How would we know the being was omniscient and omnibenevolent?

I believe they would find a way to instantaneously eradicate all sentient life. We wouldn't know or care. Nothing would happen from our perspective.

Elaborate on what you mean by "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" and how we would recognize any being possessed such properties or capabilities.

If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?

Would you even believe them? — Benj96

Even if they were only semi-omniscient they would know way more than most people and be able to prove it easily. They might even know enough to keep their mouths shut so they do not end up in some government, deep, dark lab.

Would you want to speak to them? — Benj96

Why? Do you really think she/he/they would give me the solutions to the worlds problems and risk ending up in the lab I mentioned.

Would you like them or despise them? — Benj96

In today's world I guess that it would depend on whether she/he/they got more likes than you did today.

And how do you think humanity would react as a whole? — Benj96

By putting him/her/them in that lab. Unless of course he/she/they are not only omni-benevolent but super-duper rich and capable of solving the worlds financial problems.

Would you even believe them? — Benj96

Sure, if they performed enough feats of knowledge and kindness. But they would have to do it either on a large public platform (which is dangerous to themselves) or in my living room (which doesn't give them very much scope for the demonstration.)
If they are not also omnipotent or at least invulnerable, big knowledge and big compassion won't give them any power to change things.

Would you want to speak to them? — Benj96

If they preformed the demo in my house, I guess I'd be obliged to talk to them and also feed them. If they did it on CNN, I wouldn't get a chance to talk to them.

Would you like them or despise them? — Benj96

I find it very difficult to dislike any benevolent person, even if they have halitosis, poor communication skills and unpleasant personal habits.

And how do you think humanity would react as a whole? — Benj96

Hardly at all. Humanity as whole is suspicious of knowledge (though individually we pretend to admire it) and contemptuous of kindness (though individually, we welcome it directed to ourselves, are jealous of it directed to anyone else and resentful if any material expression of it is expected of us.)
Anyway, if that alien landed on Earth with no protective gear, as soon as he knew everything about the planet, his head would explode, and 10 seconds isn't long enough to get to know someone.

I suspect the Omni would keep their powers to themselves. They would know precisely the reactions of the human killer ape.

I suspect the Omni would keep their powers to themselves. They would know precisely the reactions of the human killer ape. — Tom Storm

Yes one would imagine they'd be quite terrified. However that brings into question their omnibenevolence no? In so far that teaching, education and knowledge could remedy a lot of the worlds problems. Keeping it to themselves could be seen as permitting ignorance, propaganda and delusion to wreak havoc on the world when one clearly knows better.

How would we know the being was omniscient and omnibenevolent? — Punshhh

I suppose if they demonstrated it by showing how to resolve dozens of our greatest problems, revealing discoveries, providing inventions inmovations etc. Eventually it would be so obvious to the scientific community that they clearly are super intelligent that it would be at least difficult for scientists to deny their claim.

I find it hard to believe they wouldn't make huge waves in society both politically and technologically. As for whether people believe they're truly good, I'm sure they'd be ridiculed as much as revered for their actions. Certainly controversial.

I believe they would find a way to instantaneously eradicate all sentient life. We wouldn't know or care. Nothing would happen from our perspective. — AmadeusD

How does this qualify them Omnibenevolent? One would have to rationalise why destroying all living things is better than nurturing them.

Elaborate on what you mean by "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" and how we would recognize any being possessed such properties or capabilities. — 180 Proof

Omniscient in this sense I guess would be understanding the totality of human knowledge on how nature works, life etc - science, philosophy, maths mechanics technology etc. I probably wouldn't extend it to "mind reading" or knowing everything about everyone's memories, private experience etc even though that's how some people would interpret omniscience.

I guess I'm positing someone who's like an encyclopaedia of objevtive truths, rather than subjective ones (opinions and beliefs), not only of what we already know but what we are yet to discover.

As for benevolence, that would depend on weather people believe being handed such knowledge is going to improve everyone's welfare. Such an individual would offer truth in essence. Some may not want to know it. Or might find it horrific

By putting him/her/them in that lab. — Sir2u

It's interesting that that we both considered how someone with seemingly god like abilities would be subjected to persecution and at least inhumane experiment (in this dark lab).

I agree that things wouldnt bode well for such a person.

However, I would wonder that, if acknowledging this and choosing to keep their knowledge to themselves for self preservation/ fear of persecution, would they indeed be omnibenevolent or instead quite the opposite - withholding the truth from people.

I am an antinatalist. I suppose providing ultimate joy would be cool but eradication is a safer bet

I find it hard to believe they wouldn't make huge waves in society both politically and technologically. As for whether people believe they're truly good, I'm sure they'd be ridiculed as much as revered for their actions. Certainly controversial.

Whatever this being were to do to demonstrate their powers, or knowledge, they might just be an advanced being kidding us.
I would go further, that we are incapable of understanding, or knowing that they are omniscient, or omnibenevolent. The whole thing is way beyond our capacity to understand, to grasp.

Another way to look at it is that such a being might already be here, there might be loads of them. How would we know? You could say, well if they were here, wouldn’t they bring an end to suffering? Well maybe they know something we don’t ( they are omniscient after all).


Also, without wanting to put a dampener on proceedings. It was the catholics who invented these concepts for their apologia. They are in the end illogical in any philosophical sense.

Keeping it to themselves could be seen as permitting ignorance, propaganda and delusion to wreak havoc on the world when one clearly knows better. — Benj96

Sure, but my hypothesis is what if their omniscience allows them to see that people are not ready for knowledge and that if it were made available, much suffering and chaos would result. Sometimes the the truth is better left unsaid. Remember Sophocles - "Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise! :wink:

Keeping it to themselves could be seen as permitting ignorance, propaganda and delusion to wreak havoc on the world when one clearly knows better. — Benj96

Except, one also knows that any attempt to teach humankind to behave better results in crucifixion or at least a cup of warm hemlock.

Meh, enlightened people are a dime a dozen these days.

Omniscient in this sense I guess would be understanding the totality of human knowledge on how nature works, life etc - science, philosophy, maths mechanics technology etc. I probably wouldn't extend it to "mind reading" or knowing everything about everyone's memories, private experience etc
aaa... I guess I'm positing someone who's like an encyclopaedia of objevtive truths, rather than subjective ones (opinions and beliefs), not only of what we already know but what we are yet to discover. — Benj96

This sounds like 'human-level AGI' connected to the internet.

As for benevolence ... to improve everyone's welfare.

This sounds totalitarian.

Another way to look at it is that such a being might already be here, there might be loads of them. How would we know? You could say, well if they were here, wouldn’t they bring an end to suffering? Well maybe they know something we don’t ( they are omniscient after all). — Punshhh

:up: :up: I've had cold sweats from intermitten suspicions – recognition(?) – that 'the singularity' has happened already (ca.1989) and It is/They are covertly – indecipherably – doing it's/their own thing via 'the dark web', etc. The Simulation Hypothesis (or The Matrix) might be a tell, no?

[A]ny attempt to teach humankind to behave better results in crucifixion or at least a cup of warm hemlock. — Vera Mont

:smirk:

As for benevolence ... to improve everyone's welfare.

This sounds totalitarian. — 180 Proof

Only if he had the power to impose his ideal solution on everyone, rather than just to teach possible solutions that everyone could implement as they see fit.

I meant 'it's a totalitarian mindset'.

Some poeple think such a being walked the Earth some 2000 years ago. Some stuff happened, from some perspective not a lot, but surely not little. In any case we killed him — the pharisees.

Some poeple think such a being walked the Earth some 2000 years ago. Some stuff happened, from some perspective not a lot, but surely not little. In any case we killed him — the pharisees. — Lionino

They killed him because they did not have labs to put him in for study, experimentation.

Rationalism claims another victim. Hume was right.

2000 years ago they were probably just scared shitless and did not even think too hard about killing him.

In the movie Starman(1984), the military people that were chasing the hero had a portable autopsy table. With hold down straps on it. They definitely were not rationalists.
The hero is more or less what the OP is about, except he did have some powers.

I meant 'it's a totalitarian mindset'. — 180 Proof

I don't understand how "to improve everyone's welfare" is a totalitarian mindset. Come to think of it, I'm unclear on the concept of a totalitarian mindset. Wishing all people (omni would also include other species, I suppose) is a mindset, and it does imply a kind of totality, but it doesn't seek to oppress or coerce anyone.

:up: :up: I've had cold sweats from intermitten suspicions – recognition(?) – that 'the singularity' has happened already (ca.1989) and It is/They are covertly – indecipherably – doing it's/their own thing via 'the dark web', etc. The Simulation Hypothesis (or The Matrix) might be a tell, no?

Yeah man!

You know those Hindu bodhisattvas with a thousand arms, a thousand cobras coming out of the top of their head, sitting in a thousand petal lotus. Go figure.

Been there done that, met the guy.

"Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise! — Tom Storm

Very true. I guess there is a time and a place for such revelations. Or perhaps no place or time. Maybe it's best if everyone shares the journey of knowledge acquisition. No one loves a hand out.

Except, one also knows that any attempt to teach humankind to behave better results in crucifixion or at least a cup of warm hemlock. — Vera Mont

Very true. A shame in one way, but then again if we were handed every solution, many would feel they had their autonomy of knowledge acquisition stolen from them. A lot of people would certainly be out of a job and perhaps worse still, bereft of purpose.

A lot of people would certainly be out of a job and perhaps worse still, bereft of purpose. — Benj96

That certainly opens a couple of potentially interesting topics!
Can the purpose of someone's life be the acquisition of knowledge?
If the omnibenevelont entity were willing to impart knowledge as readily as wikipedia is, why would such people resent the opportunity to learn from him?
I suspect a much bigger obstacle is people who do not with to acquire knowledge at any price.

[If] we were handed every solution, many would feel they had their autonomy of knowledge acquisition stolen from them. — Benj96

:up:

I don't understand how "to improve everyone's welfare" is a totalitarian mindset. — Vera Mont

If this entity is omniscient, then it not only knows more that what any of us can know but it also knows better than all of us what is good for all us. No room left for 'human agency' which would be contrary to the entity's all-knowing omnibenevolence. How can such an entity not be the Keeper (caretaker, game warden) of 'the human zoo'?


"We shall take care of them."
"Eminently practical."
"And we shall serve them. And you will be happy. And controlled."

\\//_ :nerd:

No room left for 'human agency' which would be contrary to the entity's all-knowing omnibenevolence. How can such an entity not be the Keeper (caretaker, game warden) of 'the human zoo'? — 180 Proof

Easy. He knows that one of the of the things that are good for us - and important to our mental heath - is the illusion of agency. The global economy runs on convincing people that they decide which products they buy and it's worth getting into debt for, that they have choice in health care, so they should oppose a national health insurance plan, that the gasoline engine gives them unlimited freedom of movement, and it's worth killing the ocean for, that they love bacon and heart disease is a small price to pay. Costly, fruitless wars are waged by untold casualties who were convinced they chose to fight for the right side.

Dictators and prelates use that illusion to their own benefit. AI or a benevolent entity would indulge the human desire for autonomy - at no cost to the human - up to the point of irreversible harm. Wanting what will benefit a child does not consist of forcing him to eat kale or keeping him locked inside the house; it's about exposing him to positive influences and showing him how to avoid negative ones.

Jacques Fresco said the majority of people are unsane (not insane, which is what I usually believe) because they have been trained to use the wrong methods of evaluation. He said 'outmoded' for wrong; I think it's more like 'inappropriate' - the wrong metrics for the wrong object. The illusion of agency is shoving us down the hill in a handcart.