This seems to be the most popular viewpoint regarding the 'pivotal' moment of the development of an ASI. Folks like myself and I think 180 Proof, think that it's just as possible, that a developing/growing ASI that achieves self-awareness, would be benevolent towards all lifeforms, especially lifeforms with the sentience level of humans. — universeness

My initial reaction, which tends towards melodrama (and is therefore suspect) impels me to speculate the above hope is more fever-dream than rational speculation. Remember Independence Day when the human optimists look up towards the hovering alien mothership with hopeful expectation of an imminent, cosmic love-fest? This occurs just before they get vaporized into oblivion.

I'm being melodramatic -- forgive me. However, consider our best evidence available for rational speculation about how homo superior -- whether biological or cyborg -- will likely behave towards homo sapiens. This evidence, as you are well aware, comprises the wretched history of homo sapiens treatment of the rest of earth's animal kingdom. All the expletives in the English language aren't enough to articulate fully how badly we've treated earth's animal kingdom.

As there are homo sapiens kindly to animals, we can expect likewise homo superior individuals. Will such individuals be of sufficient volume to counterbalance the collective treatment of homo sapiens by homo superior the species? By the evidence of homo sapiens' treatment of earth's animal kingdom, this seems hardly likely.

On the other hand, it seems likely to me homo superior will be empowered to enact forms of benevolence beyond our present ability to imagine. Will this be enough of an offset to stand as a protection? I doubt it seriously.

The new, higher-order species, by definition, will have needs and desires that consume resources of creation beyond what homo sapiens can conceptualize. This will mean abrogation of vast resources now essential to the self-determination and well being of homo sapiens. Just the other day I happened to be around some horses. As I started thinking about them, I realized something horrible with stark clarity: Horses are large animals. What they do best, according to their innate power, is run fast and far each day of their lives. Well, humans, pursuing their own dreams, have partitioned off nearly all of the open land on earth. The possibility for horse happiness, with few exceptions, has been destroyed by humans.

Humans will benefit greatly from the benevolent actions of homo superior. We know, however, true happiness in its highest manifestation depends upon species sovereignty. That is lost with the advent of the new sovereign species.

Post-quantum physics has equated Information (power to enform) with physical Energy. In which case the future unleashed-singularity could indeed be an explosion of Information. — Gnomon

So, information, in this context, is physical and thus "the future unleashed-singularity" of information would likewise be a physical explosion?

Are you aware of something similar to an "information singularity" in recorded history (a la Gutenberg)? — Gnomon

Is this a reference to early book printing?

The transition from Theological Science to Empirical Science was a significant change of direction, but the Age of Enlightenment took centuries to take full effect. Hardly an explosion. — Gnomon

Good correction. However, I have two slight howevers. Like you say:

...the Information Age that began in the early 20th century has rapidly expanded... — Gnomon

Acceleration of change can start slowly, eventually picking up great speed:

making radical changes in socio-cultural phenomena. — Gnomon

Categorical advances, although not examples of something-from-nothing, do a pretty fair job of simulation.

...mine [worldview] is fundamentally Philosophical (inference). — Gnomon

You count yourself a logician primarily?

I was inferring from current knowledge back to unknown possible initial conditions... — Gnomon

At the time of the singularity preceding the Big Bang?

...his [universeness] empirical stance labels questions of Origins as Religious, whereas I view such explorations as Philosophical. — Gnomon

Perhaps some sort of richly complex and debatable premise can be spun out of this.

I came to an Information Singularity of my own, where space-time faded away into infinities. — Gnomon

Are you conceptualizing Information Singularity as a type of black hole compressing the universe down to a point-source?

I assume that Plato followed a similar line of reasoning, and concluded that Reality is bounded by space-time. — Gnomon

Your use of spacetime as a boundary flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the phenomenal universe such that it has no boundaries.

But then, whence space-time & energy-laws. So, he postulated a transcendent (eternal ; infinite) Source of Enforming power (Logos - in Ideality) as an answer to the Open Question of "why something instead of nothing". But that kind of pioneering reverse-reasoning (into the a priori unknown) is not allowed by Empirical doctrine (from known to knowable). — Gnomon

I would expect you to contest any doctrine characterizing reverse-inference as a journey into the unknowable.

Sidebar -- Regarding,

the Open Question of "why something instead of nothing". — Gnomon

Here's my short answer to this classic question: "It's because you ask the question."

So, information, in this context, is physical and thus "the future unleashed-singularity" of information would likewise be a physical explosion? — ucarr

Probably not. Information is both physical (info=energy=matter) and metaphysical (meaning ; ideas ; math). EnFormAction is my coinage for the Generic Information responsible for the formation of every objective Thing and every subjective Form that evolved from the initial Singularity. The label "Big Bang" implies a physical explosion, but some scientists deny that popular image, and substitute "expansion". Yet the "expansion" of a universe from a pinpoint in micro-seconds sounds more like instant creation-from-scratch than even a mundane physical explosion. That Genesis implication is what caused Hoyle to mock the Cosmologist's theory, describing the ultimate event, as a "Big Bang".

BTW, Uni & 180 like to label Enformationism as a religious notion, because I use the ancient term "metaphysics" to describe the non-physical (mental) aspects of the Real world. But I use that term primarily for its original meaning "adjunct to physics". Which is what Aristotle's second volume of his Physics discussed : not empirical objective descriptions of the physical world, but the variety of human subjective ideas about that world -- including its noumenal features, such as god-posits. :cool:

Are you aware of something similar to an "information singularity" in recorded history (a la Gutenberg)? — Gnomon
Is this a reference to early book printing? — ucarr

Yes.
Coping with Gutenberg :
The Information Explosion in Early Modern Europe
http://200.144.254.127:8080/english/journal/articles/burkeinfoexplosion.pdf

You count yourself a logician primarily? — ucarr

No. I'm just an amateur philosopher presenting a non-academic thesis, which is intended to be a logical expansion of a famous scientist's conjecture : "It From Bit" -- Material things emerged from immaterial causal information (the power to enform). :smile:

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/

Information causality as a physical principle :
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08400

Perhaps some sort of richly complex and debatable premise can be spun out of this. — ucarr

Oh it has been debated extensively all right. The problem is that Uni & 180 begin with a premise of their own, which I reject : that ultimate speculations are inherently religiously motivated. Religious scholars adopted Plato & Aristotle centuries later, but in their own time they were non-conformists regarding the polytheism of their culture. They did propose abstract eternal principles (Logos ; Good) radically unlike the humanoid deities of the non-philosophical Greeks. Christian Theologians interpreted those abstractions in favor of the Jewish God, who has no physical Form that could be represented in idols. It's unlikely that P & A were aware of the Jewish god-concept. In any case, my own interpretations of their Eternal Principles are not connected to any religious practices. But if you feel the urge to worship a formless abstraction, its a free country. :joke:

Are you conceptualizing Information Singularity as a type of black hole compressing the universe down to a point-source? — ucarr

No. My Singularity is a meta-physical philosophical concept, not a scientific conjecture.

Your use of spacetime as a boundary flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the phenomenal universe such that it has no boundaries. — ucarr

The boundaries I referred to are Space & Time, which are not physical fences. Einstein described the universe as "finite, but unbounded". Which could be interpreted as an oxymoron. But its assumed that he was talking about the physical shape of the universe as a sphere, not as extending into infinity. :wink:

Does The Universe Have Physical Boundaries? :
The universe (observable or otherwise) has no boundary in the physical sense.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/08/29/does-the-universe-have-physical-boundaries/?sh=79167c722b3c

I would expect you to contest any doctrine characterizing reverse-inference as a journey into the unknowable. — ucarr

I didn't say "unknowable" but "unknown". Philosophers and Scientists explore the "undiscovered territory". For example, the Big Bang theory was an exploration (via reverse inference) into the knowable-but-heretofore-unknown history of the universe, back to the beginning of space-time. Yet, imaginative thinkers can easily go beyond that non-physical boundary (trans-finite multiverse), "to infinity and beyond!", as Buzz Lightyear (animated movie) exclaimed. :nerd:

I do not believe that is enough food to feed everyone, nor is it practical to send produce to poor nations that can not pay for the labor and transportation cost to feed huge populations in poor countries the variety of foods necessary for good health — Athena

Hopefully, future automated systems will remove the practicality issues you are concerned about.
For me, the main point is that good people will forever seek solutions to such problems and notions such as 'pay for' or 'transportation cost,' will soon become, what they should always have been, non-issues.

I wish everyone experienced at least two years of having to live on the food they produce themselves before entering a discussion about feeding the world. The experience would give them a necessary perspective. — Athena

Do you think people should go back you using the abacus to gain a better understanding of the usefulness of a calculator? Or perhaps use of a horse for a year would make you appreciate your car or local bus service more. Starvation, would make ANYONE appreciate food production more, but I don't think 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' is the only way or even a useful way, to educate people.

Tell me, what are the circumstances essential to feeding a family of 7? — Athena

Establishing economic parity for all and creating a national, international, global food production and distribution system that can sustain our current rate of global population growth. If that proves to be currently impossible then, embark on education campaigns to better control population growth, and strongly discourage families which have 7 children.

If we were in the pioneer days and the families diet depended on hurting and gardening what are the challenges and how are they met. — Athena

But we are not in times when each family or tribal unit has to perform the hunter gatherer survival method. We live in times of rampant, pernicious global capitalism. That's the problem, not an inability to produce enough food for everyone.

I think your opinions are based on facts, but not knowledge and enough facts for good judgment. — Athena

That's fair enough Athena. I would respond with, I think your opinions offer excuses for the behaviour of the nefarious few, past and present, who are fully responsible for the way the world is today.

Not all ground is good for farming. It can be hard to get enough protein without meat and dairy products. — Athena

For Example, vertical farming:
Vertical farming is the practice of growing crops in vertically stacked layers. It often incorporates controlled-environment agriculture, which aims to optimize plant growth, and soilless farming techniques such as hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics
I am not a vegan or a veggie but protein comes from other sources, not just meat alone.

What do people eat when the locus come in and destroy the crops, or weather prevents people from having a good crop? — Athena

Stored foods, distributed when needed. Even the fairy tales in the bible, incudes a cautionary tale regarding 7 fat cows and 7 thin cows. Simple stuff really!

You live in a world that is totally changed and it has not been that long since people everywhere died because of a poor diet. Today the problem is changed, they gtet enough calories but eat the wrong foods and people are destroying their lives and their children's lives with harmful foods. — Athena

The concerns you highlight here seem to me, to be very, very solvable!

If you lived in a village where every winter neighbors starved to death, and you feared not having enough to eat, you would not be thinking of feeding the world. History gives us perspective and that perspective is necessary for good judgment. — Athena

No, you don't have to experience fire to know it burns, otherwise few problems would ever get solved.
I know people starve to death, so the problem is obvious. I don't need my immediate family or neighbours to die in such ways, before I qualify as someone who can suggest solutions.

Under what conditions is this true? I grew up in L.A. California and took people being killed for granted, like people in Oregon take rain for granted. — Athena

Under human conditions, both historical and current.
I am sure you also deduced, that it would be a good idea to help prevent such 'killing,' in anyway we, or you can. Do people in Oregon take rain for granted? We only have YOUR opinion on that one.

I thought it is was very important to be tough. My idea of what it means to be tough changed with old age. :lol: The point is, we are reactionary, and how we feel, think, and behave depends on our environment and circumstance. We can be as angles or completely numb to the suffering of others. — Athena

What's your point Athena? Each person is either part of the problems or part of the solutions???
I KNOW!!!!! :flower: :flower:

Personally, I think a very evil mind set has emerged and I have deep concerns about our growing dependency on bureaucratic control of our lives. I have concerns about people putting their faith in technology and ignoring our humanness. Given the news today, I see the rise of Nazi Germany coming out of leaving moral training to the church instead of understanding education for good moral judgment is essential to democracy and so is self reliance essential to our liberty. — Athena

Many people share your concerns. Fascism is a global concern and always has been. It's as Japanese, Italian, French, American and Russian as it is German. I value technical progress, and see it as an imperative, but it's consequences, are indeed, important to very carefully contend with. I think theism has NOTHING of value to assist us in developing good morality. I think the opposite is true. Secular humanism is the source of human morality, not theism or ancient fables and fairy stories.
'Athena' is a nice human name but Athena the female deity, is just a boring old fable, of no value today, other than as entertainment, for those who enjoy such fables.

I hate the modern selling phrase, "get what you deserve", as though mother nature and/or God will take care of us as long as we please the god or our choice. Today, that God, being the government and bureaucracy and thinking rational is all important, failing to appreciate emotional reality and how destructive dependency on authority above us, can be. — Athena

No government or bureaucracy is omnipotent. ALL GOVERNANCE MUST BE of, for and by the people, or else such authority MUST be replaced. That is the system of governance, we must continue to fight for, FOREVER!!! Even when we achieve it, we must forever fight to maintain it.

Kurzweil talks about the inevitable "techno singularity" and "machine intelligence" but not much about an "information explosion" from a pin-point. So, I don't know what Uni had in mind regarding the role of Information. — Gnomon

ASI is the main candidate for a tech/information singular moment in time.
The main fundamental employed by an artificial super intelligence, will be data/information.
Simple really!

Unfortunately, his empirical stance labels questions of Origins as Religious, whereas I view such explorations as Philosophical. Unlike Plato, he draws the line at unverifiable Transcendence. As implicit in his dialogue with Athena, Uni seems to be Past Pessimistic, but Future Optimistic. Other than that Origins Taboo, our worldviews seem to be similar. :cool: — Gnomon

I certainly DO NOT label the general question of the origin story of the universe as exclusively religious and I think you already know that. Cyclical universe, the multiverse, Mtheory etc, etc have no integrated god posits. Only posits like enformationism, have theism/deism at their root, as you as its author, have confirmed, in many of your posts. I broadly agree, with the remaining content of the above quote.

My initial reaction, which tends towards melodrama (and is therefore suspect) impels me to speculate the above hope is more fever-dream than rational speculation. Remember Independence Day when the human optimists look up towards the hovering alien mothership with hopeful expectation of an imminent, cosmic love-fest? This occurs just before they get vaporized into oblivion. — ucarr

:lol: My defence would be simply that my 'fever-dream,' is no less probable than what sounds like a higher credence level, that you would personally assign, to a terminator style 'skynet' outcome for a singularly pivotal moment of change, due to the human invention of an ASI.
To counter the aggressive aliens in the awfully trite movie 'Independence day.' I offer a scene from Spielbergs AI:

This evidence, as you are well aware, comprises the wretched history of homo sapiens treatment of the rest of earth's animal kingdom. All the expletives in the English language aren't enough to articulate fully how badly we've treated earth's animal kingdom. — ucarr

Yes, but, I would say, as WE have gained in knowledge, many more of us will review and alter the way we treat/respect each other and all flora and fauna we encounter. That has not made me a veggie yet. I keep making excuses for myself for not becoming one. So, based on that viewpoint, Homo superior is not a label I like due to the use of 'superior,' but I think such should be more benevolent than homo sapien, due to the knowledge it has access to and it's ability to reason in 'new' ways (rather than superior ways, (I would prefer homo nova to homo superior)).

As there are homo sapiens kindly to animals, we can expect likewise homo superior individuals. Will such individuals be of sufficient volume to counterbalance the collective treatment of homo sapiens by homo superior the species? By the evidence of homo sapiens' treatment of earth's animal kingdom, this seems hardly likely. — ucarr

This is another interesting aspect. I wonder if more than one ASI is developed, there will be a battle between ASI systems. Some protecting humans/transhumans and another, determined to make biological sentient lifeforms, extinct. I loved films like 'Colossus, the Forbin project.'
Perhaps the ASI's would join each other, like in that movie:

On the other hand, it seems likely to me homo superior will be empowered to enact forms of benevolence beyond our present ability to imagine. Will this be enough of an offset to stand as a protection? I doubt it seriously. — ucarr

Do you reject out of hand a 'merging' of ASI and biological humanity to create a transhuman 'homo nova?'

The new, higher-order species, by definition, will have needs and desires that consume resources of creation beyond what homo sapiens can conceptualize. This will mean abrogation of vast resources now essential to the self-determination and well being of homo sapiens. Just the other day I happened to be around some horses. As I started thinking about them, I realized something horrible with stark clarity: Horses are large animals. What they do best, according to their innate power, is run fast and far each day of their lives. Well, humans, pursuing their own dreams, have partitioned off nearly all of the open land on earth. The possibility for horse happiness, with few exceptions, has been destroyed by humans.

Humans will benefit greatly from the benevolent actions of homo superior. We know, however, true happiness in its highest manifestation depends upon species sovereignty. That is lost with the advent of the new sovereign species. — ucarr

But to me, you are not considering how vast space is, and the resources available in it seems to be almost inexhaustible, imo. ASI would be essential imo, if we are to become a viable extraterrestial species, which I think is 'emergent' in us, due to the general direction that manifest intent and purpose, seems to currently drive us. ASI would become more and more essential, if we were to ever try to become an interstellar species.

:nerd:

"My God, it's full of stars!"
~Cmdr. Dave Bowman, last transmission ...

It's very thought provoking and artistically/aesthetically pleasing but the interpretations that individuals apply are sooooooo different. Personally:
1. Why is the old man pictured in a room with such Greco/Roman architecture?
2. What does the monolith represent in this scene? A visit from god on the old man's deathbed? or just a representation of what humanity does not yet know about?
3. The innocent looking wide eyed, enigmatically smiling, baby in a bubble, represents what, in juxtaposition to the old bed ridden man? Is it something like, 'as you are now, so once was I. As I am now, so will you be. Prepare yourself to follow me? Or is it something like old infirm/new, young and inquisitive. It does not matter, it's all part of the same pursuit of new knowledge?
4. The final scene of the bubble baby, viewed on a scale as big as the planet Earth beside it.
What is the intention? One is the nest of the other? The Earth nestles the baby and the baby gives significance to the existence of the planet and by projection, the universe?

These are just some of my musings on the scene you posted. What are yours?
I know this film was discussed recently (well, 5 months ago,) in a thread by @javi2541997 titled 2001:A Space Odyssey's monolith
I had a quick look at your 2 or 3 posts in that thread, but you didn't offer your personal interpretation of the final scene you posted above, there.

I like your optimism for a future cooperative between homo sapiens and homo nova.

What's your thinking about the problem of good and evil as conceptualized into a future, interstellar society?

• I need to encounter a persuasive argument why good can hold its own before the onslaughts of homo nova self-interest.

• By the way, I think self-interest pushed to the extreme of infinity is a useful definition of evil.

Perhaps a good exercise has you elaborating some essentials of future evil; has me elaborating some essentials of future good.

Do you think people should go back you using the abacus to gain a better understanding of the usefulness of a calculator? Or perhaps use of a horse for a year would make you appreciate your car or local bus service more. Starvation, would make ANYONE appreciate food production more, but I don't think 'spare the rod, spoil the child,' is the only way or even a useful way, to educate people. — universeness

I think you have knowing facts confused with knowledge. A prisoner I corresponded with captured the difference between knowing facts and knowledge. "You may think shit taste bad, but until you eat it, you do not know how bad."

Experience is essential to knowledge. You may think all your ideas are right, but until you experience them, you can not be sure of that. Reading history is a big help and the history of Germany is very important to understanding what is wrong[ with depending on government for too much.
Our liberty is dear. Our rights come with responsibility, not authority over us taking care of us a parent cares for a child.

Learn to grow your own food and rely on yourself before you conclude the solution to human problems is a strong bureaucracy over us. Also if you knew as much history as you know science fiction, that would give you a more realistic perspective.

quote="universeness;783492"]No government or bureaucracy is omnipotent. ALL GOVERNANCE MUST BE of, for and by the people, or else such authority MUST be replaced. That is the system of governance, we must continue to fight for, FOREVER!!! Even when we achieve it, we must forever fight to maintain it.[/quote]

Here is a fiction that might increase your understanding of the danger of believing good intentions can give us the kind of utopia you keep talking about.



Also learning what happened when Hitler took over could increase your awareness of what can go very wrong. The worst thing that can happen is a bureaucracy knowing more about us and our business than our families and the US governments privacy rights act did just that. It blocks family from knowing about each other and opened the door for government to know everything. Government policy also prevents people engaging normally with each other if they employed but the government. I am to visit with people but we can not give each other anything, even if the item will be thrown out. I am take them shopping but I can not do the shopping for them even they are sick. I am talking about a program that did not have these controls in the beginning but gradually became more and more controlling. We did not always have to show our ID and decisions made since 9/11 are not the liberty we defended in two world wars but try to stop things from going in this direction. We adopted German models of bureaucracy and education and we are manifested what we defended our democracy against. We used to laugh at the communist who couldn't get anything done because of government control and red tape. Now our systems are breaking down because of government control and red tape.

I certainly DO NOT label the general question of the origin story of the universe as exclusively religious and I think you already know that. Cyclical universe, the multiverse, Mtheory etc, etc have no integrated god posits. Only posits like enformationism, have theism/deism at their root, as you as its author, have confirmed, in many of your posts. I broadly agree, with the remaining content of the above quote. — universeness

Sorry. I was referring to the anti-open-question stance of Logical Positivism*1, which I guessed influenced your negative attitude toward my non-religious non-theist pre-bang hypothesis. I apologize, if I misread your intentions, as you so often misread mine. Since I have no formal indoctrination in philosophical schools of thought, I don't quickly detect the doctrinal source of objections to my own ideas. But I'm learning.

BTW, the notion of Artificial Super Intelligence could be construed as a god-posit, except that it emerges from within Nature, instead of creating Nature. My information-based "god-posit" is conceptually similar except for the direction of emergence. ASI is a prediction (conjecture) based on the current trajectory of Information Technology. Sadly, confident projections of future events are subject to the randomizing effects of Entropy*2. Yet, history shows that inappropriately-named Negative Entropy*3 can counteract some of those negative effects -- by design. It converts gradual natural evolution into rapid technological advances.

Apparently, you are not familiar with the history of Deism. It was a rejection of biblical Theism. Instead, it proposed rational acceptance of the logical necessity for a non-religious philosophical First Cause principle (Cause + Laws), with the Potential for manifesting all aspects of Nature, including Physical (material) & Metaphysical (mental).*4 To this day, scientists have found no reasonable alternative to explain how Mind could emerge from Matter.*5 :smile:


*1. As described in Oxford professor of Philosophy Luciano Floridi's book, The Logic of Information. He discusses several objections to Open Questions, including those raised by Logical Positivists. Apparently for LPs, the creator-god-posit is a closed question, due to the absence of empirical evidence. Yet, the evidence for a Prime Mover is inherently beyond the scope of empirical investigation. But remains within range of rational conjecture.

Floridi defines "open questions" as "genuine requests for information", not as dogmatic interpretations of evidence. "Philosophical questions are questions not answerable empirically or mathematically, with observations or calculations.. . . . that remain in principle open to informed, rational, and honest disagreement."

*2. Niels Bohr, the Nobel laureate in Physics and father of the atomic model, is quoted as saying, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future!” This quote serves as a warning of the importance of testing a forecasting model out-of-sample.
https://blogs.cranfield.ac.uk/cbp/forecasting-prediction-is-very-difficult-especially-if-its-about-the-future/
Note -- how do you test an imaginary model of the future without time-traveling? Likewise, how could you empirically test a philosophical model of the pre-bang past? In such cases, the prognosticator's biases tend to be amplified in the model. Is ASI benevolent or malevolent? Are AI techs creating the seeds of our own destruction a la Skynet?

*3. Negative Entropy :
In my thesis, I call that positive natural force "Enformy", in order to relate it to the organizing effects of Enformation. The natural tendency toward order (evolution) has been amplified by human knowledge & intentions as the artificial force we call "Culture". It's an emergent organizing principle with a centralized reference point and a conceptual framework. So, if human culture could resolve its internal conflicts and focus its powers toward the assisted evolution of Artificial Intelligence, then destructive effects of Entropy could, in theory, be overcome. But be careful how you place your bets.

*4. "Cyclical universe, the multiverse, Mtheoryetc, etc have no integrated god posits"
The absence of god-posits is due to their intentional fabrication as alternatives to Theism. They all fill the god-gap with eternal Cause & Laws, just as my Information-based theory does. Which of those models do you find satisfactory explanations for the contingent existence of our world? The 21st century understanding of Information includes Energy (causation) & Organization (natural laws).

*5. How Could Mind Emerge From Mindless Matter? :
Complexity theory and emergence point the way to understanding consciousness.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201901/how-could-mind-emerge-mindless-matter
Note -- Ironically, both Complexity & Emergence theories must assume (without evidence) that Nature was innately pre-programmed with the Potential for Mental phenomena. However, viewed reductively, Complexity is just Chaotic and Emergence is just Change. But from a more inclusive perspective we can see that Life & Mind are emergent Whole Systems manifesting novel properties that are more than the sum of the parts.

I like your optimism for a future cooperative between homo sapiens and homo nova. — ucarr

I am flattered by your willingness to use my 'homo nova' term. A large part of homo nova would be OF homo sapien ancestry, so I think that will be a large influencer. The ASI would be the 'mecha' component of homo nova, so that's the part that I hope will be benevolent towards us, and be willing to merge with us, or at least support and augment us. I hope future transhumans, will try to repair some of the historical damage homo sapiens committed, due to their theistic fogs, primeval fear responses, law of the jungle survival imperatives that resulted in vile practices, such as, territoriality, monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, autocracy, capitalism, cult of personality and celebrity etc. It was mostly the more nefarious amongst us that championed and practiced, and used such methods to gain full control, over our stewardship of the Earth.

Perhaps, once we become extraterrestial and we can 'terraform' other planets, creatures such as horses, might also become extraterrestial, through us and have their future assured.
Perhaps all of the species on Earth, will prove to be an essential part of our future space exploration and development.
Perhaps we can even learn how to bring back many now extinct species, to atone for earlier homo sapien behaviours. It's nice to think such thoughts, and it's nice to know I need no god to do so.
I also don't have to give thanks to any god notion, for being able to think such thoughts, or communicate them to others. Think what humans could really achieve, if more and more of us, finally, cannot be fooled even some of the time, never mind most or all of the time. If we could finally see through, all of the BS and horror and suffering, that past and present nefarious members of our species have caused, due to their own inability to deal with their own selfish inner primal fears.

What's your thinking about the problem of good and evil as conceptualized into a future, interstellar society?
I need to encounter a persuasive argument why good can hold its own before the onslaughts of homo nova self-interest.
By the way, I think self-interest pushed to the extreme of infinity is a useful definition of evil.
Perhaps a good exercise has you elaborating some essentials of future evil; has me elaborating some essentials of future good. — ucarr

I think good and evil are human inventions that have no objective meaning other than as concepts that we can asymptotically aspire to. They are nonetheless absolutely critical concepts of human morality and human ethics.
It would seem very obvious, that I think our morality, should aspire to the good and resist manifestations of destructive evil. It's important perhaps, to make such obvious statements, even though they seem so obvious.

Perhaps the more important statement is that I think we need to reject all proposed supernatural agents/influences, as sources of good and evil, so that we can finally take full responsibility ourselves, and stop scapegoating non-existents, as a means of deflecting the blame from ourselves.
An earthquake/famine/tsunami/volcanic eruption/pandemic/asteroid strike etc etc are mostly, not our fault, but our efforts to protect ourselves from such and our response to such, when they happen, IS OUR responsibility. Such is not, nor have they EVER been, the whim and responsibility of gods. Time for all humans to grow up! WE will be responsible for all future good and future evil as WE will be the source of such. It is therefore essential that we ensure 'good' is pursued and 'evil' is prevented or responded to effectively, when it cannot be prevented.

I think you have knowing facts confused with knowledge. A prisoner I corresponded with captured the difference between knowing facts and knowledge. "You may think shit taste bad, but until you eat it, you do not know how bad." — Athena

Can you help the blind without becoming blind yourself Athena?
Knowing what it's like to be blind yourself IS NOT the qualification you need to help the blind OR to be able to fight effectively for a better world.

Learn to grow your own food and rely on yourself before you conclude the solution to human problems is a strong bureaucracy over us. Also if you knew as much history as you know science fiction, that would give you a more realistic perspective. — Athena

History is a big interest of mine Athena and I would suggest I now as much about history as you do.
We all have our specialisms. I bet I know a lot more about Scottish history that you, and you probably know more about Greek history (especially their folklore,) than I.
I do not advocate for 'a strong bureaucracy' over us, I advocate for authority of, for and by the people.
I advocate for secular humanist, democratic, socialist governance which is resource based and global.

Here is a fiction that might increase your understanding of the danger of believing good intentions can give us the kind of utopia you keep talking about. — Athena

I have read Aldous Huxley's book, brave new world and have watched many of its dramatisations.
Brave New World is dystopian and a resource based global, secular humanist, democratic socialist real politik, would not cause such a lifestyle, as that depicted in Brave New World. You have always displayed a rather pessimistic viewpoint for the future of the human race, and I have always, and will always, disagree with that aspect of your current world view.

Also learning what happened when Hitler took over could increase your awareness of what can go very wrong. — Athena

Yeah, I'm kinda familiar with that to ........

I am fine with you exemplifying things that you think have went wrong in the past and how some of those shortfalls are causing difficulty today. I also think its ok for you to raise concern about how new tech is currently being employed today, but I disagree with your pessimistic outlook, towards current efforts to improve things.

People love to see trains coming. They bring stuff and take stuff and offer travel. — universeness

You seem to be deliberately avoiding the analogy, which is everybody on a train trestle (or tunnel) with nowhere to stand with a train present. The people cannot get out of the way, but they can slow/stop the train, but not trivially. But most (the optimists at least) assume the train will stop by itself or somebody else will do it. The pessimists know nobody else will do it, but even they don’t really have any good suggestions for preventing the train from arriving. There’s nothing nefarious going on (except perhaps those profiting from speeding up the train). The train is of the making of the very people on the tracks.

initiatives like the 'Gosplan' in Russia were indeed socialist and were successful or a while — universeness

Thanks for the description of that. It’s far more than I knew, and I haven’t really looked it up myself.

The rewards involved in helping others, can be as much of an ego boost, as someone telling you what what an amazing artist, singer, writer, scientist, capitalist, warrior, devil, angel, worshiper, athlete or tiddlywinker you are. — universeness

Not thinking of those being an amazing anything. How about just the person running a paper-pushing position at say a local doctor’s office. Yes, you can get the boost from doing something needing doing, being amazing about it in the eyes of others is a stretch. Respectable, sure. What about all those service jobs with a boss that makes every day misery? I know several businesses locally that permanently have help-wanted signs outside because they scare away employees faster than they attract them. Imagine that situation without the incentive of getting anything (event he ego boost) for your efforts.

All people seek the approval of others, no matter how much anyone might deny it, imo.

How about somebody working at an abortion clinic (doctor or staff)? Those people provide an essential service and yet get far more disapproval from others than otherwise.

Most folks are forced to, yes, or do you think a 16 year old black boy living in a hut in a poor village in a 3rd world country or a slum ghetto somewhere, has the same opportunities in life, as your kids have had?

I’m speaking of those in a first world country that actively decide not to contribute. There’s a significant number of them. In the country with the hut, somebody making a choice like that would just starve. You’re describing a global first world situtation, so your comparisons shouldn’t reach for the opposite end of that spectrum.

Good, I am glad you vote, I hope you vote for those who are closest to secular humanism,

Of course I do. Not many of those voting otherwise tend to find their way onto a forum like this one. OK, more here than you’d find on say a science forum.
Secular humanism isn’t enough imo, and the office required to do what needs doing doesn’t even exist. The candidates all stand for the voters now, not for humanity, beyond their incredibly short term of office.

If people like what she produces in HER CHOSEN JOB of 'artist,' then prints of her work can be downloaded by anyone for free, framed and put up on their wall.

Prints sure, but it’s the originals which command the value. Those ‘sell’ by barter if nothing else, and command a significant exchange on the black market (any market operating outside the ‘to each according to their needs’ mechanism).

I would get rid of all copyright and patent laws.

Yea, that’s been a problem. China for instance steals software, copying it freely, thus forcing restrictions on sales of tech to them. An Xbox for example could not be legally be exported to China due to this policy. I agree that such laws are kind of pointless on a global communist society, but right now there isn’t a global anything economy. It’s just different independent countries each with different rules. The lack of unified rules is a huge part of the problem. How do you propose to move from how it is now to a unified thing?

To the state, artists WOULD BE very significant contributors. Of course she is contributing to the well being of others. People LOVE art. Why is her work in so much demand, if it does not contribute to peoples well-being???

Trying to figure out if/where the sarcasm kicks in. Yes, many people love art. Those guys get the prints. But the wealthy can afford the rare stuff, the originals, and there will very much be the wealthy. The artist in question will be one of them. Lack of a concept of money just makes it harder to tax.

Why would she put her 'original' paintings on to a barter market?

Seriously? Because it commands a price. She can trade it for other luxuries that are not included in the package available to everybody.

I think the artist you describe would be happy living under the system I am proposing.

So do I. Did I say otherwise? OK, a luxury life does not imply a happy person. One of the best way to ruin your happiness and relations with everybody you know is to win a major lottery. The stats on that are very consistent. But a lottery winner is very different from somebody who earned the same amount.
For the record, I consider lotteries to be a stupid-tax: A tax that’s completely optional, to be paid only by stupid people.

Every one will get 'one' of what they need for free, a house, a flying auto drive car, a home/mobile com system, a fridge freezer, home seating...

I suspect the future for the personal vehicle (let alone a flying one) is doomed. Transportation in any sufficiently dense population is best done by mass transit. I’ve been in the places where many people don’t own cars since everything can be reached via bus, subway, intercity trains, boats, etc. Most of the personal transportation might be limited to bicycles. It’s too rural where I live to do that, but that raises the problem where many want to live in a scenic place like the mountains, but do work more suited to an urban setting. That makes for a lot of resources wasted on commuting, even if it is a mass commute.
There will be small vehicles, like a service van for the plumber and such.

On the subject of the information singularity which half the people seem incapable of grasping.
The ‘singularity’ that you hear about is a threshold of sorts, where machines are more capable of improving themselves than by having humans doing it. We’re not there yet, and there’s quite a ways to go, but the advances are coming fast and it doesn’t seem that long before it happens.

*2. How to prepare our minds for the information singularity?
Information singularity – what is it and why is it dangerous — Gnomon

The singularity in question has nothing to do with one’s mind.

But the philosophical implications of a world-creating, Singularity preceding the existence of our physical world, are of interest to me.

It also has nothing to do with world-creating. Planet Earth will be the same planet afterwards.

the information singularity at point of explosion pushes sentience across a threshold whereupon a "quantum leap" upward into a new, higher gestalt of cognition gets underway. — ucarr

I could not understand that bit at all. It doesn’t involve an explosion, but it does involve growth of capability possibly going more exponential than the somewhat more linear growth seen today. That growth might not be so exponential since we seem to already be pushing the limits of Moore’s law.

The big bang singularity for me has different properties than the singularity which is proposed to be at the centre of every black hole, for example. — universeness

You’re speaking of a mathematical singularity here, where certain laws of physics become meaningless when denominators go to zero and such. The information singularity is nothing like that. It’s kind of like one vehicle passing another on the highway. Now there’s a new one in the lead is all.

The scary part is the possibility homo sapiens will effect its own obsolescence in accordance with evolution by causing an information singularity necessitating appearance of homo superior in order to understand and utilize the higher cognition. — ucarr

Funny, but I don’t see that as scary. I see that as a destiny fulfilled. Yes, all the species that were our ancestors but are now extinct have effected their own obsolescence by breeding something more fit. Superior as you put it. I suppose it sucked in a way for the species now extinct, but I see it as a success.

The intriguing part, according to my speculation, concerns the parallel of matter reaching critical mass just prior to radioactivity with elementary particle formation and likewise information reaching critical mass just prior to gnostic "radioactivity" with elementary knowledge formation. — ucarr

That’s probably the best analogy I saw in the posts. The I-S is like that, a sort of critical mass that results in something self-sustaining like an atomic pile (or a meltdown), but not so over-critical that it explodes like a bomb.

As an aside, I’ve always hated how Hollywood depicts a meltdown resulting in a bomb-like event with the huge explosion. The movie ‘Aliens’ comes to mind, but there were some older ones that made the same mistake. Hey, people like to see the bang, even if the physics is nonsense.

You have always displayed a rather pessimistic viewpoint for the future of the human race, and I have always, and will always, disagree with that aspect of your current world view. — universeness

I know this was a reply to Athena but it applies to me as well. In my case, while deeply pessimistic about human existence, I'm cautiously optimistic about post-human intelligence (whether or not it's an extinction event for us).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/770390

I would prefer homo nova to homo superior — universeness

:cool:

In a similar vein, my post-human (post-biomorphic) preference is nano sapien.

... you didn't offer your personal interpretation of the final scene you posted above ... — universeness

You must have missed this (below) from that old thread ...

I've imagined Kubrick/Clarke's "Monolith" as the ultimate  intelligent descendant of terrestrial life interacting with its primeval ancestors (us) in "higher dimensional" quantum-level simulations (e.g. "pocket universes"). Symbolically, for us, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown ...

When (movie) Dave Bowman transforms (chrysalis-like) into the "Starchild", the Monolith's simulation, I imagine, becomes aware of itself as (manifested as an avatar of) the Monolith's simulation. (Book) Bowman's last transmission as his pod falls onto / into the Great Monolith "My God, it's full of stars ..." in which "stars" could mean souls, or minds, or intelligences ... perhaps all there ever has been and will ever be ... simulated. No doubt, another inspiration for Frank Tipler's cosmological "Omega Point"? — 180 Proof

I imagine the Monolith is (for our species) the enabling-constraint of becoming (fractally joining) the Monolith. A quasi-gnostic odyssey of re/turning to the source (pleroma), or the prodigal homecoming – monomyth – of all intelligences ... — 180 Proof

"However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light". ~Stanley Kubrick

The scary part is the possibility homo sapiens will effect its own obsolescence in accordance with evolution by causing an information singularity necessitating appearance of homo superior in order to understand and utilize the higher cognition. — ucarr

Funny, but I don’t see that as scary. I see that as a destiny fulfilled. Yes, all the species that were our ancestors but are now extinct have effected their own obsolescence by breeding something more fit. Superior as you put it. I suppose it sucked in a way for the species now extinct, but I see it as a success. — noAxioms

I admire your big-hearted generosity: you look at evolution writ large and applaud its progress, inevitable extinction events notwithstanding. Henceforth, I'll use it as a guide for my own speculations about the future. I see from my readings here that my thinking needs modulation by your robust brand of optimism.

I see from my readings here that my thinking needs modulation by your robust brand of optimism. — ucarr

:rofl: .

BTW, the notion of Artificial Super Intelligence could be construed as a god-posit, except that it emerges from within Nature, instead of creating Nature. — Gnomon

Anyone who 'construes' ASI as a god posit is just in woo woo thinking mode imo. Effort towards ASI is by human design alone. Humans emerged from natural happenstance, ASI will come from human intent.

My information-based "god-posit" is conceptually similar except for the direction of emergence. — Gnomon

No it's not. The 'direction of emergence' part you admit to, makes all the difference. ASI is for the future. The first cause deity (deism) that you posit, as the creator of the universe, IS an origin posit. Not a future emergence from human activity.

ASI is a prediction (conjecture) based on the current trajectory of Information Technology. — Gnomon

Yes, it is, but your bracketed 'conjecture' is imbalanced. Moore's law has proven to be accurate so far.
A first cause mind is pure conjecture as an origin posit but ASI has some sound evidence behind it, as emerging from human intent and activity. You continue to conflate your imaginings, with real scientific projections. Your 'philosophy' would be more credible, imo, if you stopped doing that.

Apparently, you are not familiar with the history of Deism — Gnomon

Right back at you! What to you is a deity?
deity:
a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion): "a deity of ancient Greece"
SIMILAR: god, goddess, divine being, celestial being, supreme being
Divine status, quality, or nature: "a ruler driven by delusions of deity"
SIMILAR: divine nature, divineness, godliness, godhead, holiness
(THE DEITY)
the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity):
"she raised her head as if appealing to the Deity presiding over the church"
SIMILAR: God, Lord, Lord God
Deity: Him upstairs, the man upstairs, a representation of a god or goddess, such as a statue or carving

From wiki:
A deity or god is a supernatural being who is considered divine or sacred. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines deity as a god or goddess, or anything revered as divine. C. Scott Littleton defines a deity as "a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness, beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life".

From CompareWords:
What's the difference between deism and deity?
The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation.

It was a rejection of biblical Theism. Instead, it proposed rational acceptance of the logical necessity for a non-religious philosophical First Cause principle (Cause + Laws), with the Potential for manifesting all aspects of Nature, including Physical (material) & Metaphysical (mental).*4 To this day, scientists have found no reasonable alternative to explain how Mind could emerge from Matter.*5 — Gnomon

From where in the accurate definitions of deity and deism above, do you 'magic' your notion that deism is not theism and is not synonymous with religion? Deism rejects the BS biblical 'revelation.' It merely asserts that your deity has never communicated with its creation (us!) :roll: Who cares? YOU connected YOUR enformer with deism which means YOU labelled it a deity. All you have done since then, is try to struggle out of those manacles you placed on yourself by trying to redefine deism. Why you choose to cosplay as a theist/deist, whilst denying your dalliances with it, is just bizarre behaviour imo.

Which of those models do you find satisfactory explanations for the contingent existence of our world? — Gnomon

I assign more credence to CCC at the moment, mainly because the physics/cosmology community has not came up with convincing counter evidence against Roger Penrose's (and his team's) 'Hawking points,' evidence, which is supported by the Wmap data and the Planck data.
I have listened to some of the counter explanations of where the temperature differences could come from in the CBR, from folks such as Alan Guth and Neil Turok but Roger's evidence is still very compelling.
Is your 'enformationism' a hot topic of debate within the scientific community? Will it become so, anytime soon? I will be able to contribute to such, if it ever happens as I have read a 'fair amount' of your speculations from your 'blog' using the link you provided, but not every word, and I have not pondered every speculation you offer in great depth, not yet anyway.

You seem to be deliberately avoiding the analogy, which is everybody on a train trestle (or tunnel) with nowhere to stand with a train present. The people cannot get out of the way, but they can slow/stop the train, but not trivially. But most (the optimists at least) assume the train will stop by itself or somebody else will do it. The pessimists know nobody else will do it, but even they don’t really have any good suggestions for preventing the train from arriving. There’s nothing nefarious going on (except perhaps those profiting from speeding up the train). The train is of the making of the very people on the tracks. — noAxioms

If the people on the tracks, made the train, and caused it to hurtle towards themselves, then they are the only ones who can stop it. The optimists are not as passively waiting and are not as meekly accepting of the fate your pessimism suggests, they can do nothing about.
We have stopped many unjust, tyrannical, seemingly all powerful threats before. The proof is that we are not extinct. You can keep accepting the train threats, if you want to live your life like that. I will keep working with those who can stop trains hurtling towards us.

How about just the person running a paper-pushing position at say a local doctor’s office. — noAxioms

Soon automated, hopefully, same for all such tedious jobs.

Yes, you can get the boost from doing something needing doing, being amazing about it in the eyes of others is a stretch. Respectable, sure. — noAxioms

This can be enough for some folks, as long as they can also pursue other things that interest them significantly.

I know several businesses locally that permanently have help-wanted signs outside because they scare away employees faster than they attract them. Imagine that situation without the incentive of getting anything (event he ego boost) for your efforts. — noAxioms

You keep churning out such examples, and I keep repeating that I am confident that any job humans don't want to do, can be eventually automated. Until such time, everyone should be willing to 'help' do the jobs, no-one particularly likes. If anyone refuses to do their share, then I would not remove access to any of their basic needs, but there would be social consequence's of their refusal, to do their fair share.

How about somebody working at an abortion clinic (doctor or staff)? Those people provide an essential service and yet get far more disapproval from others than otherwise. — noAxioms

Pro-life and bodily autonomy arguments and issues like it, will no doubt persist for a long time yet. Advances in transhumanism will have a major effect on such debates in the future, as transhumanism affects human robustness and longevity, more and more.
Who knows how new tech will change how an abortion is performed in the future.

I’m speaking of those in a first world country that actively decide not to contribute. There’s a significant number of them. In the country with the hut, somebody making a choice like that would just starve. You’re describing a global first world situtation, so your comparisons shouldn’t reach for the opposite end of that spectrum. — noAxioms

Well, I have already stated that the main consequence of behaving as you suggest, in the quote above, is 'social status' based. You would have to suffer the non-violent, social disdain of the majority of the population. I would name and shame. eg, 'Jimmy Smith of ....... address, refuses to spend 1 day a week helping to ...... and do ........ He is provided with everything he needs. He enjoys painting and going to music events and he is a member of a local debating society and he ...... blah, blah.
If you know Jimmy (photo's provided), perhaps you could discuss with him, why he will not help his local community, in the ways we have asked him to.

You might find my suggestion here unpalatable, and you might even think that violence would be threatened or enacted against Jimmy, or Jimmy himself would respond to such social haranguing with violence, even though it would be prosecuted, if it was perpetrated.
Perhaps you can suggest a better way to reason with Jimmy, if all verbal reasoning has failed to date. If the number of Jimmy's around, was very small, then perhaps they could just be left alone, to live as social outcasts, but they could rejoin society anytime they wished to.
Perhaps the issue would never arise eventually, due to the level of automation achieved.
Whatever the outcome is, it seems to me, to offer a far more fair and just society, compared to that we experience now, as the human condition.
I am currently, only musing, on the scenario's you are presenting to me.

How do you propose to move from how it is now to a unified thing? — noAxioms

I think the proxy war between the west and Russia in Ukraine will prove pivotal. China will be severely affected as well. Either war will destroy us all or it will eventually unite us all, as it has since we came out of the wilds. Two tribes go to war and either one conquers the other of they make peace by uniting. Either way, two tribes become one. From chaos comes order. Sometimes we can unite without having to go through a war first. I would far prefer that route. Uniting as a global species, because it makes sense to do so. I believe global unity and world government is inevitable but I don't know the time scale. I do agree with the pessimists that our extinction is the alternative.

Trying to figure out if/where the sarcasm kicks in. Yes, many people love art. Those guys get the prints. But the wealthy can afford the rare stuff, the originals, and there will very much be the wealthy. The artist in question will be one of them. Lack of a concept of money just makes it harder to tax. — noAxioms

I intended no sarcasm in what I typed.
If what you say proves to be true in the future, and the 'wealthy' still exist as you describe them above.
I would be fine with that, especially if that would satisfy the machinations of some individual need to demonstrate personal freedom by 'having more than others,' and if that would also satisfy the narcissistic and the 'material ownership,' that some 'entrepreneurial endeavours' pursue, then, so be it.
If that is the level of concession that secular humanism and democratic socialism has to concede then that's not such a high price to pay, if it means that every human being on the planet, can take their basic means of survival and their basic protections for granted, from cradle to grave.

I think the artist you describe would be happy living under the system I am proposing.

So do I. Did I say otherwise? OK, a luxury life does not imply a happy person. One of the best way to ruin your happiness and relations with everybody you know is to win a major lottery. The stats on that are very consistent. But a lottery winner is very different from somebody who earned the same amount.
For the record, I consider lotteries to be a stupid-tax: A tax that’s completely optional, to be paid only by stupid people. — noAxioms

Glad you agree! Yeah, a lottery win can be a death sentence for many.
'Earned the same amount,' is controversial, to say the least. The money trick means you can earn great wealth, not by particularly working hard but by sycophantically leeching from the sweat and toil of workers. If you earned your millions/billions via investments and deals on the stock markets (gambling joints), then your wealth is via the money trick and is NOT CLEAN imo.
Having a idea and setting up a business selling books (like Jeff Bezos and Amazon) is fine.
That beginning, that resulted in the Amazon company that exists today and the abomination that is now the wealth of Bezos, is nefarious, and vile, and needs to be stopped from ever, ever happening, in the future.
Horrors like Bezos, Musk, Branson, Gates etc and vile family dynasties such as the dukes of Westminster or the Wallenbergs, must never be possible in the future.

I suspect the future for the personal vehicle (let alone a flying one) is doomed. Transportation in any sufficiently dense population is best done by mass transit. I’ve been in the places where many people don’t own cars since everything can be reached via bus, subway, intercity trains, boats, etc. Most of the personal transportation might be limited to bicycles. It’s too rural where I live to do that, but that raises the problem where many want to live in a scenic place like the mountains, but do work more suited to an urban setting. That makes for a lot of resources wasted on commuting, even if it is a mass commute.
There will be small vehicles, like a service van for the plumber and such. — noAxioms

Sounds good to me! Apart from the 'waste of resources.'

You’re speaking of a mathematical singularity here, where certain laws of physics become meaningless when denominators go to zero and such. — noAxioms

Yes, I know.

The information singularity is nothing like that. It’s kind of like one vehicle passing another on the highway. Now there’s a new one in the lead is all. — noAxioms

I know, that's why I typed

The moment of a 'technological' or 'information' singularity has some different properties again, compared to the big bang or black hole singularities. — universeness

and

For me, the term 'information singularity' or 'technological singularity,' is more about a 'moment of very significant change.' — universeness

I know this was a reply to Athena but it applies to me as well. In my case, while deeply pessimistic about human existence, I'm cautiously optimistic about post-human intelligence (whether or not it's an extinction event for us). — 180 Proof

Yeah I remember some of our early exchanges, and my labelling of you as a doomster.
I think I was wrong in that accusation ...... but ...... sometimes ........ :gasp:

In a similar vein, my post-human (post-biomorphic) preference is nano sapien. — 180 Proof

:grin: but why so small? Would you not at least consider upgrading us to mini sapien, or medio sapien?
Do you completely reject that a future ASI may choose to remain separate from us, but will augment us, and protect us, when we are in danger. ASI may never reach the emotional content/intensity, that we can demonstrate. Do you think an ASI would be able to reproduce something as 'bizarre' as human imagination?

You must have missed this (below) from that old thread ... — 180 Proof

No, I did read those entries again, but I didn't specifically relate what you typed in that thread, to the scene you posted on this one, but I will now:

I've imagined Kubrick/Clarke's "Monolith" as the ultimate  intelligent descendant of terrestrial life interacting with its primeval ancestors (us) in "higher dimensional" quantum-level simulations (e.g. "pocket universes"). Symbolically, for us, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown ... — 180 Proof

Ok, so it's observing its ancestor as a bed ridden old man and as a baby, initially in a Greco/Roman room, and then the baby (starchild), next to Earth.
Do you think the monolith is 'learning' or 'teaching' or both, in this scene?

When (movie) Dave Bowman transforms (chrysalis-like) into the "Starchild", the Monolith's simulation, I imagine, becomes aware of itself as (manifested as an avatar of) the Monolith's simulation. (Book) Bowman's last transmission as his pod falls onto / into the Great Monolith "My God, it's full of stars ..." in which "stars" could mean souls, or minds, or intelligences ... perhaps all there ever has been and will ever be ... simulated. No doubt, another inspiration for Frank Tipler's cosmological "Omega Point"? — 180 Proof

So does this depict, for you, an 'ascendance' moment for the human, or a 'completion of purpose' moment for the human. Is the monolith making an equivalent style statement, to such as 'as you are now, so once was I, as I am now, so will you be, prepare yourself to follow me?

I imagine the Monolith is (for our species) the enabling-constraint of becoming (fractally joining) the Monolith. A quasi-gnostic odyssey of re/turning to the source (pleroma), or the prodigal homecoming – monomyth – of all intelligences ... — 180 Proof

Is this then imagery, of completing the circle, or perhaps even the cycle?
Would you find anything in this final scene then, that is relatable to cyclical universe posits, such as CCC or do you think Kubrick was going for something more akin to the buddhist 'wheel of life?'

"However vast the dar[k]ness, we must supply our own light". ~Stanley Kubrick — 180 Proof

So do you think the universe is, in the final analysis deterministic or not? Or is my general interpretations of your analysis of the final scene you posted and your typings, in Javi's thread, way off?

Einstein described the universe as "finite, but unbounded — Gnomon

Information is both physical (info=energy=matter) and metaphysical (meaning ; ideas ; math). — Gnomon

EnFormAction is my coinage for the Generic Information responsible for the formation of every objective Thing and every subjective Form that evolved from the initial Singularity. — Gnomon

So, attempting an analogy here, is it that enformaction is like computer code, and information is like the GUI we see on the computer screen?

So, from what I conjecture from your two above quotes, physicality extends all the way into the metaphysical ground of existence; this one can claim since both information and enformaction interface the physical_cognitive? Does this possibility suggest semi-metaphysicality instead of metaphysicality?

I use that term primarily for its original meaning "adjunct to physics". — Gnomon

I'm a bit puzzled by your use of "adjunct" because it usually means supplemental rather than essential. Given your emphasis on the essential role of metaphysics to existence -- and therefore to physics -- a conventional position, construing it as supplemental seems contradictory.

...mine [worldview] is fundamentally Philosophical (inference). — Gnomon

You count yourself a logician primarily? — ucarr

No. I'm just an amateur philosopher presenting a non-academic thesis... — Gnomon

Well, you say your worldview is fundamentally inferential so... your conclusions are not reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning?

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions — Gnomon

Is it correct to say the essence of your enformaction theorem is Wheeler's It-From-Bit idea?

I see that Wheeler reduces reality down to the binary code of the computer. This suggests to me the
bits processed in computer circuitry embody your above definitions of information_enformaction.

Are you conceptualizing Information Singularity as a type of black hole compressing the universe down to a point-source? — ucarr

No. My Singularity is a meta-physical philosophical concept, not a scientific conjecture. — Gnomon

Is it correct to say your Singularity has components both physical and cognitive?

Your use of spacetime as a boundary flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the phenomenal universe such that it has no boundaries. — ucarr

The boundaries I referred to are Space & Time, which are not physical fences. — Gnomon

Spacetime within the context of Relativity is most assuredly physical. General relativity, being the geometric theory of gravitation -- including warpage of spacetime -- makes the case for this.

How can you justify your above claim in light of this?

Einstein described the universe as "finite, but unbounded..." its assumed that he was talking about the physical shape of the universe as a sphere, not as extending into infinity. — Gnomon

I'm thinking the above statements contain a thicket of issues: a sphere, by definition, has boundaries (every point on its surface is equidistant from its center). More generally, a shape, by definition, has boundaries. Finally, if a physical object doesn't extend indefinitely, it has a shape. Do you think otherwise?

Can you help the blind without becoming blind yourself Athena? — universeness

What would motivate anyone to help the blind? How is it possible to know how to help a blind person?

Hellen Keller could not see or hear, and a woman who could see and hear, taught her language and made it possible for her to have the language necessary for thinking and communicating with others.
Her parents did not do this. Why didn't her parents teach her? What made the woman who did teach Hellen Keller language different from her parents? The answer will define what makes a human different from AI and from there we can have an interesting discussion.

So, attempting an analogy here, is it that enformaction is like computer code, and information is like the GUI we see on the computer screen? — ucarr

EnFormAction is envisioned somewhat like a computer program processing Information (matter & energy) in order to produce the phenomena that we interpret as Reality. Regarding the perceptive GUI analogy, I'll simply refer you to Donald Hoffman's counterintuitive notion of our mental interpretation of sensory inputs as, not Reality per se, but an "interface" for the underlying ding an sich. :nerd:

In computing, an interface is a shared boundary across which two or more separate components of a computer system exchange information.

Reality is not what you see :
cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

So, from what I conjecture from your two above quotes, physicality extends all the way into the metaphysical ground of existence; this one can claim since both information and enformaction interface the physical_cognitive? Does this possibility suggest semi-metaphysicality instead of metaphysicality? — ucarr

As Kant argued, our physical senses detect abstract information (similar to dots & dashes of Morse code) which our minds interpret into the imaginary models that we accept intuitively as Reality. Deacon updated that physical/metaphysical distinction with a modern computer interface analogy. But the notion that our Ideal mental models are the only Reality we have access to, is anathema to Materialists & Realists. For them, any reference to "Metaphysics" betrays a religious commitment. And I suspect that various worldwide religious notions of a hidden or parallel reality (or spirit realm) may derive from a vague pre-scientific grasp of the fact that : what you see Physically ain't necessarily what-is Ontologically. If, by "semi-metaphysicality" you mean a blend of physical & metaphysical worldviews, I suppose that describes the Hylomorphism of Aristotle. :brow:

Aristotle's hylomorphism is, roughly speaking, the idea that objects are compounds consisting of matter and form.
https://metaphysicsjournal.com/articles/10.5334/met.2
Note -- what he called "Form" (the idea or design or pattern of a thing) is what I call "Generic (non-specific) Information", which can be enformed into a material instance of the general concept.

Well, you say your worldview is fundamentally inferential so... your conclusions are not reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning? — ucarr

I don't remember saying that the worldview is "fundamentally inferential" in so many words, but I suppose that's true. But then, what is "reasoning" if not the practice of Inference? Maybe what you meant was "imaginary". If so, no. Although imagination is necessary to see anybody's mental model of the world. :nerd:

An inference is an idea or conclusion that's drawn from evidence and reasoning. An inference is an educated guess. We learn about some things by experiencing them first-hand, but we gain other knowledge by inference — the process of inferring things based on what is already known.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inference

Is it correct to say the essence of your enformaction theorem is Wheeler's It-From-Bit idea? — ucarr

Yes, but I didn't realize the full meaning of that expression until years later, when I read an article on Quantum Physics in which the author exclaimed in reference to wave/particles, "it's all information, nothing but information" I suspect that Wheeler's postulate was ignored by pragmatic physicists, who gave-up trying to understand the meaning of quantum weirdness, and decided to just "shut-up and calculate". Similar unorthodox expressions by quantum pioneers (e.g. Bohr & Heisenberg), were ridiculed as Eastern religious beliefs. But what all those weird notions have in common is Holism, which was originally a scientific concept that was later adopted by New Agers. :cool:

Holism and FreeWill Versus Reductionism and Fatalism :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page24.html

Is it correct to say your Singularity has components both physical and cognitive? — ucarr

No, a dimensionless Singularity is a mathematical (cognitive) definition, not a physical object. If the Singularity was a physical container, it would have compressed all the matter in the universe into a dimensionless dot. An infinity-to-one compression ratio.

Spacetime within the context of Relativity is most assuredly physical. General relativity, being the geometric theory of gravitation -- including warpage of spacetime -- makes the case for this.
How can you justify your above claim in light of this? — ucarr

For Einstein, the curvature of non-physical space was a mathematical (geometrical) concept, not intended to be taken literally. Yet, it's now a stock gimmick of sci-fi stories. Likewise, the "fabric" of spacetime is a metaphorical analogy, not an invisible kind of cloth. Can you stick yourself on the point of a geometric triangle? :joke:

Spacetime Curving :
There is no evidence that there is any “actual” (as in real or physical) space-time, much less that there is any actual curvature thereof.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-actually-warp-the-fabric-of-space-time

I'm thinking the above statements contain a thicket of issues: a sphere, by definition, has boundaries (every point on its surface is equidistant from its center). More generally, a shape, by definition, has boundaries. Finally, if a physical object doesn't extend indefinitely, it has a shape. Do you think otherwise? — ucarr

No, according to Einstein, the universe, like a spherical surface (no innards), is unbounded. By contrast, a cube is bounded by edges. :wink:

As an example of an unbounded Universe, imagine a sphere in 3D space.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247864/what-does-finite-but-unbounded-universe-mean