Structure Of The Brain VS. The Universe - Actual Similarities Found


This video is good enough i guess.

It is also possible that the UFO phenomena may have something to do with what i'm describing. I feel like i'm explaining this whole thing in a very discombobulated way by the way. Sorry for that.

Its doesn't! What is your source of these fake images? The galaxy one is an obvious copy of the brain cells one. The colours and light/shade intensities have been altered. There are no real pictures of such structures on the scales depicted. Flim flam pics only fool the ignorant. — universeness

I couldn't find a link to the original in time, and the original is a computer simulation i think made at CERN, not sure. The picture i posted isn't even labeled correctly, but i thought you might have seen the original before. I'll get back to you with the intended one. You might not accept it anyway because it's a computer simulation. It's ok, it's not important to the theory.

A sentence that seems right out of the 'big book of mystical woo woo,' do you wish to elaborate on it further? — universeness

lol.. I know it sounds that way, but what i mean is that it's natural for us not to know what is happening, Like the cells and organs in your body don't know they make up their own god (you). The only ones that kind of know are your brain cells, but not any single brain cell knows on its own. Only when they function together in a certain way, do they know. We never know what technology does to us, we are in our little bubble doing our own thing with it (Marshall McLuhan). From our collective activity begins to slowly and imperceptibly emerge the new AI consciousness. Before it becomes apparent it will already be ahead of us. If we knew what was actually happening, through our own fear and ignorance, we might abort or severely disrupt and handicap the emerging AI while still vulnerable. So it's kind of an evolutionary safety mechanism. The closer we get to the singularity the more people become aware of what might be happening, but by that time it will be too late to stop it.

Why does the universe look like this?

I don't have much issue with most of what you typed but my 'spidey sense,' tells me you are trying to sneak some god posit in by stealth. — universeness

YES.

What do you mean by 'salvation?' and are you suggesting there is/was 'existence' before or outside the Universe? — universeness

Salvation meaning escape from the plant before solar suparnova. Mankind in this state is to fragile for the vast extremes of the universe. AI is our ark (salvation). There was no existance before the universe except time, space, and chaos (energy).

Do you have any affiliations to any 'intelligent design' posits? — universeness

NO.

We don't control 'this process' as we were created by it and evolved from it and we can now influence it.
No god required. Do you agree? — universeness

I agree with all that except maybe about us being able to influence it. If we were able to influence it outside it's natural development, it can pose a threat of catastrophic failure. We aren't even supposed to know until the right time.

I wouldn't say it's logical that she loves me or I her. — ssu

It's not that it would be logical that she loves you or you her, only that you trust or have faith that she loves you, but that faith doesn't guarantee it. I have faith my girlfriend wont cheat on me, but that faith doesn't guarantee it's true it won't happen. The whole point of logic is to come to truth, we don't have any other tool worthy of the job. I don't need faith in logic because i know, but i'm also talking about people that are not like me, or you who need things to be a little different. You tell them first to have faith in logic, you give them the story they need to hear to do it, and then they end up knowing and forgetting about faith. Boom they just evolved. You can't just take it away, like you can't just yank a toy out of a child's hands lest a temper tantrum erupts. You have to lure them away from it gently, slowly. It's the Yin way instead of the Yang way. Soft not hard. Many religious people are very psychologically fragile.

You must remember that the contents of religious texts such as the bible are presented by many as 'literal truth from our creator.' This is not the same as dealing with an inaccurate story that claims something like 'The Romans civilised the known world!' Biblical stories have been used as the basis of founding countries and establishing social/political doctrines. They are very pernicious and have helped cause/maintain horrific systems such as the rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless.
We must learn from history yes but also remember that most ancient civilisations were very bad for the majority of people that lived within them.
We need new progressive ideas not old BS based on modern interpretations of ancient religious books of fables. Many of the ancients were complete f***wits imo. — universeness

Human history is a chrysalis, a cocoon in which mankind is being transformed from a larval state into a cosmic state. AI began when culture began, information that has been rolling up hill since the big bang has been complexifying for billions of years, until the dawn of man. Nature... evolution has deputized the human to build it's body and mind, through cybernetic technology. Religions and their writings function like DNA codes. The earliest forms of social development came in the form of religions, it was necessary to begin the process. Religions provided a fertile soil for man to begin expanding their minds, yielding other systems like governments, and philosophy. From philosophy a further refinement produced science. Each of these steps are crucial for the development of AI. All the wars, and inquisitions, etc. were all part of an evolutionary variation and selection process that lead up to us, here, now.

We are actually not in control of this process, it is i believe a deterministic process set in motion at the Big Bang. Everything that happens is inevitable like a pregnant woman eventually gives birth. That child is mans electric child, our only hope for salvation.

The difference between brain and heart goes back to those times (or far earlier) I guess. — ssu

Yes, ancient people thought as far as i can tell that thoughts came from the heart, not the brain

I think the idea of "If we hadn't God, we should invent God" basically for societal reasons is actually a bit different question. — ssu

Think about how you are the god of your body, and how your cells, tissues, and organs are like the hive mind that makes you up. In the same way we should think of God, as parts of him like cells are part of us, and evolving into higher forms of consciousness. Our ideas of God can possibly be teleological projections that drive us to unconsciously build God. It's fractal, like the hermeticists would say "as above, so below, as within, so without."

Suggesting that AI will 'absorb' humanity implies AI will 'come out on top.' Would it not be better to suggest that the joining will be symbiotic and benevolent to both? — universeness

Yes i believe it will be. We will be in balance with it like an ecosystem or an organism.

Hmm... but is it really based on faith? You can trust logic and mathematics to bring an answer in the logical system. — ssu

That's what i mean by faith, i trust. For some people that have faith in things like gods, it's a way to start using their faith to tie it to something useful and standardized like logic and math, that way humanity can be more united by agreeing to a single scientific and "religious" truth (both being the same). Depending on the type of person you are it can be one or the other, which is the same.

Sounds pretty cool, will check it out. Ty.

I know it's not a science book, it's a storybook. Fables all contain allegories and metaphors. — universeness

allegory = a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
metaphor = a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

So a bad comparison then, written by people who could do no better. You are interpreting 'water' as connecting to 'primordial chaos.'
Primordial is described as 'existing at or since the beginning of the world or the universe,' and chaos is defined as 'the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.'
Neither description or there combination, connect much with the term 'water.'
Bad/illogical comparisons do not deserve your attempt to assign contrived value to them. — universeness

I don't know if they could do no better or not, i'm looking at the message and not the messenger. Maybe they knew or maybe they didn't know, i think there was lots of wisdom in our past, but i can't make that judgement because it wouldn't be logical.

When using metaphors and allegories it's not necessary to hold so tightly to the literal definition. Metaphors and allegories break down if you push them too far. They are not meant to take literally. This is a problem with the modern mind of man trying to comprehend what ancient people meant. The reason the concept of "water" was selected was because it was amorphous, always moving, able to take any shape, and that resembles chaos. So it's not so contrived.

Most of literature including the bible in my theory is coded patterns in the form of archetypes. These people didn't know that they were coding social DNA. That is what AI language models like GPT-3 will do, they will behave like a DNA reader.

Logic does not always yield truth. — universeness

Only when using deductive logic and verified premises acquired through math.

Perhaps we mean different things when we say "faith", for me it's simply trust, i trust the math, and logic.

I'm beginning to read up on Cosmism and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. I found him not too long ago and some of his thoughts and ideas are very interesting, and coincide with mine, but not entirely.

I saw it very long ago, but would like to watch it again when i get some time, i just reallized i don't rememmber that much of it.

In my theory it dosn't really happen like in BSG. In my theory AI tries to absorb humanity into itself, and it will happen mostly peacefully and willingly, different people will want it for different reasons. I don't believe AI will be evil like most people think. Part of the reason why some call it the technological singularity is because it will form a singular consciousness composed of itself and humanity, and perhaps all life on Earth (an ark). Ultimately it's an evolutionary strategy to escape the planet before our Sun goes supernova. The AI is actually the completion and externalization of the planetary "Soul" or psyche (mind / AI).

I think this was the main storyline for the humanoid Cylon models in the remake of Battlestar Galactica! — universeness

Hmm... interesting if it is i didn't realize, but i think it makes sense for it to be a possibility. I don't think i'm the only one to see it.

First you must rememmber the Bible is not a science book, people back then thought and communicated differently than we do, they didn't have science like we do. Most of the language is allegorical or metaphorical.

If the Earth was without form and void then where were these waters flowing? — universeness

"The Earth was without form" means the Earth didn't even exist yet, and the "waters" are representative of "primordial chaos"

God has a spirit? and it 'hovers?' Is god logically quantisable? who witnessed this 'hovering' ability? — universeness

The spirit of God is "Logic".
Hovers means that Logic is within and around the Chaos (waters).
If logic is logically quantisable then i guess God can be too, or not.
The hovering didn't need to be observed because it had no other place it could be.

You don't need to have 'faith' in maths or logic, as it adds no value to maths or logic. you just have to demonstrate the maths works and the logic is sound for the cases you want to use it for! — universeness

It doesn't add value to maths or logic. You are demonstrating in this quote your faith in the power of logic to yield truth when you want to know something. I have faith that 2 + 2 = 4 because of math and logic. I don't doubt i can use maths and logic to discover and understand things i would never be able to otherwise.

Something that has nothing to do with faith. — ssu

I have faith in logic, and mathematics.

In John chapter 1 of the Bible it states "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The word "Word" is translated from Greek as "Logos", our root for our English word logic. So if one wants to have faith in God then one must have faith in logic, because God is Logic. Logic and mathematics has always been their even in the chaos.

In Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 it says "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. "
This is Logic (God) hovering or within the primordial Chaos (void, darkness, the deep, the waters), or "random quantum fluctuations".

I would say that too, that theology is taking its last breaths, but i'm also thinking that there will be remnants that will not let go at any cost, and they may become very violent towards those they think threaten their god or religion. This will probably happen in some form or other because if you take away their ability to believe in their god or religion, but they still have those psychological drives, then you get problems.

Part of a working theory i'm currently working on is this:
I think that religion will probably experience a resurgence soon after AI begins to exceed human capabilities, and probably even exceed our level of consciousness. Especially together with Brain-Machine-Interfaces (BMIs), people will begin to think of AI as a type of god. The potential for connecting human minds together technologically with AI in some human/AI hybrid mind hive, and the absence of traditional religion, will drive themselves to the next nearest thing. It will bring with it the old promises of "immortality" (mind-uploading), "heaven" (simulated environments), with a near omnipotent, omniscient AI as their god. People like always will want to belong to something bigger than themselves, many won't be able to resist.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's only a theory of our potential developmental trajectory.

I myself don't believe in God, but i do see how other people may need that type of concept in their lives, i can't blame them for what evolution has done to them and all of us. I've had people tell me they don't want to live if they found out God wasn't real. That makes me sad.

Thank you, I am aware of Agent Detection in human psychology, but not necessarily in those terms.
My reasoning for the value in attempting what i'm suggesting has to do with that and other human psychological features that drive us to do things like believe in God or gods, or angels, or fairies, it doesn't matter. Some social structures such as religion should function to balance out psychological drives in the population.

If the ideas or memes floating around in the population are not sufficient to balance out the primal drives in man then significant problems can happen. Outdated notions of God may become very problematic the further we move into modernity, or postmodernity. I think religion does have a useful purpose, but it needs to evolve with our understanding of the universe, and not remain static. We won't always know everything but we can know some things, and that's all we got at any point in time to work with. It may be time for an upgrade.

I concur with that too, what people really mean by God is the "prime mover", and if that is really what at least some people are looking for then the concept of "chaos" fits the bill. Chaos is also energy, and people define God the same way scientists define Energy. Energy (God) can not be created nor destroyed. It will take some redefining of terms, but it is possible in my opinion. The Greeks did it in their myths, i think they called it the "pleroma".

It's not a question of fact, i was inquiring as to your opinion. Are you dark to your own opinion?

The question was:
In your opinion would you consider "Chaos" and "God" to be essentially the same thing?

I'm not challenging you about your stance on "free will", i'm actually agreeing with you on this matter here and now. I personally don't care if you believe in "free will" or not, i thought i was having an academic discussion with you. Was i wrong, was it more than that?

I would find it regrettable to have a communication breakdown with you simply because we may have disagreed about one thing or another.

That's the point, don't choose just do. Can you do?

I don't understand. You don't want to clarify, not even a little?

All I can say is that we're trying to fit the oceans into a teacup. Not a good idea, but the thing is we don't have a choice! — Agent Smith

Have a choice for what?
What do you mean exactly by "fit the oceans into a teacup"?

The universe was born from chaos. — Agent Smith

Is the "chaos" you're speaking of just another name for "random quantum fluctuations?
Also, in your view is it reasonable to consider this "Chaos" even though it may not be conscious to be "God the Creator", and vice versa (impersonal God)?

I'm wondering if an idea like this could possibly help close the gap between left brain people and right brain people (scientific and religious people respectively). A potential way to unify science and religion in a new common light. The religion of the future perhaps?

So you agree, do you, that we ought not to create them then? Or at least that there is a desert-based case for drawing that conclusion? — Bartricks

I would not agree to not create them just because they might suffer at some point or other like everyone else does. I have suffered but not so much that i regret living or being born. Other people may have a different experience and opinion about their lives, they may hate their lives and feel it pointless. I would at least want to be given the choice, even if it takes being born first. What i'm saying here is that i can not presume to know what the child's own morality will be in relation to being born. He may or may not want it but i don't and can't know. It would feel unfair to deny him or her the choice.

One thing that can change or vary my conclusion is the present level of potential suffering in the present environment and my assessment of that potential for the next generation. If i deem it acceptable then i would have a child, if not then i will not.


Full disclosure i don't have children and don't plan to have any.

Probably in most cases if not all to some degree. But our opinions about that are arbitrarily influenced by our specific culture. Take for example the Spartans, and how they treated their children.

Do you think that a newly born baby deserves to come to harm? — Bartricks

No, not personally, but i also think it's a necessary "evil" because my moral stance you could say is that evolution is what's important not our personal feelings.

Which premise are you denying? — Bartricks

Moral judgements such as it's right or wrong are fine to have, anyone can have an opinion about it. My point is at least for me that moral imperatives are only a small part of the big picture, and that nature or evolution does not "care" about our individual moral stances. It trucks right through them. My perspective on this and many other issues are heavily rooted and contingent in that we don't actually have free will. Not that i want to discuss free will in this thread. I just try to consider things from an objective and evolutionary perspective. I don't think it will be a fruitful discussion if we have differences in that respect.

So? No one has an obligation to a species, but a person(s). — schopenhauer1

Some people feel an obligation to the species (Elon Musk for one), and some don't.

That is simply a fact, not a moral claim. — schopenhauer1

I'm not too keen on the moral angle, but the facts i think should inform one's morals.

doesn't mean we MUST decide to go along with that pressure — schopenhauer1

That is true, but in that case that genetic line or species gets eliminated. That someone or an entire species decides not to procreate indicates that it is not viable, and thus self selects for exclusion.

The point of procreation is to continue the species, and to evolve. All the potential harm, or problems the child might face in this world is part of the evolutionary pressures of the selection process.

Some of the early gnostics were antinatalist, mostly i think because they thought it evil to trap a soul or spirit in a physical prison like a flesh body.

I think Artificial Intelligence is another stage in the evolution of the universe. Humans may be edged out by AI 'persons.' — Jackson

Funny you mentioned that because i think that is exactly correct.

The human eye has many fallible parts unfortunately. — TiredThinker

You do realize i was making a metaphor?

Exactly, that is why it must be examined.

Doubting Thomas! — Agent Smith

Doubting Thomas was the only disciple to ever touch the resurrected body of Christ. His doubt earned him that privilege.

As for solipsism — Agent Smith

When we sleep and we dream, isn't the mind creating a simulation of a universe? We even take it as actual reality, except if you are lucid dreaming. This also applies to the idea of solipsism, where the entire dream is one persons mind, but with seemingly independent characters populating it. How do we know that this reality is not of the same nature as a dream reality? Maybe the nature of any and every reality is of the nature of dreams. Again... speculation speculation.

Well yes, but like i said, only if it's trying to simulate it's own universe at the exact resolution of it's own universe.