There is no one Christian doctrine. There’s the bible at best, and I don’t think it encourages environmental destruction, but I’m sure one would be able to find passages to support such a view. Bible is great fodder for cherry picking fallacy.They have no choice, if they are being true to Christian doctrine. — universeness
Yea, if God is so perfect, why does Jesus do things so incredibly differently in the NT? Pretty solid evidence of it all being a product of human legend if the story changes with the fashions.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.
Does Greta do it, yes. It’s her suggestion. You didn’t answer the questions, especially those about competitiveness.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? — universeness
So you haven’t.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.
Space was never a solution to excess population. It costs far more to put a person in space than it does to keep him here. Sure, sending colonies to other planets might put new growth out there, but they’re not going to remove any significant number (other than by taking away their resoruces) from Earth in doing so.We want to explore and develop space not exclusively to solve our problem of excess population
They’ll never be as comfortable as Earth. Where are all the exatons of material going to come from (and of course the energy required, far more than it took to decimate Earth) to make outdoors of an alien place less immediately fatal to us?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.
Say you done it. Important with the moon since the USA got their butts pretty brutally kicked in the space race before then. Big cold-war motivation. One can always put ‘tech research’ out there. Learn to do stuff. Why do you think it took until Apollo 11 to actually land? The ones before were for learning stuff.What problem was being solved when Hilary climbed mount Everest or when Armstrong first footed the Moon.
Well I don’t have enough education to counter what is basically assertions on both our parts, but it seems obvious that the goals of the individual voter correspond little to higher goals, as demonstrated by recent history. Notice I don’t identity those higher goals. There are several, a matter of choosing one to at least the partial exclusion of the others. ‘Don’t ossify’ seems to be one to which you relate. Your fantasy cities seem to do just that. I like the idea of pushing forward and bringing it to the next level, but there are costs to that, most of which won’t be supported by the typical democratic voter who’s primary concern is his immediate personal comfort.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.
But we’re talking about even more power here, enough apparently to render the checks ineffectual. He basically fired anybody related to investigations on his abuses. The authority should not have any authority over said checks, but they always do, especially when the abuses were embraced by an entire political part just because he wore the same color uniform. Police are the same way, almost impossible to prosecute for abuses because the police and even the courts stand behind their own most of the time.episodes like Trump, do not negate the need for such rigorous (hopefully even fool proof), checks and balances, on all those trusted with power.
Disagree for the same reason the position shouldn’t be one left to the voters. Popularity will doom us. Our cells learned to cooperate into a larger entity, working for the entity and not the individual life forms. One of the first things to change was to select out any personal will that isn’t beneficial to the collective. The sort of authority I’m speaking of needs to act on the benefit of the collective, but here you are suggesting this cannot be done because it would involve actions not popular with the individuals.You certainly can consider unpopular decisions as a reason to consider unseating any leader or group of leaders.
I’ve frequently said that the larger the group of people, the less mature they act as a whole. The term ‘mommy’ is deliberately to emphasize that, an authority over something far to immature to know what’s best for it.you have invoked the 'mommy' model time and time again — universeness
Yes, but they started out wanting to do it right. Mozilla (a competitor) is still trying very hard not to be evil.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!
Did you notice that I used the term Teleonomy*1 instead of Teleology? It's that kind of talking past each other that makes communicating with 180 so difficult. He substitutes his favorite antiscience terminology in place of my philosophical concepts. We are contrasting personal worldviews & opinions & beliefs*2, not scientific facts & truths. Serial Monologing with makes three years feel like ten. :smile:"I coined the term EnFormAction to encapsulate the directional (teleonomic) causation of Evolution." __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. — universeness
Don't forget to pour one out for the homies. — punos
Sure but we really can't get away from representation anyway no matter what we do. — punos
But how would you go about empirically proving that? A photon has associated attributes, sure but we currently know so little about exactly what constitutes a photon and we don't know adequate detail about it's functionality, to be able to 'reproduce' it via data representation.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. — punos
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). — punos
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. — punos
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. — punos
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. — punos
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. — punos
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. — punos
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. — Alkis Piskas
If that's true, then I think there maybe a fatal flaw in the proposal that data is a universal fundamental.
A 'representation' is not 'an actual,' its a mathematical simulation. — universeness
But how would you go about empirically proving that? A photon has associated attributes, sure but we currently know so little about exactly what constitutes a photon and we don't know adequate detail about it's functionality, to be able to 'reproduce' it via data representation. — universeness
Until we can actually achieve a tech such as point to point dematerialise/rematerialise transportation of objects with mass or create start trek style food replicators, we will not be able to demonstrate that data is a universal fundamental. Can you think of other tech that would be enough to demonstrate that data is 'thee' universal fundamental? — universeness
But it seems to me that the limits of what can be achieved, in that case is, 'virtual simulation' or at best 'virtual emulation,' inside computers but not physical reproduction. To me, if data is thee universal fundamental, then it MUST be possible to use it to create that which is natural, because that's the content of the universe. — universeness
I currently, give very little credence to any of the current 'simulation theories' of reality.
They are just another form of supernatural or 'god' posit imo. An infinite regression of programmers who create simulated universes.
Why would an outside force create a simulation of a universe that had no life at all in it for the vast majority of its existence. What kind of purpose would the simulators have for creating our universe? — universeness
But that's not true if data is thee fundamental! A legal system is made up of information and information is not simulated, it's real. It can even create REAL simulations. — universeness
Roger Penrose's CCC proposes that most 'information' will end up inside black holes as the universe experiences heat death. — 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. — Gnomon
*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/ — Gnomon
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: — Gnomon
*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 — Gnomon
PS__Just as Steven Jay Gould separated Religion & Science into non-overlapping magisteria, Philosophy & Science are not competitors in the same arena. — Gnomon
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. — Gnomon
I didn't suggest 'sentient rocks,' I suggested that panpsychism posits that rocks contain 'ingredients' that can be used in 'consciousness.' Panpsychism does not suggest rocks are self-aware.No. sentient rocks are not implied by the concept of Dataome. — Gnomon
Ok, I accept that is your viewpoint.In any case, only a tiny fraction of the embodied information in the universe has developed the emergent quality of Sentience. — Gnomon
I will add it to my current very long list of books I need to read. So far, I only have to live until I am 128 to get through the list, but theBut 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: — Gnomon
I think we will need a system that is far more robust and reliable than the corpus callosum.
chatGPT cant even pass the Turing test. Despite the fact that some sources claim that it has. — universeness
Almost 10 years ago, when I first began to post on this forum, — Gnomon
So, I'm OK with your careful critiques of my personal worldview. Yet now, you seem ready to dis-engage. :sad: — Gnomon
There is no one Christian doctrine. — noAxioms
Right, but instead of rejecting the insight for what is already familiar, — punos
I don't know exactly how they will go about it. — punos
Did you notice that I used the term Teleonomy*1 instead of Teleology? — Gnomon
OKI appreciate your offer of links to attempts to 'bridge gaps between science and religion.' But, I assign very little value to such notions. — universeness
I agree. I don't take 's verbal punches as seriously as he seems to take my timid rejoinders. Most of his swings are whiffs anyway, because he fails to see the essential point of my thesis. Besides, he seems to think his mission on this forum is to be a Socratic gadfly, pointing out both their factual errors, and the errors in reasoning of those whose views contradict his own. I find his earnestness amusing, so I often conclude my posts to him with a "joke" emoji. :joke:I think the verbal boxing between you is not severe. I have witnessed far, far worse. — universeness
I agree. But the main issue in what I have talked about, or my main point if you like, is not about how "data" and "information" are related. As I said, they are ofter interchangeable. I don't really mind if we use them as one and the same thing.I think it's enough for the purposes of our exchange to agree that information is labelled data or data which has been assigned an associated human meaning. — universeness
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. — universeness
From one of our earliest exchanges three years ago, a confession ...↪180 Proof's ... fails to see the essential point of my thesis. — Gnomon
E.g. "panpsychism?" "panendeism?" "pancomputationalism?" Uh huh. :roll:FWIW : Enformationism has some similarities to New Age worldviews ...
— Gnomon — 180 Proof
highlighted the points that are salient to him, but not to Gnomon. For example, although it includes some concepts that are similar to New Age philosophy, Enformationism is not about New Ageism or Mysticism. Instead, it was inspired by scientific Quantum & Information theories, which themselves have philosophical similarities to New Age notions*1.Superb summary of what transpired betwixt you and Gnomon. The salient points (of contention) highlighted for the audience's benefit, kudos.
Gnomon's thesis may need work, but it isn't philosophical crankery in me humble opinion, but que sais-je? — Agent Smith
I suppose your intent was to focus on the plausibility of a technological Singularity. But my attention was drawn to the question of "Emergence . . . of new possibilities". That question is central to my personal world view of Enformationism, which regards Generic Information (causation) as the Agency of Emergence, so to speak.This got me thinking more about 'emergence.'
Since the early homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago, the 'knowledge' our species has 'as a totality,' been increasing. Each time we gain significant new knowledge, our technology increases and this has all sorts of affects on our species. It opens 'new options,' 'new possibilities.'
This 'direction of change,' seems to me to have been increasing in speed within the 300,000 years of the human story. The rate of speed increase seems to be increasing to the point that we are coming up with new tech at a faster rate than ever before. — universeness
I still don't understand what your are asking about Greta or what 'competitiveness' has to do with capturing CO2 rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.Does Greta do it, yes. It’s her suggestion. You didn’t answer the questions, especially those about competitiveness. — noAxioms
I am not an expert on the issue of safe, clean, renewable energy production but I don't much value the formulae you offered and I fully support all current efforts to make E=ER, based on your representation of E and ER. All energy should be produced as resourced based and not profit based.No, it isn’t peer reviewed. I’m asking if you deny it, which apparently you do if it doesn’t come from a journal, which I’m sure it does in some form. — noAxioms
Of course it is. EDIT: Well, to be more precise, it's not a solution NOW, or in the forseeable future but it will be, in the distant future.Space was never a solution to excess population. — noAxioms
It costs resources to put people in space, not money. Money is nothing more than a means of exchange.It costs far more to put a person in space than it does to keep him here — noAxioms
I have already answered this point. This planet is the equivalent of your fish bowl comparison.The extinction threat is a somewhat better reason, but it would be like preventing a fish from going extinct by building fish-bowls in the trees. Better to just build a bird to put in the trees, and then call it a fish if that’s important to you. — noAxioms
I have already answered this as well. There are lots of extraterrestial resources.They’ll never be as comfortable as Earth. Where are all the exatons of material going to come from (and of course the energy required, far more than it took to decimate Earth) to make outdoors of an alien place less immediately fatal to us? — noAxioms
Which is also part of the why we must go beyond Earth, we will go to Mars and live there one day because it exists, and it beckons us. Hilary answered the question of 'why climb Everest,' with, 'because it's there!'What problem was being solved when Hilary climbed mount Everest or when Armstrong first footed the Moon.
Say you done it. — noAxioms
I remain interested in those like yourself (please correct me if I am wrong here), who are interested in building bridges between science and religion. I would say Athena also thinks it's important to find ways to do that. I would be interested in her opinion of your 'enformationism.' — universeness
I said "chalatanry", mi amigo ...crankery — Agent Smith
bookish charlatanry that's so desperate to be taken seriously even though he won't take his own "ideas" seriously enough to submit them to cross-examination — 180 Proof
– consider this video summary on 'quantum information' and, since increasing disorder (entropy) increases information (emergence), point out to me what Gnomon gets right or the presentation here gets wrong. :sweat:inspired by scientific Quantum & Information theories — Gnomon
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.