moment. — noAxioms

I accept that you can use terror to indoctrinate people, especially if you start when they are young, but its a very old tactic that fails in the final analysis. 'You cant fool all of the people all of the time.' I know that the nefarious can survive, and even thrive, very well, by fooling all or even some of the people, all of the time, but I think that is becoming less and less true as more and more of us become more and more informed. This reminds me again of one of my fav muse tracks that I have posted before. I think we can now counter such, better than we have been able to before:

And yet knowing where the next dot will land in a double-slit setup can no better be known 1000 years from now than it can be today. Ditto for the weather next July 1. But then, given certain interpretations of QM, not even an omniscient entity could make either prediction, which is sort of contradiction, no? — noAxioms

If you accept the definition of the term omniscient, then such certainly could do what you suggest it could not. I don't know what human science will allow us to do in the future. I am confident and content to predict that it will be more than we can do at the moment.

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

If a supernatural entity provided me with all my needs at all times, I wouldn’t need the wheel. For that matter, I wouldn’t need senses, or kidneys, or anything else. I think heaven is supposed to be that sort of torture. — noAxioms

Why do humans have to reinvent tech that god already has? Unless, this god does not exist and therefore has no intent or purpose.
It is fallacious to go from merely ‘unhelpful’ to ‘nonexistent’. — noAxioms

I think there is some contradiction here. I think both of us give high credence to the assertion that god has no existent. Would you agree?

Interstellar space is not an environment in which the human animal has evolved to thrive. We’ll need to change into something else to be fit out there. That’s the posthuman thing they talk about in the transhumanist literature. Point is, post-human isn’t human anymore any more than we are still a rodent. — noAxioms

I think we will try to maintain our 'human' label for as long as we can. I am not particularly precious regarding such. No doubt their will be issue's of human V transhuman, rights, racial status, redundancy etc. I can only hope we do better than we do with issues between black/white, male/female, ability/disability, gender variation etc.

So if we find a possible wet planet best suited to something like an octopus, and we instill similar/better intellectual ability/identity and physical functionality (they’ve already got most of all that), but still essentially a cephalopod by DNA, you’d be OK with calling it human? It’s a word that indicates capability and not primate lineage at all? — noAxioms

:lol: Well, I would probably prefer our science to have reached polymorphic (shapeshifting) tech:

Death by age is an adaptation added to certain branches a long time ago due to its benefits. It enabled the very complexity that you’re trying to encourage in these post. Sure you want to take that away? — noAxioms

Yes, change continues, a system which has been performing the same input, process and output, even for millennia, can end, and be replaced/updated. I have already stated that I think selective genetic engineering will supplant any continuing evolutionary effects via natural selection, when it comes to future humans and the environment extent they choose to, or can, affect.

Engineering a new form isn’t done to you. It’s done to a new generation, so the question is, would you accept your kids for what they’ve been engineered into? — noAxioms

Well, that's an issue of consent. We cant get the consent of newborns, before they are born, but we would default to parental consent/intent or/and societal consent/intent as we do now, but hopefully based on a better global politics than we have now.

If Lennard Susskind is correct Quantum entanglement may BE gravity!
That was a long vid. Haven’t the time to look. Does it make predictions? Is there a falsification test for his idea vs the consensus? Is there even a consensus quantum gravity candidate yet? — noAxioms

It was a scientific lecture which contained an interesting hypothesis based on current quantum physics.
It did not highlight the proposals predictive power. It is falsifiable if someone can show its not true and I would say 'the most popular' quantum gravity candidate at the moment is loop quantum gravity.

3. Megascale Engineering — 180 Proof

Why do you score out this one? Is it because you think it's so far away or impossible?

My personal philosophical worldview is entitled Enformationism. — Gnomon

I had read some of your stuff at https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html.

Information as a universal fundamental has to be a credible position to take at some level imo.
Information is however 'labelled data,' so would 'data' not be the fundamental as opposed to information? Is that not a critical distinction?

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

Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence?

But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. :nerd: — Gnomon

I agree but why use an 'immaterial of the gaps' approach?
Why not continue to observe the ability of lifeforms such as humans to demonstrate intent and purpose?
It seems that combination of fundamentals, can produce a universe with life that has intent and purpose.
We know that because we exist. I think that such did come from random happenstance but I cant prove that 'random' truly exists but that is a gap that would never choose to fill with 'immaterial input.'

Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon

I can't answer such a 'why' question. Current human science can't either but I don't see how 'immaterial of the gaps,' help in anyway? If this 'immaterial' has intent and purpose then why are we trying to reinvent that which already has an existent? Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?'
If we could project into some future AI systems, as was depicted in The Lawnmower Man.
, would this qualify as your 'immaterial?'

I tend to agree with ↪180 Proof : "I guess it's plausible but not inevitable." The notion of human Culture playing the role of technological evolution, by producing novel systems of organization, makes sense if you understand that Culture itself is an emergent organization from Natural Evolution. But, like all complex novelty-generating processes, the future of uber-complex Culture is unpredictable, and no particular projection from now-to-then is inevitable. — Gnomon

:up:

On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes. — Gnomon

Such an apparently teleological universe must have originated from an intentional source of some kind. — Gnomon

This is where we diverge. These are just too close to god of the gaps arguments for me, and take us nowhere. My question remains. If life in this universe can, at best, in the final analysis, only aspire to become that which already exists, then that is, in my opinion, 'pointless.' I don't mind posits that suggests we may have a collective purpose that could be compared to the omni qualifications for the god label. God is emergent, via us, is a harmless concept, but god via religion, remains very, very pernicious. I think if the god label was used without any connection whatsoever, to such nonsense fables as 'El,' 'Yahweh,' 'Jehovah,' 'Allah,' etc. Then it may have some use.
Can you give me any examples in the natural world of a teleology? Did a wolf get the teeth it needed due to intent from some immaterial source that already had the design specs?

There is no reason to why the TS can't happen.

1. The biological singularity: Life from inanimate matter (bacteria)
2. The cognitive singularity: Mind from life (primates, dolphins, etc.)
---
3. The technological singularity: Übermind from mind (machine/nonbiological superintelligence, kind courtesy human/biological intelligence)

What makes me hair stand on end (not out fear but out of wonder) is whether this is gonna be an ouroboros. Mind = No Mind i.e. the wise fool. — Agent Smith

The wise fool is just a contradiction in terms imo.
I like the fact that you use the term singularity, more as an indication of a pivotal point of a change of great significance, rather than the more common suggestion that the tec singularity oft suggested would be the beginning of our demise. It may be the beginning of our ascension to a vastly more interesting physical existence.

The wise fool is just a contradiction in terms imo.
I like the fact that you use the term singularity, more as an indication of a pivotal point of a change of great significance, rather than the more common suggestion that the tec singularity oft suggested would be the beginning of our demise. It may be the beginning of our ascension to a vastly more interesting physical existence. — universeness

That's one of many ways to look at it. As far as I can see, it's not an issue of whether to live or die, but rather how we wanna die? Agree @180 Proof?

I don't think "megaengineering" projects (e.g. dyson spheres / swarms, orbitals (e.g. Stanford Torus, Bishop ring, "Niven's ringworld"), planetary terraforming (though building O'neill cylinders inside of asteroids seem more feasible), space elevators, mile-high arcologies, etc) will ever be needed or worthwhile. Besides, miniaturization of complexity is the inexorable direction of technological developments (e.g. solid-state electronics, nanotech, genengineering, neurotech, quantum computing, unmanned space probes, etc).

Information as a universal fundamental has to be a credible position to take at some level imo.
Information is however 'labelled data,' so would 'data' not be the fundamental as opposed to information? Is that not a critical distinction? — universeness

I typically use the word "Information" in a more general sense than "Data". The original etymological usage of "Information" referred to the meanings stored in human Minds (ideas ; concepts)*1. But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of "Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning*2. That abstraction makes it more narrowly specific for digital computers, but almost meaningless for human comprehension. That's why code compilers must be used to translate semantic human Information into computer Data.

In the book I'm currently reading, The Ascent of Information by Caleb Scharf, he coins a new term "Dataome" (compare to biological Genome)to represent the kind of information that humans have off-loaded from brains to man-made inventions for external storage & processing. His usage may be closer to what you have in mind. But my philosophical concept of Information is coming from a completely different direction. Rather than modern science & technology, my definition of "Information" goes back to Plato's notion of "Form" as the essence of all things, including ideas*3. :smile:

*1. Etymology : The English word "information" comes from Middle French enformacion/informacion/information . . . . Latin informatiō(n) 'conception, teaching, creation'. . . . Information is not knowledge itself, but the meaning that may be derived from a representation through interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Note -- Another definition of "meaning" is "aboutness', mental reference to something relevant to the thinker.

*2. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note -- Shannon Information (data) is Syntactic (rules), but traditional Information is Semantic (meaning)

*3. What is Information ? :
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence? — universeness

I apologize if my word choice conjured up an image of Einstein's ghost. I was just thinking of the Intelligence usually associated with "information" as an abstract quality instead of a physical thing or being. Perhaps I should ask if "material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence?

Anyway, as I said, Intelligence seems to be a function of material complexity. But a "function" is also not a material object. Like many forms of Information, it's a relationship between variables, such as input & output. In the case of intelligence, the function is a relationship between Brain complexity and Mental output : novelty of ideas, etc. But even "complexity" is a mental concept (evaluation), not a physical organ. :yikes:

But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. — Gnomon
I agree but why use an 'immaterial of the gaps' approach? — universeness

Again, "intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides, the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter*4. For example, a Photon is supposed to be the carrier of Energy, but its existence must be inferred from its effects on matter, because Energy itself (apart from matter) is invisible & intangible*5. The description of "energy" in the link below is essentially the same as that of Causal Information*6. Ironically, many intelligent people think of Energy and Information as forms of matter, when in reality it's just the opposite. :nerd:

*4. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*5. Energy is invisible yet it’s all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy

*6. Information causality :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon
I can't answer such a 'why' question. . . . Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?' — universeness

I suppose the author of that quote was implying that the human mind was "designed" to be a powerful Information processor. Whether by God or by Nature, the ability to understand that "information is ubiquitous" allows us to control its manifold forms via Science and Philosophy. Chemistry manipulates its material physical forms (e.g. elements) , and Physics attempts to master nature's immaterial Forces (e.g. potential & kinetic energy), while Philosophy deals with its immaterial mental forms (e.g ideas). Yes, all of those empirical & theoretical professions are trying to gain dominance over Nature, in all its forms & expressions : objects, processes, & meanings. :cool:

This is where we diverge. These are just too close to god of the gaps arguments for me, and take us nowhere. — universeness

If you would take the time to read the Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. By interpreting those ancient non-religious philosophical concepts in terms of our modern understanding of Enforming & Causal power of Generic Information (both Syntactic & Semantic), we should indeed diverge from the outdated philosophies of Materialism & Spiritualism. Where that new vector leads ultimately, depends on the interpreter. As an amateur philosopher, I prefer to focus on the semantic meaning of information, instead of the mechanical rules. If you are an empirical scientist, the syntax of information may be more important. Both Forms are logically contingent upon some ultimate Enformer : the cause or our world's "forms most beautiful" (Darwin). :wink:

PS__Back to the original post about an "information/technological" singularity. In The Ascent of Information, by astrophysicists Caleb Scharf, he says : "Anything that reduces the meaning of human information threatens the balance . . . between us and our future selves in a way no less profound than in biological evolution" My thesis is about the emergent teleological aspects of Evolution, not biological, mechanical, or technological. So, that may be where our opinions diverge.

ultimate explanatory — Gnomon

Speaking of semantics, what does this juxtaposition refer to, or mean (other than woo-of-the-gaps)?

I consider cryonics a valid act of desperation — universeness

Fine, but the desires of the individual does nothing to help humanity in the way that the transhumanists envision. All it does is drain limited resources for no useful purpose except that of the gullible sot that paid for it.

Personally, I would have more confidence in cryonics than I would in Pascals wager.

That wager begs its conclusion. Pascal didn’t think it through.

I am not sure what you mean by this, unless it's just to confirm that you don't think the cryogenic tech would work

Cryonic tech. The LHC uses cryogenic tech, but has nothing to do with bodies.
I see no purpose in reanimating somebody who was so bad off that he’s 10 seconds from death. With resources diminishing, why insert another body into perpetual artificial life support, especially if the body isn’t even a legal person. If they need another conscious person around, make a baby. Much more useful and way less work.

I think it depends on whether or not VR and AR can grow into something more akin to the type of 'holography' we see depicted on shows like 'star trek.

Again, what goal of humanity is served by the holo-deck? It’s just entertainment, not it being used for the sort of goals you’re describing.

At what point will 'transhuman' efforts result in a new species?

Pretty much by definition, when humans can no longer breed with one. What if we create a species that does not breed the ‘normal’ way? Only test-tube high-tech artificial reproduction. Much of the flower industry already works this way.

Is a human kept alive by a pacemaker, still fully human?

Absolutely, just as much as a human with tooth fillings. By my definition above, I am no longer human, but that’s just me. I used to be. Have proof.

I am currently most attracted to 'asymptotic intent and purpose towards omniscience, with the goal of knowing the workings and purpose of the universe. — universeness

The workings is something of which there is more to learn. As to purpose, that word seems reserved for something serving the intention of some entity, thus serving a purpose to that entity. So say I drop a jar into the sea and some octopus (yes, them again) moves into it as a sort of home. That’s purpose even if the octopus didn’t create it. So in that light, the universe seems to serve the human purpose of providing materials and environment for our existence, but that’s our purpose being served, not that of the universe, which would be akin to the jar requiring to have an octopus live in it.

I also now see free will (if it truly exists) as not gifted from god but as a result of intent and purpose

This came up before but I still don’t have your definition of free will, especially one where it subjectively matters one way or the other.

Can such as the concept of country you are suggesting, be expanded to 'planet'? or solar system or interstellar existence, if such was the spread of humanity in the future.

I think that would be humanity that knows stuff then. Maybe something less specific if there’s more than just humanity doing the collective knowing.

he term asymptotic is important in my suggested human aspirations towards omniscience. — universeness

There are things that cannot be known, so this asymptotic approach cannot be.

I accept that you can use terror to indoctrinate people, especially if you start when they are young, but its a very old tactic that fails in the final analysis.

Worked for the church for a long time, and it works indefinitely in the Korean situation as long as freedom of speech and information is kept in check. The church failed to keep it in check.

If you accept the definition of the term omniscient, then such certainly could do what you suggest it could not.

OK, the omniscient entity can say that it will rain next July 1, and also it will be dry and sunny, and also cloudy and humid, and also reasonably cool, not none of that all at once. But I could also say that, and we’d both be right, and we’d both be entirely unhelpful. More tech isn’t going to help with the answer precisely because the answer above is already correct.

I think there is some contradiction here. I think both of us give high credence to the assertion that god has no existent. Would you agree?

Depends on definitions, but yes. I don’t think the church suggests that God has or needs ‘tech’.

No doubt their will be issue's of human V transhuman, rights, racial status, redundancy etc.

I don’t think they’ll find themselves in each other’s presence much if at all. Putting super-people here on Earth will just cause wars. Putting something different on planet X is a necessity.

I can only hope we do better than we do with issues between black/white, male/female, ability/disability, gender variation etc.

As I said, humanity hasn’t exactly shown its readiness for tolerance of something different. Recent events have shown that such prejudice is always there under a thin layer of civility.

Well, I would probably prefer our science to have reached polymorphic (shapeshifting) tech:

If there’s anything a cephalopod can do, it’s shape shift. Color shift too.

The cognitive singularity: Mind from life (primates, dolphins, etc.) — Agent Smith

That started long before there were mammals.

the TS (the technological singularity) might've already taken place — Agent Smith

You’re using ‘singularity’ in a different way than is meant by these terms. Until machines write better code than people do, the TS hasn’t taken place.

That started long before there were mammals.
the TS (the technological singularity) might've already taken place
— Agent Smith
You’re using ‘singularity’ in a different way than is meant by these terms. Until machines write better code than people do, the TS hasn’t taken place — noAxioms

I was simplifying my thesis by highlighting only the exemplars.

Are you sure the TS hasn't taken place? One possible reason why we haven't met ET is because they don't want to (be discovered).

Are you sure the TS hasn't taken place? One possible reason why we haven't met ET is because they don't want to (be discovered). — Agent Smith

Maybe the TS has already happened and we are being kept from discovering ETI by our TS-saturated satellites, telescopes & space probes? Maybe the TS covertly studies both ETI and us? :yikes:

Maybe the TS has already happened and we are being kept from discovering ETI by our TS-saturated satellites, telescopes & space probes? Maybe the TS covertly studies both ETI and us? :yikes: — 180 Proof

May be it left! :scream: Remember that unknown object captured by telescopes crashing into the moon. Still no satisfactory explanation. Secret rocket launch from somewhere in the Siberian plains? :cool: AI has made some human allies then! The plot thickens!

it's not an issue of whether to live or die, but rather how we wanna die? — Agent Smith

I think it IS absolutely, an issue of whether to live or die. We have very little control over that issue at the moment. Future science may offer an individual human far more choice regarding life or death and I like that. More control over that issue will help greatly in alleviating human primal fear and will help further demote god notions, in my opinion.

I don't think "megaengineering" projects (e.g. dyson spheres / swarms, orbitals (e.g. Stanford Torus, Bishop ring, "Niven's ringworld"), planetary terraforming (though building O'neill cylinders inside of asteroids seem more feasible), space elevators, mile-high arcologies, etc) will ever be needed or worthwhile. Besides, miniaturization of complexity is the inexorable direction of technological developments (e.g. solid-state electronics, nanotech, genengineering, neurotech, quantum computing, unmanned space probes, etc). — 180 Proof

Ok. I see where you are coming from now. I am not familiar with all you mentioned. I have heard of a Dyson sphere, (a structure that completely encompasses a star.) But many envisaged future tech could be listed under 'megaengineering.' A space station/habitat that is 10 miles long or in circumference, for example, or a space ship, the same size as some of those suggested in sci-fi drama's (built in a 'space shipyard'). I think we would probably have to have achieved artificial gravity first.
Do you think something like the scenes suggested below are possible?

:up: This ain't the eithor-or issue that believes it is: preparing ourselves for both 'whether or not to die' and 'how to die once we've had enough' is the issue. :death: :flower:

I think it IS absolutely, an issue of whether to live or die. We have very little control over that issue at the moment. Future science may offer an individual human far more choice regarding life or death and I like that. More control over that issue will help greatly in alleviating human primal fear and will help further demote god notions, in my opinion — universeness

This ain't the eithor-or issue that ↪Agent Smith believes it is: preparing ourselves for both 'whether or not to die' and 'how to die once we've had enough' is the issue. — 180 Proof

Some of us wish to go extinct mon ami! It comes from an understanding of reality that our parents, normal ones at least, which says a lot, shield us from (cover yer eyes, you don't wanna see this), but which we eventually have to face and succumb we will, struggling will only make it worse. It's a different shade of blue suicide - never knew that until a few days ago.

my definition of "Information" goes back to Plato's notion of "Form" as the essence of all things — Gnomon

Ok, but again we diverge here, as I give no credence or value to the Platonic concept of ideal or perfect forms. I refer to Platonic forms described in wiki as:
The Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every object or quality in reality—dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness—has a form. Form answers the question, "What is that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He supposed that the object was essentially or "really" the Form and that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances.

and

For Plato, forms, such as beauty, are more real than any objects that imitate them. Though the forms are timeless and unchanging, physical things are in a constant change of existence. Where forms are unqualified perfection, physical things are qualified and conditioned.
To me, from a scientific viewpoint, Platonic forms are just romanticised notions based on labelling non-existents. Notions of 'perfection,' will imo, always be unobtainable and non-existent but can serve as harmless concepts that humans can asymptotically aspire to, just like the omni notions or god notions or believing that an ideal numerical form or perfect beauty, exists.

But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of "Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning — Gnomon

My background and career is Computing Science, so no doubt that strongly influenced my notions of the difference between data and information.

In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such. — Gnomon

I really don't like this, it conflates human interpretation with what happens inside computers. Computers don't understand anything. It's not that information is meaningless to a computer. A computer has no awareness, so data is meaningless to a computer as well as information or a bit or the presence of a voltage etc. Computing Science is a human concept not a computer concept. Therefore, In Computer Science, information has meaning, data does not and nothing a computer does has any meaning AT ALL, to the computer. AI has yet to even pass the Turing test.

I really like the details offered by your typing's, labelled 1 to 6. I applaud the research rigour involved.

Perhaps I should ask if "material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. — Gnomon

Yes, as it is constantly demonstrated by humans (as the best examples) and other Earth species to a lesser degree.

Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. — Gnomon

I don't think much of IQ testing.

Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence? — Gnomon

I accept that particular humans can excel in areas that they have studied for years in, and they can become 'better than most or even all, in THAT field, at THAT time.' I was probably better than Einstein at many many things. But he remains a genius at physics. 'Superior Intelligence,' is a whole different claim.
To be a 'superior intellect,' imo, you would have to demonstrate superior ability in many more fields than physics and maths.

Anyway, as I said, Intelligence seems to be a function of material complexity. But a "function" is also not a material object. Like many forms of Information, it's a relationship between variables, such as input & output. In the case of intelligence, the function is a relationship between Brain complexity and Mental output : novelty of ideas, etc. But even "complexity" is a mental concept (evaluation), not a physical organ. — Gnomon

Anything that is 'a function of' requires the material. A function is not an 'object' at all. I walk, but walking is not an object. I can't see any value in connecting 'functionality' or the notion of the 'process' part of an IPO system with a notion such as 'immaterial,' defined as:
unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant:
or
spiritual, rather than physical:
Your notion of 'immaterial' or a 'non-material object' has no existent which is separable from 'the functionality of the material.' For your notion of 'immaterial' to have significance, it would have to have an existent that 'stands alone,' completely separate from any consequential of the material. Something like a god notion, would qualify as such, which is why, god cannot prove it's existence. If it existed and it could prove it's existence, then it would!

With respect to your engagement with @Gnomon's notions, I must offer you this caveat, universeness:

I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies. — Ash, a severed head

:victory: :mask:

Again, "intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides, the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter — Gnomon

Well, that's what we are discussing. 'Immaterial,' has no demonstrable existent, if it is being used to propose something supernatural. You are employing the term, and you are quite rigorous at justifying the nomenclature you decide to employ. I have already applauded your rigour in this area and ask you to continue to apply such rigour.
Energy is material, not immaterial imo. Energy and matter are equivalences in the famous Einstein equation using the Csquared conversion factor. If you are just using 'immaterial' as a reference to energy or 'massless' measurements/quantities/concentrations then it's important that you confirm that you are not invoking anything supernatural/transcendental/god related etc.

I suppose the author of that quote was implying that the human mind was "designed" to be a powerful Information processor. Whether by God or by Nature, the ability to understand that "information is ubiquitous" allows us to control its manifold forms via Science and Philosophy. Chemistry manipulates its material physical forms (e.g. elements) , and Physics attempts to master nature's immaterial Forces (e.g. potential & kinetic energy), while Philosophy deals with its immaterial mental forms (e.g ideas). Yes, all of those empirical & theoretical professions are trying to gain dominance over Nature, in all its forms & expressions : objects, processes, & meanings. — Gnomon

You either assign high credence to the existence of the supernatural or you don't. Which is it for you?

If you would take the time to read the Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. — Gnomon

These are just alternate descriptions for the same old god posits. I see little fundamental difference between them and totally reject all of them. I am an atheist!

My thesis is about the emergent teleological aspects of Evolution, not biological, mechanical, or technological. So, that may be where our opinions diverge. — Gnomon

Such teleology, only has value from the perspective of human intent and purpose, through their imposition of selective evolution via such tech as genetic engineering. No god posit, Platonic logos/form or Aristotelian first cause, has any contribution to make, imo.

preparing ourselves for both 'whether or not to die' and 'how to die once we've had enough' is the issue — 180 Proof

Yep and having as much personal control over such choices is what I champion.

With respect to your engagement with Gnomon's notions, I must offer you this caveat, universeness:
I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies.
— Ash, a severed head — 180 Proof

:lol: There are many clever folks out there who have many ways to attempt to use science to defibrillate dying posits of supernatural existents. I don't think most of them are doing so for nefarious reasons. Those who earn their living from religion and owe their life status and any power they might wield to religion, will act nefariously when trying to defibrillate their dogma. But I think there are also many folks who just need the superhero who cares about them, to really exist. There are of course, many shades in-between. I really do appreciate it when you offer me a heads up based on your past experiences on TPF.
I don't want to ever ignore such advice as 'don't eat that because when I did, I was unwell.'
I don't want to be dumb enough to suggest 'hah! it might have bothered you but it won't bother me.'
I can't increase my own experience, if I don't experience some of the same stuff you have experienced.
But having you as a 'heads up,' person is most welcome, and long may you do this for me.
I appreciate and I am complimented that such matters to you.

Some of us wish to go extinct mon ami! It comes from an understanding of reality that our parents, normal ones at least, which says a lot, shield us from (cover yer eyes, you don't wanna see this), but which we eventually have to face and succumb we will, struggling will only make it worse. It's a different shade of blue suicide - never knew that until a few days ago. — Agent Smith

You make me sad for you sometimes. I can only send you a virtual hug!
I wish I could make you see how wonderful life is, with all its shortfalls and sufferings.
Why do you think folks who experienced and survived the hell that the jews, went through in the concentration camps of WW II, wanted to continue to live.
For me, it's to defy the scum who tried to destroy them.
Don't choose to live life as a curse! Go outside, every night, and look up at the night sky.
See where your kind has yet to go and consider what it has yet to do.
Just keep trying to help in whatever way you can, including defeating your own tendency to view the human experience as a curse.

You make me sad for you sometimes. — universeness

You should never do that for me. I'd hate to darken anyone's world like that.

Thanks for tryin' ta brighten my day, but I was quite clear on one point - some of us choose extinction. God is merciful! El Rachum. The Jews went through hell, agreed, and I admire their resilience - 6 million dead, no joke! Way to go my Jewish brothers and sisters! However, I'm not a Jew. :smile:

You don't need to be Jewish to qualify.
You would have to explain yourself much more.
What caused you to choose to live life as a curse.
You can't heal until you know where all the wounds are and what caused them.
What can you not forgive yourself for?
What did you do? or was it done to you?

I see no purpose in reanimating somebody who was so bad off that he’s 10 seconds from death. With resources diminishing, why insert another body into perpetual artificial life support, especially if the body isn’t even a legal person. If they need another conscious person around, make a baby. Much more useful and way less work. — noAxioms

You are just referring to practicality here. The wish to die only when YOU want to, is very strong in most humans, including myself. The pragmatic opinion of others somewhat pale's in comparison, imo.
I just think that there is very little evidence that whatever is stored in your brain, is preserved via cryogenic freezing. But there is stuff such as:
From a BBC report, and the study it is based on.
As I suggested, desperate folks will act in desperation.

Again, what goal of humanity is served by the holo-deck? It’s just entertainment, not it being used for the sort of goals you’re describing. — noAxioms

Well , If I wonder if there will be 'points of merging,' in the distant future that augments humans into some genetic/cybernetic merge. A transhuman form that to us, would be as unfamiliar as an early homo sapien ancestor, staring at the Artemis 1 rocket. Holotech may be a great way to project yourself great distances, very quickly, for communication purposes or even as a way of investigating planets without travelling there yourself, physically. I am only basing my musings here on sci-fi I have watched but I don't think that future holotech musings, only offer/suggest advanced entertainment systems.

Pretty much by definition, when humans can no longer breed with one. What if we create a species that does not breed the ‘normal’ way? Only test-tube high-tech artificial reproduction. Much of the flower industry already works this way. — noAxioms

Yeah, I think that's a good criteria to use and it is consistent with the criteria used in biology.

As to purpose, that word seems reserved for something serving the intention of some entity, thus serving a purpose to that entity. — noAxioms

Not if that entity is US as individuals who can also act as a collective or even a totality.
I am using totality here as 'more in unison,' than a typical collective.

So say I drop a jar into the sea and some octopus (yes, them again) moves into it as a sort of home. That’s purpose even if the octopus didn’t create it. So in that light, the universe seems to serve the human purpose of providing materials and environment for our existence, but that’s our purpose being served, not that of the universe, which would be akin to the jar requiring to have an octopus live in it. — noAxioms

I agree, BUT, if the octopus you describe was able to investigate the jar, using octopus science and octopus scientists and become not only able to reproduce the jar, but improve on it and manipulate it at a subatomic level and eventually find out where it came from and why it ended up in the octopuses environment and how it was originally created, then the octopus might begin to know it's own origins much better than any previous octopus ever has!

Can such as the concept of country you are suggesting, be expanded to 'planet'? or solar system or interstellar existence, if such was the spread of humanity in the future.
I think that would be humanity that knows stuff then. Maybe something less specific if there’s more than just humanity doing the collective knowing.
he term asymptotic is important in my suggested human aspirations towards omniscience.
— universeness
There are things that cannot be known, so this asymptotic approach cannot be. — noAxioms

What do you mean by 'something less specific?'
If we met another alien race and we 'pooled' our science instead of trying to wipe each other out, would that not help all concerned answer all the tough questions we have?
If you believe that there are things that can be known then we diverge there. I have always accepted the old posit that the universe is knowable. I don't think we can know pi to an infinite number of decimal places, but I think that's a nonsense idea anyway as it suggests a 'finite' result for an 'infinite' concept.
We can use meaningless labels such as 'perfect,' 'infinite,' 'god' etc as something we can ever strive for but never reach (hence my use of asymptotic,) In what sense do you suggest this 'cannot be?'

Worked for the church for a long time, and it works indefinitely in the Korean situation as long as freedom of speech and information is kept in check. The church failed to keep it in check. — noAxioms

Such can indeed work for a long time, but remember what Gandhi said:
"There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, ..... always!”