You seem reluctant to find empathy for desperate people who do desperate things and understand why cryonics has it's adherents. I think it probably is a forlorn hope, just like theism, but I don't utterly condemn desperate people hoping against hope. Like the ancient Egyptians, bothering to embalm dead people.The context of the ‘granting wishes’ phrase is the Cryonic one, not extending a normal life for a human. And in either case, one will be forced to come to terms with one’s own death. — noAxioms
Well I see plenty for the individual of course, but I thought the subject of this topic wasn’t the individual. We’d have to eliminate aging, meaning that we’d stay young and fit for a long time. Last thing we need is 80% of the population in some kind of retired state. If we do that, we have to do it to everybody, and that’s kind of a problem with a large population. This would be a disadvantage for the species. There’s a reason evolution invented aging. — noAxioms
I was able to link to the article on first click. It seemed quite desperate to repeat the 'there is no planet B' mantra, but I did not find it's offerings of why 'it's too hard or impossible,' for any future human attempts to become extraterrestial to succeed, off putting. All human pioneers live rough for a while. Perhaps in space exploration and development, it will be a long, long while before we are able to create the kind of lovely habitats we have on Earth, in space habitats, or on habitats on other planets, moons etc. BUT WE WILL, despite your big fearty, doomster type, exemplars, of what we cant do and why we cant do it.The extraterrestrial habitats are jails at best. If you want to put people in a box, it’s easier to do it here. If you want people to actually live on another world, they need to be evolved for that world. They cannot be human. There’s no planet B. — noAxioms
I say so, in the same way natural selection evidence suggests that reproduction, is a survival of species imperative. If there are more of us existing in many extraterrestial places, then we are less dependent on the Earths continued existence for survival. Seems like common sense to me.then we can afford a population much bigger than the current 8 billion on Earth.
You say that like it’s some kind of benefit that a bigger number is better. — noAxioms
Not more intelligent but more knowledgeable and if this is accompanied with what you yourself suggest is true, 'a little more wise maybe,' or perhaps for many, 'a lot more wise,' then I think we will progress faster and in more benevolent directions. A higher level of general intellect is not a reinvention as it would be an advance. It's not 'more intelligence' as you are employing the term, it's either folks who don't demonstrate much intelligence, learning how to demonstrate 'more intelligence' or it's intelligent people gaining a higher level of intelligence via more knowledge via having more time to study! Nothing is being 'reinvented,' in either situation.Longer life doesn’t make one smarter. A little more wise maybe, but not more intelligent. You can breed for intelligence if you like (something that is currently being naturally de-selected), but again, by your analogy of re-inventing the wheel, why do we need more intelligence when the tool already exists? — noAxioms
If there is some kind of purpose served by maxing out the number of humans that exist, trimming the population permanently down to around 6% of what is is today would be a great start. Less existing at once, but far more in the longer run. — noAxioms
I think it's likely that 'all of the above' style attempts will be made before we find out which methods of space exploration and development are the most successful based on whatever tech levels we have achieved at the time.Or better, to help the tech become that interstellar species. If you want humanity to make its mark on the universe, that is how to go about it. — noAxioms
Yea, what are humans good for if we can’t change the laws of physics? So put that on your list and jettison the VR thing which is just a fancy telephone. — noAxioms
Either you’re misreading his words, or he’s a quack. If his assertions actually said that and had merit, it would be huge news in the physics world. All of Einstein’s theories would get falsified and we’d have to reinvent a new theory to replace it. Time travel would become possible since I could observe something that hasn’t yet happened.
Sorry for all that, but perhaps a quote that leads you to this conclusion would help. It was a long vid to attempt to hunt down something I don’t think he said. If I had a quote, I could help interpret it since I’m not a total noob at this. I spend more time on the physics forums, and am a moderator at one of them. — noAxioms
That’s like you and me picking a random number from one to 10 million, and both of us guessing the same one. Odds are they’re either as developed as lichen, or we are the lichen in comparison to them. Neither might recognize the other as life, or at least not as something one might attempt to communicate with. Do we share our technology with the squirrels? The squirrels have picked a number insanely close to ours, but not the same number. — noAxioms
See? Time to first change who we are before we spread out and just make enemies of our colonies. Most every attack is justified as defense to its own people. Ever read up on what the Russians are telling its citizens about the Ukraine thing? Remember Bush and Iraq’s WMDs? “We’re doing this for defense”, not just to get back at somebody who insulted his daddy. — noAxioms
No right answer to know, surely suggests an invalid or currently unanswerable question or a question that can only be answered via unscientific conjecture, but so what? That's been true from the beginning, and is the basis of all theism and theosophism. It's also why, I type that there is no omniscient existent and there never has been or will be. I don't mind the 'fantasist,' I can wear that hat comfortably for fun, just like anyone else, but unlike the theist. I will try my best to make clear the evidence available (or lack of) for any posit I make.If physics is perfectly deterministic and unitary, then yes, the omnipotent entity would know exactly that. But physics might not be all those things, in which case there’s no right answer to know. — noAxioms
You are trying to contemplate an omniscient god with your feeble human intellect.
How so? A thing that knows all answers vs a question that literally has no right answer. Even a feeble intellect can detect something wrong with that. — noAxioms
An omniscient has all possible tech or else it is not omniscient.
Omnigod does not need a barometer, as it already owns all data/information in the universe, past, present and future.
The two above statements seem to contradict each other. You apparently suggest that a god has a closet full of completely unneeded stuff. He’s a hoarder, unable to keep the place neat.
All possible tech already exists as part of omnigod
So it doesn’t have a useless barometer in it’s closet, but rather has a useless barometer as part of itself, sort of like having eyes despite never using them. A human apparently strives to achieve a state where eyes and other senses are useless. — noAxioms
Well, the exchange between us here seems to consolidate around what credence level either of us assigns to the existence of and value of any references to the supernatural.
— universeness
I appreciate your willingness to engage in philosophical dialog, even though my posts may express a worldview that at first glance appears to violate your personal belief system. — Gnomon
Your proposed "fundamental" particles may be appropriate for a scientist in a lab to use as a guide. But I'm not a scientist, and my lab is my mind*1. So, the "fundamental" element of Information is Difference*2*3. You are talking in terms of Physics (e.g. Matter ; Particles ; Objective), while I'm talking about Meta-physics (e.g. Mind ; Meaning ; Subjective). :smile:what is your enformation fundamental? — universeness
:yum: Cheers.my Saturday night beer and single malt whisky — universeness
:sweat: :lol: :rofl:Instead of divine Creation, they may call it "instant Inflation". In place of animated Spirits, they call it Energy. Same thing, different terminology. — Gnomon
(link to post that loads slowly)postscript:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746676 Yeah, it's déjà vu all over again. :smirk: — 180 Proof
The yardstick should be chosen to suit the object to be measured. If we are discussing the evolution of physical/material stuff of the Earth, a physical instrument would be appropriate. But the topic of this thread -- 'information/technological singularity" -- is about Cultural/Technical evolution. So the proper way to measure such a not-yet-real future state of human ingenuity would be to apply the philosophical tool of Reason, which seems to be directly related to Intelligence, n'est-ce pas?Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? — Agent Smith
Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives. On the other hand, plenty of lives are lost to theism, so go figure.I think [Cryonics] probably is a forlorn hope, just like theism — universeness
No doubt. A group of people split into life-expectancies of 70 and 200 won’t cause any trouble at all.The global population is made up of individuals! Anything that happens to an individual has the potential to affect everyone.
Nice summary, thanks. I have suggested that what is emergent in humans will not be human. To resist this is to waste our potential.The subject of this topic is what is 'emergent' in humans. I am interested in what is ultimately emergent in all humans, yes, or future humanity as it might manifest collectively or as a totality
I say that too, but I also say it’s a lot easier to fit the creature to the environment than the other way around. Be its friend instead of making yourself its enemy.I say, 'YES WE CAN and YES WE WILL!!!'
But not out-of-control reproduction. When I moved to this new place, there was a frog plague going on. Frogs everywhere. What good did it do them? Some months later they were all gone, populations back to (or even somewhat beneath) normal levels and it was easier to stop at the intersections again.I say that in the same way natural selection evidence suggests that reproduction, is a survival of a species imperative. — universeness
Ah, so it’s humanity’s survival that’s the goal, not the taking-over of the galaxy. That might be better served with the 95% population reduction and learning to get along with each other. If we can get through the collapse without extinction, it may actually sustain itself going forward. Hence my vision of the world in 1000 years in some prior post. Imagine a world with people but almost no metal.If there are more of us existing in many extraterrestial places, the we are less dependent on the Earths' continued existence for survival. Seems like common sense to me.
Got suggestions? I’m actually quite interested in ideas for a stable government system that doesn’t depend on the whole system of the poor being slaves to the rich. I don’t much know what I’m talking about here, so my views might be quite naive.when we have such vile economic systems as capitalism and vile political systems such as autocracy or plutocracy as our mainstream operating system for 'how humans are allowed to live.'
Studying doesn’t increase intelligence. But agree with the rest.It's not 'more intelligence' as it's either folks who don't demonstrate much intelligence, learning how to demonstrate more intelligence or it's intelligent people gaining a higher level of intelligence via more time to study!
First of all, the theists have a lot to do with encouraging overpopulation. The Catholics consider it a sin to not breed like bunnies. Their moral code forbids the very steps that would save humanity, perhaps as a way to eventually force God’s hand, like he’s got to step in before the crash. As for the rapture, I think most of its adherents would suggests a figure like 1-2% disappearing, not 94%.lol: Yeah, there are many autocrats/plutocrats/totalitarians/theists who believe in BS like the rapture, etc, etc who would support your trimming of the population down to 6%.
Not while the pope lives...I think it's more important to create equitable social/economic/political ways to live
Sorry, but no. If we’re not putting back what we dig out of the ground, then it is mathematically unsustainable. Playing nice with each other (sharing all the world – Lennon) is probably the worst strategy because everybody dies simultaneously, or you didn’t do it right.This planet COULD sustain 8 billion of us
How to do an interstellar colony: Build a smart ship that can do everything. Bring DNA with you. Take 100000 years to get somewhere, perhaps refueling if it doesn’t seem workable at close inspection. If it passes, introduce simple life, and then direct it just like at the teleological theorist posit. In perhaps less time than it took to get there, you have your life on the new place. Some of them might even be intelligent, especially if the advances are being directed. Un-natural selection. Point is, it’s a lot cheaper by many orders of magnitude than ferrying a small number of colonists from Earth and then telling them the won’t be a hospitable environment for them yet, or maybe ever except in this little box it made for them, which they’re used to since being stuck on a ship is all they know.I think it's likely that 'all of the above' style attempts will be made before we find out which methods of space exploration and development are the most successful based on whatever tech levels we have achieved at the time.
Classical physics is a function of the more fundamental quantum physics. They’re not separate branches of some yet to be discovered encompassing thing. QM encompasses classical physics just like relativity encompasses Newtonian mechanics.We can't change the laws of physics but we can learn more physics and start to know, as you do, that there are different laws of physics for the macro and the sub atomic. Classical physics laws and quantum physics laws, and the search for the physics that encompassed them both, is still for the seekers.
No argument except that it has little to do with the topic. Yea, we have an information device that’s always with us. Nobody say how that would revolutionize everything, including revolutionizing the whole concept of truth.I certainly would not be so short sighted as to jettison, in anyway, shape of form the very exciting and wonderful areas of VR, AR and holotech. A current mobile smartphone would not even deserve the dismissive term 'fancy telephone,' as it is obviously a palmtop/handheld computer and the connection to the technology called 'phone,' should have been dropped years ago.
Well there you go. Had you spelled it right, I would have accepted his reported assertions.Firstly, it seems I have the spelling of his first name wrong and its Leonard Susskind. — universeness
So I suspect, so I’m actually going with you not actually interpreting his comments the way they were meant.He is certainly no quack and is held in very high regard indeed, within the Physics community.
CFT is Penrose’s thing, no? No wait, that’s conformal cyclic cosmology.=1. Ads/cft (anti-de sitter / conformal field theory)
Gravity is the hydrodynamics of entanglement.
This is done today, but it’s not anything faster than light. Points 2 and 3 seem to just be suggested areas of exploration.4. Messages can be securely transmitted from the vicinity of one object to the vicinity of the other, without leaving any trace in the laboratory space between. Teleportation through the wormhole, 'so to speak.' This is not possible classically.
OK, that’s the part I balk at. Got a time stamp where he goes into that? Sorry, but an hour is a lot to me right now.He then goes on to exemplify 4, in a 'simple quantum teleportability' thought experiment, using an Alice and Bob type scenario involving qbits. As this developed, and due to stuff he states later on in the lecture, I began to think that, he was suggesting that superluminal communication, may not be impossible.
Not buying it. Utterly improbable odds.Spacefarers could meet, who have similar tech levels. — universeness
Star wars happen between two worlds both populated by us. That puts us both more or less at the same tech level. Another reason not to branch out to new worlds until you breed a less war-like creature to populate it.Carl Sagan stated often that in that case, there would be no Star Wars, as there would be no competition.
We’ve been technological for perhaps 3 centuries out of 1.5e8 centuries, so the odds are something on the order of a 1 in 7-8 digit number. Maybe 1 in 5-6 digits to find something to which you can communicate.What are the chances?
Depending on your assumptions, the chances of that one is 1. The long-odds thing was meeting one at an equivalent level of development. It wouldn’t be clear who would win in a conflict.Probably something similar to the chances of any sentient life forming anywhere in the universe.
I did at the time. Only in hindsight was it made clear, and then only because the news is supposedly free. What will the Russians tell their people if they have to withdraw, or if they annex this country that did nothing to them? There’s a lot more media control there, but the people can still read news from other countries. I’m from the USA and find one of the best ways to get actual news is to consult something foreign like the BBC. Every supposedly legitimate domestic news source seems to attempt to spin each story one way or the other.But we know not to accept such justifications
It’s getting far worse actually, mostly due to how people get their news today, which is by popularity picks by google or facebook or something. They push the stories that gather more clicks and not the ones that actually tell it like it is. Really, the social media thing has done more damage to general knowledge than anything I know. It isn’t just natural selection that’s making us dumber.Hopefully more and more of we will get better and better at not accepting fake news in the future.
First of all, conjecture isn’t an answer, it’s just a guess. If there’s no answer to know, then the omni thing must simply say that: I can’t say what the weather will be 6 months hence, despite my omnipotence. That’s the truth, it’s right, and the people asking are simply wrong to assume that there must be (however unknowable by science) exactly one answer that’s actually correct. It isn’t a requirement of the omniscient entity to know the right answer when there isn’t one.No right answer to know, surely suggests an invalid or currently unanswerable question or a question that can only be answered via unscientific conjecture, but so what?
I try to frame my opinions differently than assertions, but I sometimes come across wrong.If it's just my opinion, then I will say so. You do the same, yes?
Of course not, but besides the point. Is the positing of one even consistent? I don’t see why not. I don’t see a contradiction in the ‘no answer’ answer above.My conclusion is the same as yours, that no omniscient exists.
Didn’t you posit that all people are striving for this known unreachable goal? I didn’t agree with that. Sure, they maybe take steps to swim faster, but never with the goal of being the best really being a factor. Yes, they can aspire to it, but most probably don’t.I have merely further stated that if such terms have any use at all, it is a use of no more value than me being determined to win the 100 meters at the Olympics. I can at best asymptotically aspire to such and by doing so I might improve my fitness level but I will never reach that goal.
Had to look that one up. First I’ve heard it.A flippant steelmanning if you like.
Don’t understand. Why have a measuring device if the measurement is known before the measuring is done?The tech that the posited omnigod has, is manifest as god functionality, yes.
That’s what I’ve been saying that humans are particularly bad at. They focus on ‘my’ future, but little beyond that.I think we should ... focus on who we are as a species and what we want for our future,
Most interesting — Ms. Marple
Consider the following quote from one of the first technoscientists – after von Neumann but before Vinge or Kurzweil – to run through the gedankenexperiment later called (the) Technological Singularity (aka "rapture of nerds"):A question: What exactly do we mean by technological singularity as in überintelligence? — Agent Smith
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make. — I. J. Good, (Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine) Advances in Computers, vol. 6, 1965.
FWIW, I assure you that my BothAnd philosophy is not anti-science or pro-religion. However, it's also not pro-classical-science or anti-religious-philosophy. Instead, it views those contentious belief systems from a novel perspective, that may seem wrong-headed to those on one side or the other of the credence abyss. — Gnomon
Since Enformationism does make philosophical inferences that go beyond the knowable origins of Nature though, you could be forgiven for categorizing those conjectures as "super-natural". Yet quite a few professional scientists have put-on their philosophical hats, and conjectured non-empirical notions (e.g. Multiverse ; Cosmic Inflation) about the time-before-Time, and the pre-Big-Bang nature of Nature. — Gnomon
Einstein had to work within an environment which had to contend with a much stronger theistic power and influence base, than scientists have to tolerate today. Any theistic dalliances Einstein felt compelled to employ in the public domain that existed then, was much less, than those that had to be employed by Copernicus or Galileo or the murdered Giordano Bruno. The influence of theism remains very pernicious but things are a little better now, than they were then.Remember, some of Einstein's colleagues cringed at his poetic references to God, but didn't attack him openly — Gnomon
I don't see what that question has to do with AGI —> ASI ... — 180 Proof
For example, Emergentism is a feature of Holistic worldviews, which to detractors indicates an Anti-reductionism (hence anti-science) Oriental religious belief. But it is also held by several prominent Quantum scientists. Also, Reductionism is an appropriate method for dissecting physical objects, but not very effective for parsing philosophical concepts.
Emergentism :
In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
Emergence :
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. — Gnomon
I use the term "Spiritualism" in a provocative manner, to provide a strong contrast with "Materialism". Both are belief systems & worldviews that hark back to ancient Atomism and Animism.
Today, Quantum theory has pulled the materialistic rug out from under Atomism. And Einstein's equation of intangible Energy with measurable Mass/Matter, has given us a modern way to interpret the invisible causes of Nature. :cool: — Gnomon
I would not suggest that increases in individual intelligence or in the collective/totality of human intelligence, is THE 'yardstick' or the only important variable, when considering what is emergent in the human race, both as individuals and as a collective. Legacy may be as important and perhaps could be considered as having 'stand alone' properties. Our accumulating external knowledge base and our technological breakthroughs may also have stand alone aspects which are separate from human intellect, even though they are outputs of human intellectual efforts. I have witnessed some animals employ human tech for example. Increasing intellectual ability certainly is however, a very significant emergent, in humans. I think most neuroscientists would suggest that the ancients were intellectually, as capable as we are, but they could not unlock the potential of the application of human intellect, coupled with the increasing pace of learning, which is emerging from human scientific effort, demonstrated today.Why is intelligence the yardstick for emergence? — Agent Smith
Your proposed "fundamental" particles may be appropriate for a scientist in a lab to use as a guide. But I'm not a scientist, and my lab is my mind — Gnomon
I think the 'but' above is nonsense. Theists love to conflate scientific terminology with concepts of the divine but most attempts are almost comedic. Inflation is not comparable with notions of a divine creation as no aspect of inflation requires a divine creator. Energy allows work to be done and I am fine if some folks wish to refer to 'movement' or 'work being done,' as animation or spiritual. In the Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote:A. Physical Science has no need for metaphysical gods & spirits. But, scientists use different names for similar concepts. Instead of divine Creation, they may call it "instant Inflation". In place of animated Spirits, they call it Energy. Same thing, different terminology. — Gnomon
B. Since the Big Bang beginning of physical reality sounds like a creation event, some scientists get around that meta-physical implication by noting that the "bang" is not a part of our inflating universe. — Gnomon
It's not metaphysical, as it's not beyond or after that which is physics. The big bang singularity maybe currently, a loosely defined object, but it is physical. Roger's singularity does not inflate, as it does not 'demonstrate' any aspect of 'size' or 'dimensionality.' It occurs after the process of heat death has occurred and the universe has no 'matter' left and all remaining black holes have radiated away, but it does have very large 'extent' but such 'extent' has no meaning at that point and can be called a singularity and time=0 and a new aeon begins.In either case, that outside Cause is Meta-Physical, and only knowable by inference from physical events — Gnomon
Unfortunately, some readers will still tend to read-into those novel terms, their own Spiritualism or Materialism prejudices. "vive la difference!" — Gnomon
my Saturday night beer and single malt whisky
— universeness
:yum: Cheers. — 180 Proof
Not sure what you mean by this? Example?Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives. — noAxioms
Based on a BBC article:Preserving people seconds from death doesn’t seem to play a significant role in that. — noAxioms
I have already stated that I think that 'all of the above will be attempted.' I am hardly therefore 'an enemy' of any idea for how best to develop and explore space.I say, 'YES WE CAN and YES WE WILL!!!'
I say that too, but I also say it’s a lot easier to fit the creature to the environment than the other way around. Be its friend instead of making yourself its enemy. — noAxioms
But not out-of-control reproduction. When I moved to this new place, there was a frog plague going on. Frogs everywhere. What good did it do them? Some months later they were all gone, populations back to (or even somewhat beneath) normal levels and it was easier to stop at the intersections again. — noAxioms
Both goals handshake imo, and I don't approve of the aggressive sounding, 'taking over of the galaxy' imagery you invoke.Ah, so it’s humanity’s survival that’s the goal, not the taking-over of the galaxy. — noAxioms
No metal? Please explain!Imagine a world with people but almost no metal. — noAxioms
Got suggestions? I’m actually quite interested in ideas for a stable government system that doesn’t depend on the whole system of the poor being slaves to the rich. I don’t much know what I’m talking about here, so my views might be quite naive. — noAxioms
Studying doesn’t increase intelligence. But agree with the rest. — noAxioms
. As for the rapture, I think most of its adherents would suggests a figure like 1-2% disappearing, not 94% — noAxioms
We don't need to kill popes. We just need to continue to try to prevent the label 'catholic' and dispel all myths of popery and reveal a pope, as what it truly is, 'A residual, who inherits what's left of the Roman Emperors', who held the same title (since Augustus), as all previous and the current pope, 'Pontif (pontifex) Maximus.'Not while the pope lives... — noAxioms
I know, you label me a doomster, but you seem to have no answer to this simple thing except hope that the magic will continue and fuel from the ground never ends. — noAxioms
Yep, many ways to start a process. We have the already demonstrated human pioneer imperative to work with. I am not too fussed about which methodology proves to be the most practicable. Trial and error is a legitimate scientific approach.How to do an interstellar colony: — noAxioms
Yeah! this is not the best way to instal confidence in why you might accept the scientific assertions of the very learned and well established, Leonard. :scream:Well there you go. Had you spelled it right, I would have accepted his reported assertions. — noAxioms
Not really, as he builds on an Alice, Bob and Tom scenario. The small amount of maths he included was over my head, but the reason I kept musing towards superluminal communication, was his continued reference to the concept of 'transportation through a wormhole' with entangled micro black holes at either end and his statement that he thinks wormholes may well be physical realities.OK, that’s the part I balk at. Got a time stamp where he goes into that? Sorry, but an hour is a lot to me right now. — noAxioms
So suppose we get to the alien world and find the equivalent of killer whales. We have our intelligent ET, but what would we do about it? Hard to talk. They’re not building space ships anytime soon. Are they to be afforded the same moral code as any intelligent species encountered? — noAxioms
The odds being 1, what role should humanity play that we can’t just leave to all those other guys on similar paths? Why does it have to be us? You’re the one positing the big purpose the universe has for us. — noAxioms
Sadly true but it has been ever thus, that the reports are written by the victors not the vanquished.Every supposedly legitimate domestic news source seems to attempt to spin each story one way or the other. — noAxioms
:lol: That's almost technophobic sir!I don’t yet have a mobile phone. It’s coming, but dang, the things are pure evil. — noAxioms
I suggested such as a 'collectivised' or 'totality' of intent and purpose of the human race. At an individual level, folks like me demonstrate such purpose more than others and there are also individuals that demonstrate such purpose much more than I do and perhaps some who also do so but don't cognise their participation.Didn’t you posit that all people are striving for this known unreachable goal? I didn’t agree with that. — noAxioms
Just some terminology that's recently became more and more popular. I have even heard many UK politicians employ the terms strawmanning and steelmanning, recently, during TV interviews or panel debates.A flippant steelmanning if you like.
Had to look that one up. First I’ve heard it. — noAxioms
An omniscient already knows EVERYTHING by definition. Which for me and I think you to, is enough to be sure that no omniscient exists or ever could.Don’t understand. Why have a measuring device if the measurement is known before the measuring is done? — noAxioms
It evolved the sort of omni-thing you speak of. It knows everything, and thus also nothing since it doesn’t need to actually know anything. It doesn’t need eyes to find food because food is always right where it reaches every time. Eyes provide information, and this thing already has it all, so it doesn’t need more. I see similarities with that and what I’m describing based on your descriptions (if that makes any sense). — noAxioms
We can only keep trying to tweak 'the system,' constantly, until it becomes as benevolent as the most humane of us, want it to become.The current system all but destroys any long-term efforts concerning ‘our future’. — noAxioms
Humans think, or do they?, that god is just the best human. — Agent Smith
So, god as a mere projection of human fears and aspirations and not something that has an existent.
If that's what you are suggesting then, I agree. God, the best human would still be a mere fallible, mortal, limited, human who exists only within relative space and time.
No omni abilities whatsoever. — universeness
Something like that. Have you come across via negativa? — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.