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

Yea sorry it's my fault, i'll try that. I just have difficulty with emoticons because i can't tell which one matches my emotional state, except for the happy face. I think it has to do with my neurodivergence or something.

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

Yes that would be the general sentiment at this moment in history, but i think that in the not to distant future there really won't be much of a choice anyway, since it will mean the difference between the survival of the species and extinction. A bifurcation in the human population will happen where the people will be split on this issue. Some will join the hivemind and some won't at which point a new evolutionary line of "homo-technus" will commence.

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.

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. It won't be a centralized system like our governments, it will be distributed. Think about the hivemind that you already are, meaning the two hemispheres of your brain are two distinct consciousnesses.

Very interesting, @universeness! :up:
Thanks for bringing in this video. It offers plenty of food for the mind.

I have a few questions. And since you have asked for comments, here they are:

~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?

~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?

~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?

Where do you think your enformation, etc posits, takes us, FROM the current position, as established by Jim Al-Khalili's video above. — 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.

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. For my own personal purposes though, I am focusing on the impractical Philosophical aspects of universal Information, especially its causal powers in the form of Energy & Entropy*2. Not any particular causal event, but the general invisible force behind all change in the universe. This "force" is responsible for what we call Natural Evolution, which is characterized by creative Emergence of novelty. Yet, aimless randomness creates only Entropy, while Natural Selection (teleonomic Choice) creates the "order" (stable & beautiful patterns of inter-relationships) that Al Khalili finds so wonderful.

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. All of those are interrelated patterns that could be reduced to abstract mathematical ratios, by omitting the personal meanings as Shannon did. Meanings exist only in the individual human mind -- in the self-Consciousness that has "miraculously" emerged from a seemingly mechanical series of operations on matter. Unfortunately, those memes (units of memory) can only be exported from intangible minds by transforming them into conventional physical symbols. That ability to transform from Mind to Matter and back, is the key power of Generic Information*3. And that telenomic understanding of Evolution may "take us" in a new direction from the useful-but-short-sighted and out-dated paradigms ofMaterialism and Reductionism.

I have to go. But if you have specific questions, raised by the video, I'll be glad to respond as I get time. :smile:


*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".

*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.

*3. Introduction to Enformationism :
“A philosophical worldview grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe.”
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
Note -- If that blog post is too long for you, here's a shorter version :
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page24.html

What response? Clarify ...

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

’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.

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.

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?

A great deal of work is also being done to help coral reefs repair.

How does that work if the water is too warm to keep the coral alive?

doomster words such as:
It buys time, but actually makes the crash worse.

Do you know what I mean by those words? Can you refute the mathematics/logic instead of just point out more examples of delay?

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.

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.

Could be much the same as life in the box you currently call your home. — universeness

I’m not confined to my home. My food doesn’t come from it. So maybe not so much like that.

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.)

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.

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.

I want authority that is democratically elected

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.

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.

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.

Your imagery of motherhood models of authority are dictatorial one's.

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.

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.

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

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.

Screening for genetic defects is, I believe, mandatory in some countries that have the facility. — Agent Smith

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?

So do you not accept photons, gluons as the fundamentals of energy, measured in elecrton-volts or joules? — universeness

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.

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

The genetic defect screening is done before pregnancy and sometimes during pregnancy. In the first case it's simple, contraception. In the second case, it gives parents some time to ready themselves - make arrangements - for the (special needs) child.

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

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. I googled 'a photon represented in 8 bits,' and got nothing of any value. Do you have any details on this?

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

Why do you think autism would make a person most suited to a hivemind?

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

The only imagery that springs to mind is:

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. Which traditional model of a hivemind are you suggesting matches your claim of a 'perfect democracy.'
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.

What response? Clarify .. — 180 Proof

You offered him the choice of responding by proxy.

↪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

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. But I also respect his right to choose not to. I have less respect for that choice however. @Gnomon has given his reasons for choosing not to interact with you directly but I personally, don't accept them, as you are just a robust, knowledgeable debater, and in no way are you just acrimonious, for the hell of it (a troll).

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

That may be true or not or only in part. I prefer to assume that every bath has a baby in it, and we should be careful when we discard the bath water. I encourage his efforts, he wants the same thing i do, and so do most of us here. It is wiser to listen to the wisdom of the crowd and not be so adversarial with our ideas and each other. Each one of us is like a tentacle of humanity reaching for understanding in the best way we know how. We are nature's little explorers. :smile:

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.

Thanks for bringing in this video. It offers plenty of food for the mind. — Alkis Piskas

:up:

~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

Thanks for the time stamps Alkis, I appreciate the time and effort involved.
James Clerk Maxwell's demon was his own thought experiment to explain to people, the mechanisms involved in the second law of thermodynamics. Rather than me, offer you my summary of the 'what, and why,' I think Maxwell chose to present his thought experiment in the way he did. I thought it would be better for you to have a look at some of the published text on the topic. Have a look at Maxwell's demon.

~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

If you made a hot cup of coffee and put in on a table. The coffee would eventually reach thermal equilibrium (reach the same temperature as the air in your kitchen), as the heat from the coffee would dissipate into the volume of the kitchen, which would slightly raise the overall temperature in the kitchen but only until it was the same as the temperature of the coffee and then the transfer of heat would stop.
The gap that the demon open and closes, represents an attempt (thought experiment) to reverse the thermal equilibrium between the kitchen and the coffee in the cup, so that the coffee would stay hot and the heat would not be lost to the kitchen (almost like putting the coffee in a flask to maintain it's heat for longer).

~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

For me, as my career is in Computing Science. Information with no meaning is data.
'Jimmy' is data. 'Dog name: Jimmy' is information.
1 or 0 are bit data. They represent two data states. If I try to perceive their fundamental representation in the sense of the physical world. The best I can come up with is 1 = something and 0 = nothing( or perhaps it's better to suggest 'an absence of something.') Traditionally, in Computing, 1 = true and 0 = false or 1 = on (there is a voltage) and 0 = off (there is no voltage). These are measurements that happen to a clock pulse (normally the clock pulse of a computer processor.) So time must pass, for a system to be able to measure data/information. If such a system can be 'equated' to something like a 'field excitation,' then this would suggest that all particles could be described in terms of data representations. These data representations could then become information, by labelling them things like 'up quark' or 'gluon' or 'string' or 'electron' etc and by doing this, the physical contents of the universe could be fundamentally described as 'information.'

Why do you think autism would make a person most suited to a hivemind? — universeness

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".

The brain is structurally organized with different regions of specialization working together in different configurations to solve problems. A hivemind situation with autistic people will mimic this structure of specialized areas. What one autistic individual is lacking another is specialized in, they will work as one unit symbiotically. The result is a much higher level of integration among them enhancing the intelligence level well above a single regular normal human. It's just like a very intimate group of friends, just more intimate than most of us now would be comfortable with.

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

It's pretty much the same except one doesn't need to touch to connect, one will always be connected, but have internal control of his or her connectivity. I suspect that the Dunbar number (about 150) will limit the number of communication ports each node can have access to, so the network won't be fully interconnected (probably a good thing). The main difference really between a hive mind and what you and i are doing right now is simply network 'protocol'.

Developments like this will be the only thing that will put us on par with an AGI and maybe ASI. Without it we would probably lose control of it, and then there will be an escalating probability of potential disaster between us and it.

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

You're right, i will reduce that word frequency. :smile:

It is wiser to listen to the wisdom of the crowd and not be so adversarial with our ideas and each other. — punos

But, we must also be careful and balance your well stated and valid point, with dealing with error, misguided viewpoints, deliberate subterfuge, etc, etc. It's also not always clear who in the crowd, is genuine and who are 'wolves in sheep's clothing,' or 'bad disguised as good or innocent.'
The (imo) invented Jesus characature might seem like a pleasant fellow we should all follow, when his fable is actually a cautionary tale of a 'pied piper,' trying to get rebellious Jews to accept the rule of their 'Roman' conquerers. "Give unto Caesar, what is Caesar's" Really? That's the advice of a God??????
Pay your taxes/tribute to whatever vile thug happens to have temporarily subjugated your tribe.
I accept that is trying to figure things out, just like the rest of us but I also think he is trying to 'leave the door ajar,' for those who want to find some common ground between theism and the scientific method. I want to slam that door shut permanently and move on.

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

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 or absence of a voltage > 0 volts and <= 5 volts.
Such representations have little to do with the 'physical realities' of the universe. So I am interested on how a two state representation can actually BE a physical representation of the universe.
In the video, from time stamp 36 mins. Jim starts to talk about Turing's vision of computers and how we can now MIMIC or emulate the functionality of other devices (a phone, a calculator, a camera, a typewriter, a fax machine, ete, etc,) on a single handheld computer but he then goes on to suggest that the laws and rules of physics can be represented in a similar way. 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. Can identification of a fundamental unit for information open the door to something like star trek style replicators or transporters?
Later on, in the vid, when Jim starts talking about 'deletion of information' and connecting that to the concept of universal entropy, Is that a valid definition of what entropy is? The loss of information? To where? black holes?

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

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.
You typed earlier about the brain as two hemispheres:

Think about the hivemind that you already are, meaning the two hemispheres of your brain are two distinct consciousnesses. — 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.
It's interesting that our consciousness can be partitioned in such ways. 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.

The main difference really between a hive mind and what you and i are doing right now is simply network 'protocol'. — punos

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.

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

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?
95% of the universe is currently 'invisible' to current science, in the form of dark matter and dark energy.
There is also a lot of matter in the universe which is 'not illuminated.' But such invisibility is not 'philosophical,' it is scientific.

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 don't agree with the 'separation' you suggest here. The posit is that concrete matter IS information. It's not that information can be abstracted from that which exists in the universe, which is the important focus. It's that the single most important fundamental OF the universe could be labelled as 'data.'
The unit suggested is the bit. But, like the strings in string theory. A bit can be in many fundamental 'states.' Perhaps even 'inter dimensional vibrational states.' I think that data must be able to be in more states that the two states associated with the traditional BInary digiTs used in computing.
I don't think your use of 'meta-physically' above helps illuminate the point you make.
I think a fundamental like a gluon or a quark or an electron IS a data state!

I want to slam that door shut permanently and move on. — universeness

I totally understand where you're coming from. I have that same impulse within me too.

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

Sure but we really can't get away from representation anyway no matter what we do. I sometimes think about it the other way around. If one assumes that information is more fundamental than our experience of physical matter then it may be reasonable to say that matter is representative of information in a sense. One can say that matter is a representation of information in a spacetime interface. What is being re-presented is information with a different code.

Computers work so well and can do so much i think because they are literally representing how the universe works. This idea of 'representation' (to present again) is why patterns can be traced back to earlier and simpler structures or even abstract principles. I think the best we can hope for (and it doesn't trouble me) is that our representations work for us and are internally and logically consistent (a utilitarian perspective).

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

Yes a simulated fluid will not produce a real fluid for you or me. A simulated entity on the other hand would consider anything in it's simulated environment real to it including simulated fluids. I think that's what real means, and it might be worth thinking about. It's the idea of the 'realm', and the word real is related to the word royal which ties into the "rules or laws of the land", also the concept of real-estate.

Consider how a legal system is like a simulation, meaning it has it's own rules like contracts, taxes, etc. None of these things are real at the level of biology, or particle physics (realms of their own), but they are real at the level of a legal system. The word 'real' and 'exist' in this sense are not the same.

Can identification of a fundamental unit for information open the door to something like star trek style replicators or transporters? — universeness

I don't know but i wouldn't dismiss the possibility yet.

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

Information entropy i think emerges in the presence of space (degrees of freedom), where the ratio of energy or matter (information: 1 bit for simplicity) to space has to be at least 1/2 or less. If the ratio were 1/1 then no possible entropy. I'm not sure if information can be erased, but it can be lost to another system which could be difficult to trace giving the impression that it was erased from existence, but i might be wrong about that. There may be a law of conservation of information in this regard. I'm not sure yet... will think about it more.

*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 think there is no teleological connection to natural evolution via positing a universal data fundamental.
I think the current position that disorder can become order due to very large variety randomly combining in vast numbers of ways. Natural novelty need no teleological input. Teleology only comes into play via human design/intent/purpose.
Quantum superposition has still to be fully explained. What evidence do you have that quantum superposition, is 'disorganised randomness?'

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 don't think he would as concepts, ideas, feelings can be made very apparent through language or actions, at the will of the human involved. These are therefore only invisible to others until the source human decides to manifest them. They are not even invisible at all, in the sense that the source human is aware (cognisant) of their existence inside them.

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

Same to you! You can also raise any questions that you have, and I, and I am sure others on TPF, will be happy to help.

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

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.

That sort of thinking comes from the statement you made. — 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.

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

All true, but one thing i know about autistics is that they have a high level sense of justice. I imagine that these kinds of problems will arise, but i also can imagine safety mechanisms in place to counter these pathologies. One possible way is to have a monitoring system that locks out any node that threatens the stability of the hivemind. I imagine highly developed complex systems methods can restructure the network accordingly in real time. This can be done by the other member nodes of the network as a self-regulating mechanism or it can be done by algorithms or an AI system. I'm sure those issues would be ironed out in some way.

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

Right, i sometimes use the concept of the triune brain as you just did, but sometimes i use the two hemispheres as the example because it is easier to prove from split brain patient experiments, and things like 'alien hand syndrome'. The hivemind concept could be included in the triune brain model extending it to a 4th structure above the neocortex. Elon Musk has talked about this before, and i think he's right.

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

I believe so, consciousness may exist on a spectrum of complexity that may or may not be reducible to zero. It's hard to determine conclusively as of now.

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

Studying how the corpus callosum works will go far i think in helping us develop these hivemind protocols. Large language models like GPT can probably be used as a possible component in a hivemind network protocol. Most of the testing will probably be done on animals first and in complex simulations analyzed by AI. I don't doubt that we will have the tools necessary for the task; look at what we've done with solving the protein folding problem.

Yeah, well, until @Gnomon explicitly addresses the questions I've put to him – directly or indirectly – I'll consider him nonresponsive to the offer to defeat or disqualify my objections (& without further rebuttal from me). This isn't really about me; Gnomon should do a public service by showing that his "personal philosophical worldview" is worth its critics' time to reconsider its merits.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/709894

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718369

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742056 — 180 Proof

Failing that, however, Gnomon could enlist a proxy – @Agent Smith @Wayfarer @punos or you – to address these questions. Given the "revolutionary" claims he's made for his "personal philosophical worldview", at the very least it should be easy to show that the premises of my questions are invalid or irrelevant. Gnomon's disdain for 'aggressive criticism' is apparently an excuse to continue to evade rather than engage a dialectical challenge.

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

I don't know what 'she' you are referring to? Greta Thunberg?
As for the details of carbon capture or coral reef recovery methods. I am sure there are many claims and counter claims exemplified on-line. I was referring to the genuine efforts of the people involved, not the debated efficacy of a particular method.

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

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.

It does not follow that slowing an advance can eventually stop it — noAxioms

It also does not follow that it cannot! Climate.gov.

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

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.
I have no pressing preference. What problem was being solved when Hilary climbed mount Everest or when Armstrong first footed the Moon. It's also about human's investigating the universe they live in, as in my opinion, if we don't, we will ossify, as a species, on out little pale blue dot nest planet.

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

I don't want to get all 'panto' on you but, 'Oh, yes it will! and oh yes it can!'
My detailed arguments of why I think so would have to be a different thread about democratic socialism, secular humanism and a resource based global economy.

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

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.

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

You certainly can consider unpopular decisions as a reason to consider unseating any leader or group of leaders. There would be much to consider but I would get rid of any second politically elected chamber and establish various tiers of citizen authorities. I would establish a second chamber of elected stakeholder. Nurse or teachers or the police etc can elect two members to this second chamber.
Any new law proposed by the political chamber would have to gain the support of this second chamber.

Gnomon's disdain for my aggressive criticisms is apparently an excuse to continue to evade rather than engage dialectical challenge. — 180 Proof

:up: I agree.

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

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.

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

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!

I will respond to your last two posts to me, tomorrow. I am going to order in some food and have a wee nights relaxation and a couple or 10 drinks with family.
Have a good night! :party:

Don't forget to pour one out for the homies. :smile:

Thank you too, @universeness.

I suggest we pass over the first two questions. They refer to a theory and experientation that is not so realistic to me. More specifically, I personally have no use for it. I just asked because i didn't quite undestand them. Most probably because of my lack of experience in the field of Physics.

Let's focus then on the last one, which addresses the hugely important subject of information.
(BTW, I am also an IT guy. I am a professional programmer since 1986 and also a software and system analyst. And since we are talking about "data", I had been specialized and worked for a considerable period of time in the field od "data security". :smile:)

So, let's clear first the relation of data with indormation.

The term "data" is often used interchangeably with "information". However, they are not at all the same. Data are items of information. They are at the core of information. They are kind of "bits" of information. Even if a single bit can be sometimes be considered as information, e.g. Yes/No.
So, information is something much broader. Wikipedia defines it as follows":

"Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform {i.e, make known]. At the most fundamental level information pertains to the interpretation of that which may be sensed. Any natural process that is not completely random, and any observable pattern in any medium can be said to convey some amount of information."
(The brackets are mine, an attempt to handle somehow the "circularity" involved).

I brought this up to indicate that information has a purpose (to inform) and meaning (interpretation of that which may be sensed). The last statement --about lack of randomity-- is also very important.

OK, this is the theoretical part. I will now speak from my own experience with "data" and, consequently, "information" and make it as practical as possible.

Data are useful if they have meaning and a purpose. Example:

I want to create a library of songs I like (purpose). One way is to look at lists of song titles (data) and collect those that I know (knowledge"), i.e. that they have some meaning to me. Now, from the titles that I know I will select those belonging to songs I like, i.e. they mean more than oters to me.
Now, if I have compiled the list from a lot of sources from the Web in order to increase the chances to find all, if possible, the songs I like, it is evident that a lot --if not most-- of them will be useless for me.

This is exactly what happens in life and I believe in the physical world. Most data are useless. They can hardly be considered information. And, most importantly, the term "information" has a meaning for humans, not for objects or nature, i.e. the physical world. The physical world cannot use data or information. Natural phenomena obey physical laws, conceived by humans. It is we who are interpreting, describing, and explain them. We can also control them to a certain degree and make use of them in our life.

Do you disagree that empirical science must be the final arbiter of theoretical philosophy? — universeness

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.

Those spooky questions*2 remain under the purview of Theoretical Physics*3, which is essentially a narrow specialty of Philosophy. Einstein was not a mystic or religious believer, but he resorted to philosophical & poetic metaphors to convey unsettled ideas about physical facts. Ironically, some posters on this philosophical forum seem to believe that such ideas as Emergence can be finally settled by empirical methods. :smile:

PS__Just as Steven Jay Gould separated Religion & Science into non-overlapping magisteria, Philosophy & Science are not competitors in the same arena.

*1. Physics vs Metaphysics :
Physics is defined, in its simplest form, as the study of matter and energy and how those two interact, while metaphysics deals with the ideas that don’t abide by scientific logic and theories.
https://allthedifferences.com/metaphysics-vs-physics/

*2. Quantum Questions :
Here is a collection of writings that bridges the gap between science and religion. Quantum Questions collects the mystical writings of each of the major physicists involved in the discovery of quantum physics and relativity, including Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Planck.
https://www.shambhala.com/quantum-questions-1226.html

*3. What’s behind a science vs. philosophy fight? :
In fact, most of the scientists I know are strictly theoretical. They don’t dirty their hands with experimental testing. ___Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/why-are-scientists-philosophers-fighting-again/

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

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.

No. sentient rocks are not implied by the concept of Dataome. In any case, only a tiny fraction of the embodied information in the universe has developed the emergent quality of Sentience. But if pressed, Scharf might agree that the universe has indeed become self-reflective, by means of its sentient creatures. He does admit that "There is little doubt that something is going on with our species . . . ." I'll let you read the book, to fill-in the ellipsis. :smile:

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

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.

Your science-based worldview seems to be similar to his in general, but you are less directly abusive in your responses to ideas that you find anti-scientific (i.e. metaphysics). So, I'm OK with your careful critiques of my personal worldview. Yet now, you seem ready to dis-engage. :sad:

PS__180 likes to imagine Gnomon as a tree-hugging hippie Hindu Buddhist Romantic, reciting poems of universal peace & love while lighting candles and smoking weed, despite his sentient crystals being made of synthetic zircon. But that could hardly be farther from the fact. Instead, Gnomon is a forty year subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer & Scientific American magazines. And Gnomon's 21st century Science is built upon a mushy quantum foundation of uncertainty & indeterminism that undermined the faith in Realism of Classical Physics.

PS__Where I view the universe as evolving in a positive direction (Enformy) 180 seems to agree with suicidal Macbeth :

Macbeth to himself :
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

My earliest interaction with @Gnomon was three years ago, not ten. TPF has been around barely eight years, not ten. I joined in 2015, made a dozen posts and then logged-off until late 2019. Gnomon's just making shit up about his history with me just as he does when proselytizing his "personal philosophical worldview". :yawn:

Philosophy opposes proselytizing, and, unless I'm mistaken, sophists / cranks are fair game on TPF until they show themselves to be otherwise. I've laid my own dodgy speculative cards down on the table in at least several hundred posts the last few years, exposing myself to the same sort of critical engagement with which I've offered Gnomon et al. Isn't that this site's raison d'etre: critical engagement via giving and taking reasons, enriching understanding via dialectical reasoning? Gnomon doesn't seem to believe so. :eyes:

Addendum to .