It's not always easy to identify when and what particular aspects of a post are jocular. Best to use the 'joke' emoticon if you think it's not totally obvious. — universeness
I do not value any hivemind model, available in the insect world as worth emulation for humans or transhumans. I also do not value any hivemind posited by sci-fi that I am familiar with. — universeness
In recent years, I've seen several videos by Al Khalili on YouTube -- including this one -- and find them very informative (pardon!). I have to leave soon, so I only watched a few minutes of this video. A significant point was noted right away : "invisible information". The general thrust of the video seems to be similar to the book I'm currently reading : The Ascent of Information, by Caleb Scharf. He refers to the ubiquity of Information in the physical, mental, & technological universe as the Dataome (holistic concept similar to Genome)*1.Where do you think your enformation, etc posits, takes us, FROM the current position, as established by Jim Al-Khalili's video above. — universeness
’Many’ is a strong word. There’s plenty that actually stress betterment in this life. Would ‘the’ Christian church actually agree that it is OK to trash the environment since it is disposable? I don’t think many would (‘the’ in scare quotes because nobody speaks for all). You can write off murder with that logic. OK, the guy is dead, but it must be God’s will or it wouldn’t have happened, thus I’m guilty only of implementing God’s will. That sort of thinking comes from the statement you made.Ah, ok, so you are basically agreeing, that the tenents of many religions and consequentially, the majority of it's adherents, consider all Earthly experiences/materials/ecology, disposable. — universeness
Ozone is recovering. It does fix itself due to efforts as simple as reduction.New carbon capture initiatives are an example of actions which are directly targeted at 'undoing, damage already done, as are all efforts to stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so that such as the ozone layer can recover.
How does that work if the water is too warm to keep the coral alive?A great deal of work is also being done to help coral reefs repair.
Do you know what I mean by those words? Can you refute the mathematics/logic instead of just point out more examples of delay?doomster words such as:
It buys time, but actually makes the crash worse.
It does not follow that slowing an advance can eventually stop it, especially when there’s an ever growing number of consumers each ‘doing what they can’. Heck, it isn’t event the individuals that account for the vast majority of resource consumption.Slowing an advance, if continued, can eventually STOP an advance and eventually REVERSE an advance. Each of us must do what we can to help.
I’m not confined to my home. My food doesn’t come from it. So maybe not so much like that.Could be much the same as life in the box you currently call your home. — universeness
No, I was more referencing the closed environment than the religion built around forced population control (still a viable idea).The problem it solves might be how to live in a place with a hostile environment. Of course the hostile environment was a sham in that movie. People could live outside, unlike on some other world.Logan's run just suggested you get killed when you get to a certain age.
…
(your Logan's run suggestion would not even solve that one.)
Other than those reasons, what problem is being solved by it? Why exactly does it need to be ‘us’ doing the exploring instead of something more fit, designed for the task.We want to explore and develop space not exclusively to solve our problem of excess population or the extinction threat we have due to 'having all on us on one planet only.'
Absolutely won’t work. The elected guy will be one that does what the people want, not what they need as a whole. It cannot work that way. This authority must be able to make the tough decisions and will not be able to if he needs to get elected.I want authority that is democratically elected
Agree that such a mechanism is needed, but it’s another thing that seems unworkable. Look at the failed efforts to put checks on Trump’s abuse of power.Authority that is answerable to very strong checks and balances that will instantly kick in, and cause any individual, to be removed from power, quickly and assuredly, if you are guilty of abusing your power and of acting nefariously.
Probably, except for above checks, some sort of watchdog that doesn’t have a say in the decisions. Very hard to give somebody (or an entity) that sort of power than then still be able to keep it in check. Can’t consider unpopular decisions to be justification for unseating the leader. But the decisions need to be judged in the light of their higher purpose.Your imagery of motherhood models of authority are dictatorial one's.
Irrelevant. The authority I speak of simply needs there to be children a long time from now, not necessarily all of them. That’s a different priority, a different sort of love.A mother may love her children or she may not.
Remember about a decade ago when Google’s business model was ‘don’t be evil’. Notice they don’t say that anymore? They found out how very well it pays.I agree that there are very valid security concerns regarding your personal data and exactly who has access to it and could abuse that access. — universeness
What do they do if they find a defect? Is it mandatory to eliminate it? That goes against a lot of personal beliefs, and if you’re that sort of person, what’s the point of the mandatory screening?Screening for genetic defects is, I believe, mandatory in some countries that have the facility. — Agent Smith
Not really following this discussion, but calling these things ‘fundamentals of energy’ makes it sound like energy is made of photons and such and not the other way around.So do you not accept photons, gluons as the fundamentals of energy, measured in elecrton-volts or joules? — universeness
What do they do if they find a defect? Is it mandatory to eliminate it? That goes against a lot of personal beliefs, and if you’re that sort of person, what’s the point of the mandatory screening? — noAxioms
For me there can only be one fundamental: the bit. — punos
A true fundamental would only need one bit to be described and it takes 8 bits to describe a photon for example. So i suspect that it's perhaps a couple levels above absolute fundamentality. — punos
I theorize that autistic people will probably play a significant roll in the adoption and evolution of hive minds. It almost seems to me that autistic people and hiveminds will make a perfect fit. Perhaps the steady increase in the birth rate of autistic children is an evolutionary self-organizing pre-development leading up to the emergence of hiveminds. — punos
A hivemind is the "perfection" of democracy, a completely leaderless complex dynamical system self-regulated from within it's own activity, a situation where everyone's will naturally balances out like nerve cells entrained on a pattern in your own mind. — punos
What response? Clarify .. — 180 Proof
↪Gnomon You can post answers to these several questions either in reply to me directly or in reply to Agent Smith or @universeness and that will be the end of this antagonism between us, no more rejoiners or criticisms from me. — 180 Proof
This is where I think the video falls short and the current scientific orthodoxy on the fundamentality of data is incomplete. But I don't think Gnomon's enformationism takes us anywhere useful, as it is too 'philosophical' and does not qualify as a scientific theory which has empirical evidence and has been peer reviewed. I would pay much more attention to it if it was a theory, instead of just a personal hypothesis. — universeness
:up:Thanks for bringing in this video. It offers plenty of food for the mind. — Alkis Piskas
~25:00
1) What does the box full of air and what the partition dividing the box into two parts (hot and cold) represent in actuality?
2) What does the daemon represent? God? Some Super Mind or Intelligence? — Alkis Piskas
~26:00
1) What does the "gap" or "path" (not sure about the word used) that allows the passage of molecules from one part to another represent in actuality and how does this happen? — Alkis Piskas
~49:00
Re: "Information lies at the heart of the physical world"
This made me think of two things: 1) information and purpose and 2) information and meaning.
We know that both relations apply on a human level. But is there a meaning or purpose of information on the level of the physical world? If yes, what that could be? — Alkis Piskas
Why do you think autism would make a person most suited to a hivemind? — universeness
The alien can access the information stored in the robot boy. The network to other aliens seems to be by touch. I don't see any invocation of a hivemind here, however, It seems to be more like the model I suggested, Autonomous Individuals who can also act as a merged/networked collective. — universeness
I never like the use of 'perfect,' when it comes to describing any system, as I think it's one of those words that invokes a non-existent. — universeness
It is wiser to listen to the wisdom of the crowd and not be so adversarial with our ideas and each other. — punos
I remember reading somewhere not too long ago about the photon needing 8 bits to describe it. I think the search term i used was "how many bits to describe a photon". Regardless, its not 1 bit because light has wave structure like amplitude, frequency, which is at least 2 bits but to describe the full phenomena of light like variable frequencies and amplitude it must be more than just 2 bits. I'll try to find the source, which doesn't seem to be coming up at the top of my google search now. — punos
Autistic people have a tendency to be very highly specialized in their cognitive functions to the point of reduced functionality in other areas, sometimes to a sever degree. They have a condition where brain cells in the prefrontal lobe grow "abnormally" or more than they "should". — punos
I think the better model is the R-complex, the Limbic system and the Cortex. The reason I say this is because I sense the presence of all three. I refer to them with the old idea of me, myself and I.Think about the hivemind that you already are, meaning the two hemispheres of your brain are two distinct consciousnesses. — punos
The main difference really between a hive mind and what you and i are doing right now is simply network 'protocol'. — punos
A significant point was noted right away : "invisible information". The general thrust of the video seems to be similar to the book I'm currently reading : The Ascent of Information, by Caleb Scharf. He refers to the ubiquity of Information in the physical, mental, & technological universe as the Dataome (holistic concept similar to Genome)*1. — Gnomon
*1. In the final chapter of his book, Scharf finally reveals the motivation for his interpretation of the philosophical importance of Information : "The greater mystery is that the universe is actually capable of self-comprehension". — Gnomon
Both Scharf and Al Kalili are scientists, and focus primarily on the practical Technological products (looms & computers) of understanding that abstract Information is more fundamental than concrete Matter, and can be manipulated meta-physically by the human mind. — Gnomon
I want to slam that door shut permanently and move on. — universeness
Yes but my problem is that using bits to represent a photon is still a REPRESENTATION.
Computers exist based on binary representations but the two state representations used in current computers are based on the presence of absence of a voltage > 0 volts and <= 5 volts.
Such representations have little to do with the 'physical realities' of the universe. — universeness
The simulations shown at around time stamp 38 mins are just that, simulations of a real world fluid but such cannot produce a REAL world fluid.
That's the bit I am interested. — universeness
Can identification of a fundamental unit for information open the door to something like star trek style replicators or transporters? — universeness
Later on, in the vid, when Jim starts talking about 'deletion of information' and connecting that to the concept of universal entropy, It that a valid definition of what entropy is? The loss of information? To where? black holes? — universeness
*2. I coined the term EnFormAction to encapsulate the directional (teleonomic) causation of Evolution. The act of enforming creates novelty out of directionless randomness. For example, that's what happens when Quantum superposition (disorganized randomness) suddenly "collapses" into an organized physical particle of matter. — Gnomon
I'm not sure if Jim would agree, but I also view Information as "immaterial" in its invisible mental forms of Concepts, Ideas, Feelings, etc. — Gnomon
I have to go. But if you have specific questions, raised by the video, I'll be glad to respond as I get time. — Gnomon
They have no choice, if they are being true to Christian doctrine. I agree that the Christian hierarchy would be too scared to do so, in News at 10, or such like, but that's what their doctrine dictates.Would ‘the’ Christian church actually agree that it is OK to trash the environment since it is disposable? I don’t think many would (‘the’ in scare quotes because nobody speaks for all) — noAxioms
:grin: God spends half it's time in the OT, smiting people (one poor guy for dropping a corner of his ark of covenant). He also commands she bears to kill kids for insulting one of his prophets, and he demands murder and ethnic cleansing, all through the OT. It's not our sort of thinking that's the problem, it's the babble in the bible that's the problem, when deluded folks accept such babble, as the written will and character of their creator.That sort of thinking comes from the statement you made. — noAxioms
But is it not also posited that autism can result in very challenged emotional control, a lack or empathy or/and sympathy etc. Such could be really problematic if present in a hivemind. Sociopaths and narcissists can also be highly specialised in their cognitive functions but I don't recommend applying their models to a network of individual consciousnesses, unless the enhanced cognitive functions can be applied minus all the negative aspects of autism, sociopathy and narcissism. — universeness
I think the better model is the R-complex, the Limbic system and the Cortex. The reason I say this is because I sense the presence of all three. I refer to them with the old idea of me, myself and I. — universeness
I wonder how far that 'reductionism' can 'scientifically' be proved true. Is human intent and purpose reducible to data representations. It has to be, if information is 'thee' universal fundamental. — universeness
But developing adequate network protocols, that are 'fit for purpose' for all possible scenarios, (for which it's almost impossible to exhaustively test,) is really difficult, and it's why those who develop network operating systems are highly paid and the best of them are highly sought after by every country in the world. — universeness
I don't know what 'she' you are referring to? Greta Thunberg?Ozone is recovering. It does fix itself due to efforts as simple as reduction.
The carbon sequestering is interesting. Does she do it? Is a company that does it competitive with another making a similar product but without the sequestering? What sort of tonnage rate are we talking here? Where is it put that it will stay out of the environment? — noAxioms
Not until you offer a the details needed or at least provide links to the specific maths / logic, that have been published, peer reviewed and contain strong empirical evidence that any claims made are robust and hard to counter.Do you know what I mean by those words? Can you refute the mathematics/logic instead of just point out more examples of delay? — noAxioms
It also does not follow that it cannot! Climate.gov.It does not follow that slowing an advance can eventually stop it — noAxioms
Us, as we are now, us with transhuman augments as well or exclusively transhuman augments, at least until extraterrestial habitats, are made more comfortable and practicable for us, as we are now.We want to explore and develop space not exclusively to solve our problem of excess population or the extinction threat we have due to 'having all on us on one planet only.'
Other than those reasons, what problem is being solved by it? Why exactly does it need to be ‘us’ doing the exploring instead of something more fit, designed for the task. — noAxioms
I don't want to get all 'panto' on you but, 'Oh, yes it will! and oh yes it can!'Absolutely won’t work. The elected guy will be one that does what the people want, not what they need as a whole. It cannot work that way. This authority must be able to make the tough decisions and will not be able to if he needs to get elected. — noAxioms
That's a start, and episodes like Trump, do not negate the need for such rigorous (hopefully even fool proof), checks and balances, on all those trusted with power. They enhance such need and shoul further compel all of us to insist they are established. There is no shortage of ideas as to how to achieve such.Agree that such a mechanism is needed, but it’s another thing that seems unworkable. Look at the failed efforts to put checks on Trump’s abuse of power. — noAxioms
Probably, except for above checks, some sort of watchdog that doesn’t have a say in the decisions. Very hard to give somebody (or an entity) that sort of power than then still be able to keep it in check. Can’t consider unpopular decisions to be justification for unseating the leader. But the decisions need to be judged in the light of their higher purpose. — noAxioms
:up: I agree.Gnomon's disdain for my aggressive criticisms is apparently an excuse to continue to evade rather than engage dialectical challenge. — 180 Proof
Not irrelevant as you have invoked the 'mommy' model time and time again, as imo, a mockery of any suggestion of a future benevolent (via robust check and balances) authority structure to help, a future human global civilisation thrive without destroying it's own nest planet.A mother may love her children or she may not.
Irrelevant. The authority I speak of simply needs there to be children a long time from now, not necessarily all of them. That’s a different priority, a different sort of love. — noAxioms
Google is owned by the nefarious rich, who nurture profit more that people, what do you expect from such? Such companies have been ever thus!Remember about a decade ago when Google’s business model was ‘don’t be evil’. Notice they don’t say that anymore? They found out how very well it pays. — noAxioms
Yes. Empirical Science may be the final arbiter of pragmatic Empirical questions, but theoretical Philosophy is still arbitrating questions that remain unanswered by classical scientific methods*1. A century later, the practical significance of sub-atomic physics remains debatable. Yes, the get-er-done engineers have developed technologies for manipulating invisible particles of stuff. But physicists are still debating the common-sense meaning of such non-sense as Superposition and Quantum Leaps. Philosophy is not about Matter, but Meaning.Do you disagree that empirical science must be the final arbiter of theoretical philosophy? — universeness
Although his concept of Dataome may sound similar to Panpsychism, as a professional scientist, Scharf would be loathe to use terminology that would incite ridicule from his peers. However, he does make use of edgy words like "hive mind" and "superorganism". As as non-professional amateur philosopher though, I'm not afraid to call a spade a pointy shovel, or a universal field of Data/Information a big Idea.But do you think this 'capability of self-comprehension,' is only emergent through US and lifeforms such as us, or is he positing a general panpsychism, in the sense that, 'rocks contain some ingredients that could become part of a conscious combinatorial?' Would this have to follow if human consciousness is fundamentally information, and information is ubiquitous? — universeness
Almost 10 years ago, when I first began to post on this forum, I did take seriously, and was impressed with his extensive knowledge of philosophy. But after he made it clear that any of my responses to his comments would be treated as the repugnant babblings of an idiot, I eventually decided not to engage with him in political polemics.I think he is responding, but not directly to you. I think he has chosen to maintain a political approach to you and I would personally prefer he responded to you directly. — universeness
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.