If consciousness is not-physical then there is no evidence that consciousness is physical. — Michael

Do you consider dark energy, physical? Or, immaterial?
Dark energy is just a 'rushed' probably poorly conceived, placeholder label, but it's existence is very strongly 'implied.' Do you agree?

So does that not mean that your proposal is not EVEN at the level of pseudo-science?
You have hand-waved away Dr Rupert Sheldrakes efforts, at what you have accepted, via a sentence on wikipedia, as pseudo-science, yet you seek consideration for a proposal, which is lower than even that limited standard for evidence? Really? Again I ask, is that wise?

When you say non-physical, are you also invoking 'immaterial?' and if so, do you associate the word immaterial, with science or pseudo-science?
If your use of 'non-physical' means a phenomena, undetectable by any current or future scientific endeavour, then is that not your own personal appeal to pseudo-science?

I'm just going by his Wikipedia article. — Michael

Yeah, you are often rather 'knee jerk!'

My response was fine. You accused me of saying something about his work. Given that I never mentioned him or his work, your accusation was wrong, which was my response. — Michael

No, your response was one of stealth, and I stand by my accusation. I am not surprised that you would respond with indignance however, as you have also accused a scientist who is well respected within the scientific community, of being a pseudo-scientist. His arguments in support of panpsychism are not considered any more fringe, than Roger Penrose's arguments regarding the source and mechanisms of human consciousness. Do you also consider Penrose a pseudo-scientist?

Sheldrake has worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University, Harvard scholar, researcher at the Royal Society, and plant physiologist for ICRISAT in India.

I am personally not convinced regarding morphic resonance or morphic fields as true existents but I certainly would not call Sheldrake a sophist.

If you want me to address it then you're going to have to explain his theory in detail. — Michael

Why not say that you are not familiar with Sheldrakes work, in your first response to me after I mentioned it? Would have saved some time. If you want to and you can find the time, then watch:


2,5 hours, but worth the time investment. If you don't have the time to invest, then I am happy to drop Dr Sheldrake's evidence in support of panpsychism.

You accused of something I didn't do. I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect from me. — Michael

I'm not suggesting anything about him or his theory. — Michael

If you are not willing to comment on 'theories,' that may evidence aspects of consciousness that exist outside of the physical borderlines of the human being/other lifeforms, then you come across as 'reluctant' to defend your own side of the debate. You come across as if you only want to throw stuff at my side of the debate, ineffectually, from a 'safe distance. That very quickly, becomes quite boring.

If you are not willing to offer useful answers, to my main questions then there is nowhere to take this exchange between us. Thanks for the small insight you did offer me, into your thought processes.

I'm only argued that if something else is involved then we can't have scientific evidence of it. — Michael

Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist. and he claims to have scientific evidence of 'telepathy' in humans and animals via morphic resonance and morphic fields. In what way are you suggesting his evidence is not scientific? Morphic resonance would be an example of something other than brain activity being involved in the AFFECTS of human consciousness.

I don't understand your question. That the brain is involved isn't that only the brain is involved. — Michael

Ok, that's fine, so we now need very strong evidence, that more than the brain is involved. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What is the current proposal, that you personally, assign your highest credence level to, as 'vital,' to what we observe as the effects and affects of human consciousness? Do you, for example, assign a high credence level to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance and morphic fields?

The brain is part of the body, so it's involved. — Michael

So, if you agree the brain is 'involved' then what do you find objectionable, when I claim that it's therefore valid and appropriate to use the label 'human consciousness,' to label the phenomena you exemplified?

the subjective aspect of consciousness isn't brain activity — Michael

But you just agreed that in your exemplar, the brain was involved. Was that a subjective opinion?
Your above quote, seems to be invoking a high personal credence level that you hold towards the above quote, but you have not provided much evidence to support it.
Do you think that's wise?

It seems like (maybe I am wrong) that Philosophy is using the same practices with those used by religion and spiritual ideologies in an attempt protect their claims from science. — Nickolasgaspar

I suspect that you are NOT wrong here but I would probably type 'some who philosophise,' in place of 'Philosophy.'

Bodily behaviour? — Michael

So no brain activity involved?

What would you choose as your label for this phenomena, and all it's demonstrable variations?

You can have evidence that stimulating certain nerves in certain ways causes the subject to flinch and say "that hurts", but that isn't prima facie evidence of consciousness. — Michael

So, for you, what is your example above, evidence of?

Forensic" methods is how we get to know things of events that we can not detect(directly). Its nothing new in Science. From cosmology, evolution to..... quantum fluctuations , we puzzle facts from different aspects and we construct credible models that are able to produce meaningful Descriptions, Accurate predictions and Technical applications of the phenomenon in question. This is also true with Consciousness. — Nickolasgaspar

:clap:

This might be a naive question, but from a solipsistic standpoint, how do you account for the 'number of parallel events' that occur every second in the universe? If YOU cause all of them, then your parallel processing speed per second, must be far greater than light speed. Have you ever considered such 'scientific' issue's when you muse on the truth of solipsism?
All the calculations done by every computer, is actually done by YOU?
How likely does that seem to you?

'the eye cannot see itself.' — Wayfarer

Except in reflection!

As a scientists we should ignore the "why" questions and try to answer the how and what questions. — Nickolasgaspar

Thankfully, those involved in REAL scientific research, tend to do exactly as you suggest and leave the 'why' aspect of any of the current 'big questions,' as something in the range of personal entertainment to personal psychosis, via their own personal ruminations of such 'why' questions. Be they Philosophers, (who can actually make useful contributions to the ensuing discussions) or theists/theosophists (who offer nothing but woo woo.)

Indeed - but that's pretty well all you do here. You basically barge into every philosophical discussion with Look! Science! Can't you see, fools! That's exactly how you responded to me. — Wayfarer

And what do you think others would say about, 'pretty well all YOU do here?' as you type from your glass house.

Neuroscience is very young indeed! Consider the beginning, as described on Wiki:
"The earliest study of the nervous system dates to ancient Egypt. Trepanation, the surgical practice of either drilling or scraping a hole into the skull for the purpose of curing head injuries or mental disorders, or relieving cranial pressure, was first recorded during the Neolithic period. Manuscripts dating to 1700 BC indicate that the Egyptians had some knowledge about symptoms of brain damage.[10]

Early views on the function of the brain regarded it to be a "cranial stuffing" of sorts. In Egypt, from the late Middle Kingdom onwards, the brain was regularly removed in preparation for mummification. It was believed at the time that the heart was the seat of intelligence."

and also from that same wiki article:
"The first freestanding neuroscience department (then called Psychobiology) was founded in 1964 at the University of California, Irvine by James L. McGaugh. This was followed by the Department of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, which was founded in 1966 by Stephen Kuffler."

Philosophers and theists have had a lot longer at musing on consciousness, than neuroscientists. Perhaps we should give neuroscientists at least another thousand years of rigorous, reliable, scientific investigation, before any 'philosopher,' or 'pseudo-science fan,' even dares to claim that neuroscience and neuroscientists, are not up to the task of understanding the source and workings of human consciousness.

I appreciate the distinction you are making, based on the time dimension, being the linear variable, that means every event that happens at a particular set of x, y, z coordinates can be placed serially next to each other, on a moment to moment timeline, and I accept the validity of that model.
Many people do however argue against all current models of linear time. Carlo Rovelli being for me, the most interesting scientists who does so.
I remain conflicted, that in any REAL sense, past events STILL exist. I remain unconvinced on that one, for now.

You seem to be mixing 'space' and 'spacetime'. — noAxioms

In spacetime, there is no separation of space and time, so you cannot pull 'space' or 'time' out of the concept, 'spacetime.'

When you overwrite memory locations on a DVD, it will happen at a different time, to when the previous data was placed there. The older data no longer exists in those locations, it has been overwritten, yes? Why would real space locations act any differently?
I put a carton of milk in my fridge and that location becomes part of it's worldline, yes? It seems to me that you are simply saying, that when I throw the carton in the bin, the space it occupied in the fridge, still exists, and by making such a trivial observation, you say worldlines never cease to exist.
To me, that's like saying spacetime will never cease to exist. Well, it may oscillate between being in a state of singularity and expansion, eternally, but so what? The concept of worldlines, remains nothing more than convenient mathematical modelling. I think you are blurring the lines between the notion of a worldline(spacetime) and that which might occupy it, at any instant of time.
I use the term 'overwrite,' to indicate, that the suggestion that space 'memorialises' every event that has ever occupied spacetime coordinates, is fanciful.
When we look at a star, we know that image no longer exists. When I look at any object around me, I know that snapshot no longer exists, as quantum fluctuations in that space, will alter it's state in some undetectable way I cannot describe, within a planck time duration. But again, to me, that is also a very trivial suggestion. The distance between every dimensionless 3 coordinates (x, y, z,) will also have expanded, during a planck time duration, creating more dimensionless members of the set of all dimensionless (x, y, z) coordinates (points).

No idea what you're talking about. I made no mention of perceptions, and I have no idea what an 'overwritable event' might be. — noAxioms

All of what is posted on TPF, is based on the perceptions of those doing the posting or/and the perceptions of those they cite. What I describe as a worldline is quite easy to follow.
The path an object takes from its beginning to its end can be called a worldline.
So, basically any path though spacetime is a worldline, and many objects can take the same path.
You can overwrite the content of any storage media. Similarly, any perception that information is recorded on the fabric of spacetime itself, like a series of photographs, is fanciful.
Worldlines are useful mathematical notions, nothing more. Stating that they don't cease to exist, is like saying spacetime will not cease to exist, it's a very trivial observation, and as I suggested, many objects pass the same points in space, so do they all get recorded/memorialised on top of each other (overwritten or memorialised in layers?)

All this stuff is covered in the notion of Minkowski space

It affects my consciousness in the sense of the definition "conscious vs unconscious, or awake/asleep". I suppose that waking up in the morning qualifies as consciousness emerging, but I didn't think that's what you meant by the thread title. — noAxioms

My OP describes particular questions about what is emergent in humans and due to human presence and activity in the universe but the thread title is much wider than the OP, imo.

How do we ever make that comparison? What quantity of life or "consciousness maybe" offsets 16 jumbled up galaxies? — Benj96

I have no idea what logic you are trying apply here? The expansion of the universe is increasing and 'stuff' falls into black holes, and wont come out again until the black holes evaporate over an immensity of time. This is the basis of the eventual heat death of the universe, as most of the current content of the universe will end up inside black holes, star reproduction will end and it will not be possible to concentrate enough energy into the localised creation of new combinatorials.

But anyways, gravity pulls shit toghether, energy pushes them apart. Is gravity working with entropy? Or against it? — Benj96

Gravity is an attractive force/consequence of the presence of matter/energy.
All forces involve a transfer of energy. Force and energy are therefore strongly related concepts.
Your second question is bizarre in that it suggests the bizarre notion of 'entropy' and 'gravity' existing as entities that might be perceived as 'working together' or not. Gravity exists due to the presence of 'excitations' and combinatorials, within spacetime. Very large concentrations of combinatorials such as galaxies are gravitationally bound and will not dissipate due to increasing expansion but most of the content of galaxies will end up inside black holes and the distance between all galaxies will continue to increase so gravitational effects will continue to decrease over time.
Entropy ensures the heat death of our universe. No immediate concern however as the heat death will take a very large immensity of time.

Here is an interesting summary from a science based website:

If the universe continues expanding for a very long time, eventually galactic superclusters will rip apart, followed by local clusters, galaxies themselves and eventually individual stars and atoms. If humanity's descendants are clever about which arrangements of matter they use to instantiate and power themselves, however, they can prolong their existence almost indefinitely. For example, even black holes produce some power through Hawking radiation, which life could cluster around and use to its advantage even if stars have burnt out. Living indefinitely in a continuously expanding universe would be no picnic, but is probably preferable to living in a closed one that collapses back in on itself in a fiery Big Crunch.

What would be compelling evidence for you? — Benj96

Direct communication, scientifically scrutinised.

I just wonder, could this axis between object and subject not be one of decreasing entropy/ increasing organisation? — Benj96

No, because increasing, LOCALISED organisation/complexity/birth etc, does not slow increasing universal entropy. The universe on it's largest scale is moving from low to high entropy.

then it's not a huge irrationality to think that perhaps the low entropy of the singularity is also conscious — Benj96

It's a faith based jump, and that has proven quite pernicious to the human race, as it spawned all religions and theosophism and that has caused a lot more evil imo, than it has good.

In that sense if a yellow and red of the same brightness is put into monochromacy. They will both be the same indistinguishable grey. — Benj96

No, there are differences in the monochromatic shade they produce, the hue of yellow and the hue of red are different so they would not produce the exact same shade of grey, even though the difference may nor be so clear to the human eye.

From technopedia:
The hue of a colour pixel is one of the very fundamental concepts in digital image processing. Along with saturation and brightness (brilliance), hue makes up the three basic aspects of any color. A color is far more complex than its name because of the variety of shades available in each color. In digital image processing, pixels with slightly different colours have slightly different RGB code (value). This is because of slightly different dominant wavelengths of that colour which constitute the hue. A pure hue is completely saturated, meaning no white light is added.

I'm glad it amuses you. — Benj96

I typed 'bemused,' not 'amused.'
bemused: Adjective meaning puzzled, confused, or bewildered.

I've now given several reasons why I like the term God. I can't possibly go on explaining more. I just made a personal choice and more importantly one that I'm not enforcing or insisting anyone else adopt. I don't see any issue with that — Benj96

I accept your reasons, but disagree with them, as I think your use of the term god and your declaration of yourself as a theist, does not help combat the pernicious affect of both, in the human society we both live in at present. That's all I mean Ben, you give sustenance to pernicious concepts that we need to rid ourselves of. But yes, that's just my personal opinion.

If we apply that human awareness, we can say they were briefly humanly aware (a wave) , but does that mean when they die (return to flat ocean) all awareness is lost? Or is there a fundamental consciousness ocean they return to? — Benj96

Universal Entropy, would be the most convincing evidence for me, that the stages of existence are 'comes into', 'IS', and 'IS no more'. I also accept the conservation of energy law as true, but I see no compelling evidence that energy, in any fundamental form/state it is proposed to have, is self-aware/conscious.

Your OP was about capitalism and the money trick. Such often invokes responses, that cite poor human morality, as the foundational reasons why such vile systems are able to exist, within human society. This leads to the currently claimed sources of human morality being brought up. This leads to theism Vs secular humanism and this often leads to science Vs theism/theosophism.
I think that's how your OP 'travelled.' I am fine with that but I know the moderators and some of the more 'nippy' TPF members, want to strictly stay with the OP boundaries and not allow every thread, to end up with members back to arguing about science Vs theism/theosophism.

Where do we draw the line? In what specific state of arrangement is energy and matter conscious, or are they always some form of conscious? Is it an innate property that they possess?

Just as solipsism suggests only one mind possesses awareness and panpsychism suggests that all matter and energy is conscious. The true emergence of it can be anywhere within in this polarity/dichotomy. — Benj96

Energy and mass are different states but they are also equivalences. There is no mass proposed within the big bang singularity, only very hot, very dense energy. This is the only 'state,' imo, when the notion of solipsism has any value and not even then, because you have to claim that some property of the energy contained in that original hot, dense singularity, is the source of consciousness.
I don't think that proposal has any value and the first manifestation of anything that could be called consciousness, came into existence, some time after abiogenesis.

Colour borders are definitive. Paint one half of a wall red and the other half yellow and you will see a definite border, yes?
— universeness

Depends if you're colour blind or not. — Benj96

No, it doesn't, borders created via monochromatic shades of light and dark, are just as real as borders created by colour difference.

The universe is not itemised. It is a seamless transition of interactions between space, matter, energy, time etc. Humans itemise. We are the discriminators, the categorisers, based on human perceived differences between things, and thus we developed language simultaneously applying different words to different categories to describe their relationships and build a knowledge of the universes content and workings. — Benj96

As we have typed many times. We are OF the universe and We itemise, because all the galaxies don't merge seemlessy. I have no problem with perceiving everything in the universe as 'connected' by the notion of an underlying 'fabric' called spacetime or as one big set of quantum field excitations, but I think it's also valid to talk about 'free particles,' and independent objects. I remain bemused, regarding why you choose to use any of the points you have made in this thread, to justify your declaration that you are a theist and by doing so, think that you have any chance of finding common ground between theism and atheism. You just get rejected by both sides.

Anyway. Yeah, capitalism and the money trick, needs to be diluted in human society, to the level of 1 part oil slick in 8 billion parts water, whereby the water dominates, and not the tiny presence of the oil slick.

:up:

An additional constraint in the special case of the "dark forest" is the scarcity of vital resources. — universeness

I don't assume that. "Other worlds" themselves are not "vital resources" to spacefaring thinking machines, but are only repositories of indigenous remnants or fossils of parent-species. For instance, countless stellar masses and the vacuum / inflation energy of expanding spacetime itself are not scarce to intelligences which know how to harvest them as computational resources. Instead I assume that astronomical (i.e. relativistic) distances – not resource-extractive territoriality – will mostly keep ASI & ETIMs in their respective galactic and intergalactic lanes. — 180 Proof

Then your use of the 'dark forest' analogy seems flawed, based on:

An additional constraint in the special case of the "dark forest" is the scarcity of vital resources. — universeness

and spacefaring thinking machines may well need to replenish their energy resources by whatever means they can, including via planetary resources, some of which may contain life. A prime directive may not be as unlikely as you suggest, in the case of interstellar spacefaring intelligent machines.

As for being "aspirational", universeness, we cannot know what spacefaring thinking machines will aspire to other than that their aspirations will be (almost) completely incomprehensible to biospheric intellects (e.g. much much more than 'our merely atavistic territorial expansiveness'). My wildest guesses are that, like gods, they might progressively aspire to (A) simulate 'pocket universes', (B) merge themselves with spacetime itself and (C) extend their intellects to 'the bulk between branes'. — 180 Proof

Sure, or perhaps they will be as confused about the whole thing, almost as much as we are.
Thanks for your input!

Yes, exactly that. Same thing, different wording. Spacetime doesn’t cease to exist, so a line traced through it isn’t something that goes away. — noAxioms

But that's what makes the 'worldline' nothing more than a 'perception of a container of overwritable events.' So every physical 3D coordinate, which represents all the places where an electron (for example) existed can be involved in the 'worldline' of many, many other electrons, many many times. The only difference is time, and the fact that it's not the same electron, even though they are all identical (unlike people.)

The container called spacetime continues to expand and 'worldlines' are being constantly 'overwritten.' So unless spacetime is also 'infinitely(or has a a great number of) Layer(ed)(s),' then THE CONTENT of individual 'worldlines,' do cease to exist, as they get overwritten. So the fact that the spacetime within which events occur and objects assemble, exist for a time and then disassemble, does not cease to exist, seems quite trivial to me.

I think we’re getting off topic, no? Just chatting at this point. — noAxioms

Not really, as sleep paralysis is an aspect that affects consciousness, and emergence is an aspect of consciousness, so there are lot's of valid side paths on a thread titled emergent.

Path number 2 has been pretty helpful in overcoming this. — Darkneos

Then follow it, stay on it, it leads to a better place for you!

So you're saying I got the definition of axiom confused here? — Darkneos

No, you have the significance of such wrong. An axiom, a syllogism, a hypothesis, etc.
THESE ARE LITTLE STORIES!!! which DOES NOT MAKE THEM TRUE!!!
Solipsism has NOT been PROVEN to be true, and it never will be!
So, let your mind make peace with that!

but there are a lot of species and it's unclear how much effort it will find worthwhile to expend preventing all their extinctions — noAxioms

Only the capability of a future AGI/ASI can answer this, alongside whatever directives it has established at the time.

Struct [Strict] scientific conditions does not include anecdotal evidence. — noAxioms

I agree, but there is much disagreement on what constitutes anecdotal evidence, have a look at this recent TPR exchange regarding Ian Stevenson's work.

That sounds weird. Mine is nothing like that. I wake up and am aware of the room, but I cannot move. I can alter my breathing a bit, and my wife picks up on that if she's nearby and rubs my spine which snaps me right out of it. — noAxioms

I don't think Jimmy himself, had experienced being 'held/possessed by demons/angels with accompanying hallucinations, whilst being unable to move.' He reported that he suffered from sleep paralysis on occasion, as you do, but Jimmy also talked about various cases, all over the place where scientific investigation, into such claims as demon possession or divine communication, turned out to be the effects of the more extreme cases of sleep paralysis.

Don't understand. As I said, once existing (as I define it), it can't cease to exist. — noAxioms

Well, firstly, I just mean that a 'worldline' is a scientific term, invented by a scientist.
From Wiki:
The world line (or worldline) of an object is the path that an object traces in 4-dimensional spacetime. It is an important concept of modern physics, and particularly theoretical physics.

The concept of a "world line" is distinguished from concepts such as an "orbit" or a "trajectory" (e.g., a planet's orbit in space or the trajectory of a car on a road) by inclusion of the dimension time, and typically encompasses a large area of spacetime wherein paths which are straight perceptually are rendered as curves in space-time to show their (relatively) more absolute position states—to reveal the nature of special relativity or gravitational interactions.

The idea of world lines was originated by physicists and was pioneered by Hermann Minkowski. The term is now used most often in the context of relativity theories (i.e., special relativity and general relativity).

Secondly, What is the worldline of a quantum fluctuation? Based on:
The uncertainty principle states the uncertainty in energy and time can be related by, where 1 2 ħ ≈ 5.27286×10−35 Js. This means that pairs of virtual particles with energy = $\Delta E$ and a lifetime shorter than $\Delta t$ are continually created and annihilated in empty space.
When such 'quantum existents' pop in and out of existence 'continuously,' then how can you claim that 'once existing, it can't cease to exist?'

Well what I think he means is that every axiom you make as a non solipsist can apply to a solipsist. And if the premises are solipsistically true then the conclusion is solipsistically true.
Yet I’m very doubtful about my interpretation of this as it doesn’t seem to match other areas in his work. — Darkneos

Not exactly a sentence by sentence breakdown of what you think the text you are concerned about is saying, but taking your response at face value:

An axiom:
As a noun, is a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true, for example, "the axiom that sport builds character"
Similar concepts are, accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle.
So quite a range of nuances in that list of similar concepts.

In MATHEMATICS:
An axiom is a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
Important to appreciate here then the words 'abstractly defined structure.'

This reminds me of ideas like 'virtual reality' or 'virtual particles.'
They are ABSTRACT MODELS of reality BUT THEY ARE NOT REAL. Solipsism is the same.
In quantum physics, it is said that 'virtual particles,' pop in and pop out OF EXISTENCE, in the EMPTY vacuum of space. Virtual particles ARE NOT REAL, they are mathematical models of what is happening in REALITY. Something is popping in and out of existence, in what we currently label empty space but we can only model, what it really is. Solipsism merely MODELS a POSSIBILITY, dictated by logic, that cannot be PROVED wrong, BUT it also cannot be demonstrated as REAL. It's the same for the concept of god or infinity. You CANNOT demonstrate the biggest number, BUT you also CANNOT PROVE, the biggest number DOES NOT EXIST.
It would therefore be irrational for someone to 'fixate' on the fact that you cannot demonstrate infinity.
This thought, would trigger my friends bipolar 'mind quakes' or 'shutdowns,' as he used to label them. He is now able to rationalise away, his urge, to cause his brain to 'livelock,' in mad counting modes, that he could not control, until he was almost 'fitting' or 'quaking.'

You are doing something akin to this imo, with your irrational thinking on solipsism. YOU CAN 'retrain' your brain to simply 'reject' your old ways of thinking about solipsism and train your brain to accept the CORRECT alternative conclusion about solipsism.
1. Solipsism cannot be DISPROVEN.
2. Solipsism cannot be PROVEN.
Retraining your brain to accept that statement 2 above has far more supporting evidence than statement 1 is your path to a more peaceful mindset, that does not suffer from regular intolerable mind quakes.

Why would they need that? When our civilization can detect them, it'll be because we're post-Singularity, the signal to ETIM that Sol 3's maker-species is controlled by its AGI—>ASI. "The Dark Forest" game theory logic will play itself out at interstellar distances in nano seconds and nonzero sum solutions will be mutually put into effect without direct communication between the parties. — 180 Proof

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this one. On first reading, I did not understand it. Then I forgot all about it, until I checked what I had yet to respond to. After some googling, I assume 'sol 3' refers to Earth (us being the 3rd planet) and 'dark forest,' refers to: From Wiki:
"The dark forest hypothesis is the conjecture that many alien civilizations exist throughout the universe, but they are both silent and paranoid."
wiki also offers:
Game theory
The dark forest hypothesis is a special case of the "sequential and incomplete information game" in game theory.
In game theory, a "sequential and incomplete information game" is one in which all players act in sequence, one after the other, and none are aware of all available information. In the case of this particular game, the only win condition is continued survival. An additional constraint in the special case of the "dark forest" is the scarcity of vital resources. The "dark forest" can be considered an extensive-form game with each "player" possessing the following possible actions: destroy another civilization known to the player; broadcast and alert other civilizations of one's existence; or do nothing.

So I assume you are proposing some kind of initial stage where existent AGI ... ASI systems / ETIM systems will 'consolidate,' their own position/resources/access to vital resources, without communicating directly with each other, even if they are able to, and know the other systems exist, and where they are located. This also assumes that 'scarcity of vital resources,' exists.

That's my guess. ASI & ETIMs will stay in their respective lanes while keeping their parent species distracted from any information that might trigger their atavistic aggressive-territorial reactions. No "Prime Directive" needed because "we" (they) won't be visiting "strange new worlds". Besides, ASI / ETIM will have better things to do, I'm sure (though I've no idea what that will be). — 180 Proof

Why do you assume they will not need to visit other worlds to 'secure,' vital resources and if these 'vital resources,' are already in use, then a 'prime directive,' would seem quite necessary, to either secure by force, or search elsewhere. So, why would this not be a possible answer to your question:

Why would they need that? — 180 Proof

Your last sentence above is a vital one. imo, because musing on these 'better things to do,' causes an individual to think about whether or not, a future AGI/ASI will become 'aspirational,' and if it does/needs to/must, then would that 'aspiration' start off pragmatic, but develop, eventually, into the kind of 'emotional aspiration,' which AGI/ASI will have observed in lifeforms such as human's

I just needed help understanding if he's saying what I think he's saying — Darkneos

So all you need to do now, is describe EXACTLY what you think he is saying.
Do it sentence by sentence and then 'we' can respond to your concerns!

:roll: :kiss:

What I would ask is "if the nature/quality of awareness progressively changes stepwise and slowly" is there need for a distinct "cut-off". — Benj96

But that's not what we observe, when we observe consciousness in action. A human can be made unconscious, so a definite cut-off point, between conscious and unconscious. Same with alive and dead.
The idea of linear gradation and opposite 'states' at each end of the gradation, is very common in the universe. Some stars reach a critical mass point and go supernova/collapse into a pulsar/collapse into a black hole, all based on cut-off points. An electron will orbit a nucleus, unless a critical energy input, pushes it away. These all involve cut-off points, and are clearly observed, in reality.

In the same way as we have a spectrum of colours that blend seamlessly into one another. And we cut through those transitions to qualify and quantity (by wavelength) individual categories like yellow, green, blue etc. When in reality Green blends seamlessly into blue. At what point is something green verses blue? Is that border the same for all people?
Are these borders arbitrary or definitive? — Benj96

What are you referring to? Coloured lights blending into white light? What do you mean by 'seamlessly,' when it comes to the physics of light waves/optics. When you see a spectrum of visible light you see definite borders, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. How would you apply your logic here to coloured paints? Colour borders are definitive. Paint one half of a wall red and the other half yellow and you will see a definite border, yes?

That's info I could have done without! Still, be careful you don't damage your eyesight, or traumatise your pets, neighbours etc.

You're as much a curmudgeon as I am. — T Clark

Some truth in that, but I am nowhere near as gnarly or arrogant as you, as your comment below demonstrates:

I just wish you'd stop disrupting threads with irrelevant comments. — T Clark

You offer your mere opinion, as if there was some kind of authority, with academic prowess and status behind it. Something that would compel people to listen to your spurious judgements, when the truth is, you have no such status, so it's YOU who are stirring things in this thread not I or @180 Proof
Our viewpoints are every bit as valid as yours. You just like to hoist your own petard at times and 'puff' yourself in an unwarranted manner.

They say, we always hurt the one's we love!

I'm just sick of his catchphrases. There's a whole bunch of them he uses over and over. — bert1

:lol: We all seem to annoy each other by one way or another!
I think it's a case of peace, love and now where's ma f****** gun!!!

A planet/star/galaxy exists then no longer exists.
Not in my book, but that’s me. I’d have said that a planet may have a temporally limited worldline, but that worldline cannot cease to exist, so a T-Rex exists to me, but not simultaneously with me. — noAxioms

What is the function of your worldline after you no longer exist? Does it function as a memorialisation of the fact you did exist, if so, that's useful I am sure but, exactly how significant do you perceive such a concept to be?

Surely life on other planets isn’t identical everywhere, so maybe some other planet evolved something more efficient than what we have here. — noAxioms

All quite possible but I still see no benefit to a future AGI/ASI to making organic life such as its human creators extinct. This town(universe) IS big enough for both of us, and a lot more besides!

Is ‘covet’ an emotion? — noAxioms

Sure, its a 'want,' a 'need,' but such can be for reasons not fully based on logic. I want it because its aesthetically pleasing or because I think it may have important value in the future but I don't know why yet, for example.

Humans give lip service to truth, but are actually quite resistant to it. They seek comfort. Perhaps the ASI, lacking so much of a need for that comfort, might seek truth instead. Will it share that truth with us, even if it makes us uncomfortable? — noAxioms

It is this kind of point that makes me convinced that a future AGI/ASI will want to protect and augment organic life, as logic would dictate, to an AGI, that organic life is a result of natural processes, and any sufficiently intelligent system, will want to observe, how natural processes develop over the time scale of the lifespan of the universe.

My first choice (to which I was accepted) had one of the best forestry programs. I didn’t apply to that, but it was there. I went to a different school for financial reasons, which in the long run was the better choice once I changed my major. — noAxioms

Oh! Interesting, thanks for sharing!

Anyway, yes, X eats Y and that’s natural, and there’s probably nothing immoral about being natural. I find morals to be a legal contract with others, and we don’t have any contract with the trees, so we do what we will to them. On the other hand, we don’t have a contract with the aliens, so it wouldn’t be immoral for them to do anything to us. Hopefully there some sort of code-of-conduct about such encounters, a prime-directive of sorts that covers even those that don’t know about the directive, but then we shouldn’t be hurting the trees. — noAxioms

All quite reasonable and from a responsible ecology standpoint, I agree with employing a much better global stewardship of trees. I still don't think tree's are self-aware or conscious. I look forward to being proved wrong.

Dog’s can smell your emotions. That isn’t telepathy, but we just don’t appreciate what a million times better sense of smell can do. — noAxioms

Yeah, I accept they can smell fear and such intense emotions, although, there may be much more to such as fear recognition, than smell. I often know when an animal or a human is afraid and it has little to do with smell. Rupert Sheldrake claims he has 'hundreds of memorialised cases,' performed under strict scientific conditions, that prove dogs are telepathic. They know when their owner is in their way home, for example, when they are still miles away from the property. He says this occurs mostly, when dog and owner have a 'close' relationship.
His evidence is mildly interesting but remains mainly anecdotal imo. His evidence for telepathy is certainly as good as Ian Stevenson's evidence for reincarnation, which is why I remain very sceptical indeed, about his evidence, and I don't currently accept that reincarnation or telepathy are real.

As for the disease, I’ve had bacterial memingitis. My hospital roommate had it for 2 hours longer than me before getting attention and ended up deaf and retarded for life. I mostly came out OK (thanks mom for the fast panic), except I picked up sleep paralysis and about a decade of some of the worst nightmares imaginable. The nightmares are totally gone, and the paralysis is just something I’ve learned to deal with and keep to a minimum. — noAxioms

Sorry to hear that. Jimmy Snow, (a well known atheist, who runs various call-in shows on YouTube based on his 'The Line' venture.) has also suffered from sleep paralysis and cites it as one of those conditions that could act as a possible reason, why some people experience 'visions' of angels and/or demons and think that gods are real.