it's not an issue of whether to live or die, but rather how we wanna die? — Agent Smith

I think it IS absolutely, an issue of whether to live or die. We have very little control over that issue at the moment. Future science may offer an individual human far more choice regarding life or death and I like that. More control over that issue will help greatly in alleviating human primal fear and will help further demote god notions, in my opinion.

There is no reason to why the TS can't happen.

1. The biological singularity: Life from inanimate matter (bacteria)
2. The cognitive singularity: Mind from life (primates, dolphins, etc.)
---
3. The technological singularity: Übermind from mind (machine/nonbiological superintelligence, kind courtesy human/biological intelligence)

What makes me hair stand on end (not out fear but out of wonder) is whether this is gonna be an ouroboros. Mind = No Mind i.e. the wise fool. — Agent Smith

The wise fool is just a contradiction in terms imo.
I like the fact that you use the term singularity, more as an indication of a pivotal point of a change of great significance, rather than the more common suggestion that the tec singularity oft suggested would be the beginning of our demise. It may be the beginning of our ascension to a vastly more interesting physical existence.

My personal philosophical worldview is entitled Enformationism. — Gnomon

I had read some of your stuff at https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html.

Information as a universal fundamental has to be a credible position to take at some level imo.
Information is however 'labelled data,' so would 'data' not be the fundamental as opposed to information? Is that not a critical distinction?

Immaterial intelligence seems to be directly connected to complexity of functional organization, such as found in the human brain. — Gnomon

Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence?

But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. :nerd: — Gnomon

I agree but why use an 'immaterial of the gaps' approach?
Why not continue to observe the ability of lifeforms such as humans to demonstrate intent and purpose?
It seems that combination of fundamentals, can produce a universe with life that has intent and purpose.
We know that because we exist. I think that such did come from random happenstance but I cant prove that 'random' truly exists but that is a gap that would never choose to fill with 'immaterial input.'

Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon

I can't answer such a 'why' question. Current human science can't either but I don't see how 'immaterial of the gaps,' help in anyway? If this 'immaterial' has intent and purpose then why are we trying to reinvent that which already has an existent? Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?'
If we could project into some future AI systems, as was depicted in The Lawnmower Man.
, would this qualify as your 'immaterial?'

I tend to agree with ↪180 Proof : "I guess it's plausible but not inevitable." The notion of human Culture playing the role of technological evolution, by producing novel systems of organization, makes sense if you understand that Culture itself is an emergent organization from Natural Evolution. But, like all complex novelty-generating processes, the future of uber-complex Culture is unpredictable, and no particular projection from now-to-then is inevitable. — Gnomon

:up:

On the other hand, I have deduced, from the same database, that the materialist's arbitrary “laws” of physical evolution are more like purposeful metaphysical codes. — Gnomon

Such an apparently teleological universe must have originated from an intentional source of some kind. — Gnomon

This is where we diverge. These are just too close to god of the gaps arguments for me, and take us nowhere. My question remains. If life in this universe can, at best, in the final analysis, only aspire to become that which already exists, then that is, in my opinion, 'pointless.' I don't mind posits that suggests we may have a collective purpose that could be compared to the omni qualifications for the god label. God is emergent, via us, is a harmless concept, but god via religion, remains very, very pernicious. I think if the god label was used without any connection whatsoever, to such nonsense fables as 'El,' 'Yahweh,' 'Jehovah,' 'Allah,' etc. Then it may have some use.
Can you give me any examples in the natural world of a teleology? Did a wolf get the teeth it needed due to intent from some immaterial source that already had the design specs?

3. Megascale Engineering — 180 Proof

Why do you score out this one? Is it because you think it's so far away or impossible?

Death by age is an adaptation added to certain branches a long time ago due to its benefits. It enabled the very complexity that you’re trying to encourage in these post. Sure you want to take that away? — noAxioms

Yes, change continues, a system which has been performing the same input, process and output, even for millennia, can end, and be replaced/updated. I have already stated that I think selective genetic engineering will supplant any continuing evolutionary effects via natural selection, when it comes to future humans and the environment extent they choose to, or can, affect.

Engineering a new form isn’t done to you. It’s done to a new generation, so the question is, would you accept your kids for what they’ve been engineered into? — noAxioms

Well, that's an issue of consent. We cant get the consent of newborns, before they are born, but we would default to parental consent/intent or/and societal consent/intent as we do now, but hopefully based on a better global politics than we have now.

If Lennard Susskind is correct Quantum entanglement may BE gravity!
That was a long vid. Haven’t the time to look. Does it make predictions? Is there a falsification test for his idea vs the consensus? Is there even a consensus quantum gravity candidate yet? — noAxioms

It was a scientific lecture which contained an interesting hypothesis based on current quantum physics.
It did not highlight the proposals predictive power. It is falsifiable if someone can show its not true and I would say 'the most popular' quantum gravity candidate at the moment is loop quantum gravity.

OK. I give very low credence to people aspiring to being omniscient, like I can’t think of anybody besides you who might agree to such a thing. — noAxioms

I think my use of the term asymptotic is important in my suggested human aspirations towards omniscience. I also think my suggestion of considering this via the result of the 'collective' effort of all human intent and purpose (including all scientific research), is also crucial.

I mean, the N Koreans really do believe KJ Un is a god and the west is poised to destroy them at any moment. — noAxioms

I accept that you can use terror to indoctrinate people, especially if you start when they are young, but its a very old tactic that fails in the final analysis. 'You cant fool all of the people all of the time.' I know that the nefarious can survive, and even thrive, very well, by fooling all or even some of the people, all of the time, but I think that is becoming less and less true as more and more of us become more and more informed. This reminds me again of one of my fav muse tracks that I have posted before. I think we can now counter such, better than we have been able to before:

And yet knowing where the next dot will land in a double-slit setup can no better be known 1000 years from now than it can be today. Ditto for the weather next July 1. But then, given certain interpretations of QM, not even an omniscient entity could make either prediction, which is sort of contradiction, no? — noAxioms

If you accept the definition of the term omniscient, then such certainly could do what you suggest it could not. I don't know what human science will allow us to do in the future. I am confident and content to predict that it will be more than we can do at the moment.

The fact that no information is conveyed to us by this (proposedly) existing entity, suggests it does not exist.
— universeness
Almost by definition, yes. — noAxioms

If a supernatural entity provided me with all my needs at all times, I wouldn’t need the wheel. For that matter, I wouldn’t need senses, or kidneys, or anything else. I think heaven is supposed to be that sort of torture. — noAxioms

Why do humans have to reinvent tech that god already has? Unless, this god does not exist and therefore has no intent or purpose.
It is fallacious to go from merely ‘unhelpful’ to ‘nonexistent’. — noAxioms

I think there is some contradiction here. I think both of us give high credence to the assertion that god has no existent. Would you agree?

Interstellar space is not an environment in which the human animal has evolved to thrive. We’ll need to change into something else to be fit out there. That’s the posthuman thing they talk about in the transhumanist literature. Point is, post-human isn’t human anymore any more than we are still a rodent. — noAxioms

I think we will try to maintain our 'human' label for as long as we can. I am not particularly precious regarding such. No doubt their will be issue's of human V transhuman, rights, racial status, redundancy etc. I can only hope we do better than we do with issues between black/white, male/female, ability/disability, gender variation etc.

So if we find a possible wet planet best suited to something like an octopus, and we instill similar/better intellectual ability/identity and physical functionality (they’ve already got most of all that), but still essentially a cephalopod by DNA, you’d be OK with calling it human? It’s a word that indicates capability and not primate lineage at all? — noAxioms

:lol: Well, I would probably prefer our science to have reached polymorphic (shapeshifting) tech:

That wasn’t listed as a premise. Are we starting anew with the ‘proof’ or are we steering away from the subject? What system is doing the knowing here, because I cannot think of a way in which this can work. My country doesn’t know most of what I know for instance, despite me being part of the country. Any yes, a country, unlike say the universe, is arguably something that knows stuff. — noAxioms

In my OP, I think I asked a bunch of questions rather than tried to 'stamp' any definitive premise.
I am moving in the direction of hypothesis, yes. I am trying my best to 'tune' my suggestions based on the feedback I am getting in this thread. My musings on exactly what is demonstrably emergent in humans, continues, but I am currently most attracted to 'asymptotic intent and purpose towards omniscience, with the goal of knowing the workings and purpose of the universe.' We do this, from the status of being OF the universe. So, our intent is to figure out the universe (a system) from the status of being a currently, distributed, set of individual minds, who currently employ various (relatively low level,) methods of 'networking.' My musings on this, are very much, still in flux but I feel confident enough, to use human demonstrations of intent and purpose and 'networking,' etc, in other threads, to combat theistic, theosophic, pessimistic, doomster, antinatalist etc, viewpoints. I also now see free will (if it truly exists) as not gifted from god but as a result of intent and purpose, in the same/similar way, that time is relative and is the result of change.
What you describe as 'what a country knows,' can increase and expand with time. Can such as the concept of country you are suggesting, be expanded to 'planet'? or solar system or interstellar existence, if such was the spread of humanity in the future. So why not 'the universe,' if you apply enough time and effort to such a goal, an asymptotic aspiration towards omniscience?'

The transhumanists are actually on some of the right tracks, but need to address some important roadblocks. — noAxioms

Interesting. (I bolded the ones which seem more likely than not; however, the implausible ones, IMO, I've crossed-out.) 10. Cryonics — 180 Proof

I consider cryonics a valid act of desperation. Similar to pharaohs who had their bodies embalmed, inside large pyramids etc. due to individual 'hope against hope,' that they can survive what is currently inevitable.
The odds are against such tech being successful, I agree, but humans will take an outside chance, if that's the best available. Like flapping your arms, if you are falling from a high building. You might as well! You have nothing to lose! You might be able to grab a flagpole on the way down! I love the fact that such people try so hard to sustain their lives (in your face antinatalists!)
I also like the fact that both yourself and @180 Proof are not against all transhuman efforts, you just don't have much confidence in some of them. Personally, I would have more confidence in cryonics than I would in Pascals wager.

Don’t see any benefit to either except immortality where said immortality doesn’t serve any purpose. — noAxioms

I am not sure what you mean by this, unless it's just to confirm that you don't think the cryogenic tech would work, i.e, you wont be able to 'reanimate' a dead human brain in the future, as there is no evidence that its contents/human identity/consciousness are preserved, by deep freezing the brain.

VR has mild uses, and is already employed. The need for it will drop as autonomy of the controlled thing increases. Said autonomy (your #5) is very useful. — noAxioms

I think it depends on whether or not VR and AR can grow into something more akin to the type of 'holography' we see depicted on shows like 'star trek.' Will we every get near to something like:

High on the list is post-humanism, for which the gene-therapy is but a step, but humans do not have a good track record of tolerating different species. They won’t in any way like or accept something seen as a replacement, especially if they’re given all the best jobs. — noAxioms

Well, that remains a very interesting question about any 'transhuman,' or your, in my opinion, more negative, 'post-human' reality. At what point will 'transhuman' efforts result in a new species?
Is a human kept alive by a pacemaker, still fully human? I would say yes, but I would also say yes for a brain inside a complete tech body, a cyborg or cybernetic human. I have no doubt opinions and reactions at the time will widely differ, but perhaps less so, than they would now.

I think we should unite with Andromeda, in peace, and with common cause to ensure that the unison is benevolent to all involved.

Evolution through natural selection is our heritage, not our moral compass.
Human intellect, intent, purpose and rationale, has the ability to legislate against any law/rule of the jungle. Richard Dawkins has time and time again, stated during interviews/lectures/debates etc that any emulation of Darwinian rules within human society, is vile.

Dawkins on human morality (7mins):


Dawkins comparing secular morality with religious based morality (4 mins):


We don't need god posits or scripture to drive our morality. In fact most scripture is morally reprehensible. Humanism, democratic socialism and secular morality seem to be much better ways to develop a benevolent human society than using any role models from evolution or theism.

They admittedly seem rather bent on forcing the issue given their public policies. I have to admit extreme cynicism when it comes to religious leaders and pundits. It seems incompatible to hold a top position in organized religion and also hold to the beliefs taught, which means they’re not actually trying to force God’s hand with the dangerous policies. — noAxioms

:clap:

I simply meant not-dualism, no supernatural mind. — noAxioms

Ok.

A change in one IS immediately experienced by the entangled object
This is not true. Not sure where you’re getting your physics. Again, a message could be sent faster than light if this was true. — noAxioms

Based on what @jgill posted, it seems my choice of words here was poor.

A change? No, a measurement of one is somehow connected to a measurement of the other. — jgill

I was basing my words on descriptions like:
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
From: https://www.space.com/31933-quantum-entanglement-action-at-a-distance.html

Wiki has:
Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance.

From the The science exchange based at Caltech:
When researchers study entanglement, they often use a special kind of crystal to generate two entangled particles from one. The entangled particles are then sent off to different locations. For this example, let's say the researchers want to measure the direction the particles are spinning, which can be either up or down along a given axis. Before the particles are measured, each will be in a state of superposition, or both "spin up" and "spin down" at the same time.

If the researcher measures the direction of one particle's spin and then repeats the measurement on its distant, entangled partner, that researcher will always find that the pair are correlated: if one particle's spin is up, the other's will be down (the spins may instead both be up or both be down, depending on how the experiment is designed, but there will always be a correlation). Returning to our dancer metaphor, this would be like observing one dancer and finding them in a pirouette, and then automatically knowing the other dancer must also be performing a pirouette. The beauty of entanglement is that just knowing the state of one particle automatically tells you something about its companion, even when they are far apart.

In consideration of the above sources, I am happy to replace my sentence with @jgill's.
My main point was that I don't think any information travels between the two when a measurement of one or the other is made.
If Lennard Susskind is correct Quantum entanglement may BE gravity!
If you can find the time, have a listen to 'debunking quantum gravity,' from youtube, shown below:

:up:

The converse of the proposal suggests that given the existence of a god that knows everything, we’d have no need of information at all despite the fact that no information is conveyed to us by this existing entity. That’s absurd. — noAxioms

The fact that no information is conveyed to us by this (proposedly) existing entity, suggests it does not exist. We would only need to do what this god needed us to do, if it was in communication with us. Why is that absurd? I agree that such a slave like role for us is unpalatable but what is the point of us learning stuff, if we are merely finding some stuff out that this god already knows. What would be the point of us aspiring to anything? How would that serve this entity? All we could do with any scraps of knowledge from it's table, is try to improve our experiences, but it could do that for us to the nth degree, anytime it chose to. It seems to me that if god exists, then the antinatalists have a good case!

Because I need a wheel to move my stuff and the existing wheel isn’t accessible to me. The question seems to presume there is no need for two of anything, even to the point of two people both knowing the same fact. — noAxioms

No, the question becomes, why are you having to reinvent the wheel? why did the existing supernatural not just provide you with a wheel? or an 'anti-grav travel platform,' or just teleport your stuff to wherever you need it. Why do humans have to reinvent tech that god already has? Unless, this god does not exist and therefore has no intent or purpose.
God then, has no lifeforce of it's own. Any god property only exists in lifeforms like humans who (asymptotically) aspire to the omnis.

Given that our planet will not be fit for multicellular life in about a billion years, where exactly should we do this existing, and how will we still be human if we change enough to be fit for that place? It’s not like star trek where 80% of planets are ‘class M’ meaning we don’t have to burden the wardrobe dept with making space suits today. If we can terraform some other world, what’s stopping us from terraforming Earth back to where it’s an environment where we’re fit? — noAxioms

If we are not existing in interstellar space within the next billion years then we deserve to be extinct imo.
Yeah, doing everything we can to protect the Earth will always be an imperative I think.
Selective evolution is the state which which supersedes natural evolution. I don't mean that natural evolution ever stops, I just mean that science tech will have a much faster effect and can be fully controlled via intent. Our manipulation of agriculture and domesticated animals is proof of that.
'Human' is a template, do we need to be so precious about it? Are the aesthetics of being human, as important, as having the same intellectual ability/identity and physical functionality of being human?
I would welcome increased longevity, robustness and functionality. I would be willing to become more 'biomorphic,' so I could exist in many environments. I don't feel particularly attached to 'looking' human.
It would depend on the existence of others who were 'like me' or who were willing to 'accept' me for what I had 'become.'

Taking you up on this. Been too busy last couple days to respond to posts. — noAxioms

Not a problem!

Ah, ‘near the equal’ like there is some sort of single scale by which nothing else measures up. You name all these human things that other species haven’t done, but ignore all the marvels that other species do that humans have not and can not. — noAxioms

I cant fly like a bird but I can strap a jet pack to my back or get on an aeroplane. I don't ignore the abilities other species can demonstrate. I assert that humans can affect their surroundings/environment and potentially, the extraterrestial contents of the universe, much more significantly than any other species on Earth. We can also think, externally memorialise and leave legacy in ways that no other species on Earth can. Can tigers discuss the history of tigers. amongst other tigers? Do tigers even know they have been labelled tigers by us?

We’ve put a man on the moon for a few hours but that doesn’t make us nearly as fit for those offworld environments as some creatures. Be interesting to explore what would be needed to change that, and what the implications of those changes would be. — noAxioms

Transhumanism does have currently running science projects. Here is a top ten, based on a search for
'transhuman projects'
10. Cryonics
9. Virtual Reality
8. Gene Therapy/RNA Interference
7. Space Colonization
6. Cybernetics
5. Autonomous Self-Replicating Robotics
4. Molecular Manufacturing
3. Megascale Engineering
2. Mind Uploading
1. Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)

The comment as worded leaves it open that there is an omniscient god that isn’t involved in the creation of anything. — noAxioms

I don't mind that possibility. A god that has nothing to do with us and did not create us and cannot or chooses not to involve itself with us is completely irrelevant to us and always will be.

3. We aspire to the omni states, because they do not currently exist.
This is a 4th premise now, and one I don’t accept. We cannot aspire to an impossible state. — noAxioms

I don't see these as separate premise's to my main premise that 'humans are a way for a system to know how and why it IS, from the inside out. We are emergent in this purpose and intent.' Any other assertion I make would be consequential to this main assertion.
I don't have enough proof of anything I claim in this thread, to create a strongly convincing logical syllogism. I have already stated that I am interested in what percentage credence level, others would assign, to what I am typing in this thread. I am not suggesting that my claims here, are far superior to the claims made by theism. They ask for high credence levels to be assigned to their claims all the time.
I am just interested in, whether or not, intelligent folks, would find the kind of claims I am putting forward here, as more convincing, when compared to, the 'god is responsible for it all,' claim.
Knowing the speed of light in a vacuum to the nth decimal point is 'impossible,' if you make n big enough. That's why I suggest our attempts are asymptotic but we will still always 'aspire' to omniscience.

Most human groups, especially ones based on the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, under the Darwinian rules of the jungle, will develop some sort of hierarchical authority structure pdq(pretty damn quick). Even if it's just the 'alpha male' style authority. It's only when raw brawn, cannot just use force to easily overpower brain, that, 'controlled' hierarchical authority may come into existence. A system of, for and by the people where authority is truly in the service of the people and is fully answerable to the people.

A 'time out' suspension is already a mod option, as far as I know.

10 out of 10 for effort friend! :clap:

My point was that a soul is irreducibly complex. — Gregory

The term 'soul,' only has meaning, if you add 'ar' or 'as', to the front of it.
Different spellings for a very good waste disposal system.

In the human embryo, the anus happens first, we belong to the class 'Deuterostomia.'

From wiki:
Deuterostomia (/ˌdjuːtərəˈstoʊmi.ə/; lit. 'second mouth' in Greek) are animals typically characterized by their anus forming before their mouth during embryonic development. The group's sister clade is Protostomia, animals whose digestive tract development is more varied. Some examples of deuterostomes include vertebrates (and thus humans), sea stars, and crinoids.

Does a term like parent or teacher not include aspects of policing and law making/imposition?
Anytime I taught a class, I also acted as the behavioural policeman in the room.
We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups.

Do some detailed reading on how evolution and natural selection actually works.
The problem is that you have not presented a valid argument!
Vera Mont already told you:

There is no first member of a species. — Vera Mont

There are many factors involved. Two Neanderthals cant have sex and create the first Homo Sapien. That's not how it works.
Even your god, could not achieve the 'first human.' Where did 'Cain's' wife come from? She wasn't Cain's sister was she? So did god make Cain's wife before, during or after he made Adam from dirt?
Do you know for sure which one was magicked first?

Are you this creationist guy on the right? Your knowledge of evolution is as confused as his!

In what language? What has it said? How do you know the voice you heard belonged to a 'totality', and not the man behind the curtain? — Vera Mont

In whatever language you understand. The man behind the curtain, exemplifies deception.
The 'totality,' of scientific knowledge exemplifies human intent and purpose to pursue the answers to every question we can ask. To me, that's a very honest and honourable goal.
Science has said and continues to say that the universe is knowable and it also confirms that we can do better as we can learn more. No god scripture has EVER offered a scientific formula/equation. There is no god beyond fiction.

That's a self-satisfied description, not a reason to exist. And that description could have been spoken by Tonda or any man since. — Vera Mont

Not only is it a reason to exist, its a reason to thrive and a reason to celebrate life and being alive.
Any man could have spoken such words, yes, men like Albert Einstein or Carl Sagan or any woman or any gender variant.

Right back at you twinkle!

Ok, thanks for your input!

When I ask why the sun rises today from a causative perspective — Hanover

Perhaps realising that the sun does not actually 'rise' at all, EVER! would be a good start.
The Earth turns, and as it does, different parts of it are in the direct path of the sun's radiations.
Is sunrise or sunset more accurate than dayrotation and nightrotation?

But hey, perhaps sunrise and sunset are just more 'romantic,' in the same way that its romantic to think a god loves us.

and it's no help at all with moral and ethical questions or the conduct of society. — Vera Mont

What do you champion about humans Vera? anything?
In my opinion you have already stated that in general, you are a doomster, when it comes to the future.
I get the impression that you think the human race is incapable of producing a society which you yourself would judge as significantly better than any society we have created in the past or present.
Are you a secular naturalist or do you assign some credence to the existence of the 'immaterial?'
I think that our sociopolitical viewpoints, align more that they diverge. We seem to disagree mainly on issues of personal or popular interpretation.
Stuff like:

Scientists are humans and they are the harbingers of science.
— universeness
Practitioners, not harbingers. — Vera Mont

One interpretation would see science simply as a totality of the efforts of all scientists.
Another would see science (as I do,) as a little bit more than that totality or sum of its parts.
The 'totality' of all scientific effort DOES speak towards human questions such as 'why am I.'
An answer such as 'I am, because I can think and I can demonstrate intent and purpose and I can do science and I can affect my surroundings and environment in ways that no other species on Earth can.' To me, this Is a fairly good claim, that any member of our species can claim. Not only claim, but demonstrate. At the moment we can only demonstrate to others in our own species, as other species don't seem to be able to investigate us, in the same way we can investigate them.

You and some others on TPF are free to predict that any future benevolent human/transhuman society, will have to go through many more apocalyptic experiences, before they learn how to create a society which makes living as a human a very positive experience. You can also suggest that it is more likely that we will go extinct and be replaced by some better candidates.
For me, at it's core, that's too close to choosing to live life as a curse. I will never choose to do that, no matter what happens to me! I will fight against living my life as a curse, every moment of every day.
You should watch some online stuff such as offerings from folks like Forrest Valkai.
I believe him when he claims he has hardly had a negative day in his life:

Reading wiki's description of the history of the term I read:
"The term monism was introduced in the 18th century by Christian von Wolff, in his work Logic (1728), to designate types of philosophical thought in which the attempt was made to eliminate the dichotomy of body and mind and explain all phenomena by one unifying principle, or as manifestations of a single substance.

The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain. The problem was addressed by René Descartes in the 17th century, resulting in Cartesian dualism, and by pre-Aristotelian philosophers, in Avicennian philosophy, and in earlier Asian and more specifically Indian traditions.

It was later also applied to the theory of absolute identity set forth by Hegel and Schelling. Thereafter the term was more broadly used, for any theory postulating a unifying principle. The opponent thesis of dualism also was broadened, to include pluralism. According to Urmson, as a result of this extended use, the term is "systematically ambiguous".

According to Jonathan Schaffer, monism lost popularity due to the emergence of analytic philosophy in the early twentieth century, which revolted against the neo-Hegelians. Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who were strong proponents of positivism, "ridiculed the whole question as incoherent mysticism".

The mind–body problem has reemerged in social psychology and related fields, with the interest in mind–body interaction and the rejection of Cartesian mind–body dualism in the identity thesis, a modern form of monism. Monism is also still relevant to the philosophy of mind, where various positions are defended.

I focussed on the words 'and explain all phenomena by one unifying principle.' This seems to me that monism suggests that ultimately, everything comes from a single source ( hence my connection to the search for a t.o.e.) In your description, can there be more than one eternal? (timeless entity or property). Do you agree that monism is used in ontology based arguments such as the Kalam?
Is monotheism a monism?

I'll try my best to answer — Hanover

Full respect to that!

It's an anti-proselytizing view I have, both because I don't believe in it, and "proselytize" is hard enough to spell that I have to keep trying until it's close enough for spell-check to have a clue what I'm trying to say. — Hanover

:lol:

You have the right to believe or have faith in anything you like, and sure, you can ignore any attempts at dissention you might receive as a consequence. BUT, you cannot and will never get away with just exclaiming 'I am what I am and what I am needs no excuses.'
Perhaps no excuses, but no explanations? No justifications? That just won't do!
If you maintain that position, then I for one, will forever try to gnaw at you. :razz:
Why do you feel the need to be so stubborn in your defence of your right to the esoteric?
I am fascinated about why you need to believe in the existence of something which is metaphysical or supernatural or some presence or 'mind' that is, so much more than you are and cares about you or/and us. Is my description of some of the properties of that which you declare faith in, accurate?
What guidelines are communicated to you? What source do you tap, that you consult when you ask yourself a question like 'how should I react to this particular scenario I am now facing in this life?'
You simply type that your faith helps you know how to live. Is that as far as you intend to go with your explanations?
No further details, no example scenario's to explain the details of your thinking processes, not even some propositional logic arguments that employ identity, contradiction and excluded middle?
If that is your position, then to me, it's quite a weak one.
Yes, I know you don't care if that's my opinion. :grin: I am just disappointed, that's all.

Science is a manifestation of human aspiration and curiosity. It is not always intentional or directed; its products are not always functional. In horizontal societies, the product is innovation - more efficient ways to obtain and prepare food, travel, build, carry, preserve, keep warm, recover from illness and injury. In vertical societies, fruitful scientific investigation is co-opted by the ruling classes, to serve their own interests. To the extent that incidental improvement in the lot of the underclasses benefits the ruling class or ensures their security, some benefit extends to the society at large. If an innovation or its byproducts are harmful, the underclasses are affected, while ruling class is shielded from the harm. — Vera Mont

Human aspiration and curiosity are aspects or 'drivers' of human intent and purpose.
If I am curious about what exists up a dark path or how a bird is able to fly, then I might manifest an intent to find out, such intent to find out would be intentional and directed. I think you are hair splitting.
If you are suggesting something like the discovery of penicillin was not 'intended' science as it contained an aspect of 'fortunate happenstance,' then I disagree, as 'scientists,' or the scientific mind is always vigilant (like the photographer who always carries a camera) and therefore always has scientific intent, purpose, driven by insatiable curiosity and aspiration.

I completely agree with you that nefarious people try to control new tech and employ it for their own benefits only, and that this remains a serious problem today, that all humans must be made aware of, and be convinced to help stop this happening, in the future, and that's an on-going battle, that's been going on for generations. But, I don't understand how such issues connect with your suggestion, that science does not contribute to or;

neither one says an intelligible word in response to Who am I?" "Why am I?" "Where's the universe come from?" "What's it all mean?" One provides answers to some fragments of the what, why and how of things; the other provides rules of conduct, accompanied by a stick and a carrot. — Vera Mont

You seem to slightly contradict yourself with 'neither one says an intelligible word,' and then 'one provides some fragment of the what, why and how of things.' Science has made enormous in-roads into the 'how' and 'what' of things. It also helps a great deal towards the much more difficult 'why' of things.
We can discuss specific examples if you wish, but maybe that's another thread.

Similarly, projection and narrative are manifestations of human self-regard and imagination.
In horizontal societies, the product is some form of animism, myth and spontaneous ritual. — Vera Mont

Do you not agree that your second sentence above, is less true today than it has ever been since the days of the first cities, such as Jericho and Uruk? Even (in the past, very infuential/powerful male based ritualistic groups) like the 'masons,' have lost a great deal of their membership, and the youth of today seem a lot less interested in such groups. Are you suggesting that they are being replaced by equally ritualistic and equally powerful online groups? If so, what would be an example? Animism, myth and ritualistic practices are in global decline, imo.

Science doesn't aspire any more than a wheelbarrow rolls. Humans aspire and push at the limits of their knowledge. Science is a method applied by humans to human endeavours; it is not a supernatural entity with a will of its own. — Vera Mont

Scientists are humans and they are the harbingers of science. Nothing supernatural was suggested by me. I am not trying to 'objectify' science in the way you suggest. Practicing science and the scientific method, exemplifies human intent and purpose. Science can be demonstrated successfully without one iota of god content. So, for me, there is no god beyond fiction and god cannot inform humans how to live as it does not demonstrate its existence. We ask questions Vera because our goal is omniscience. I think our reach for omniscience will be forever asymptotic, but I am ok with that. What do you think the purpose is, of humans/transhumans, doing science for the next 200 million years, if we still exist, if it is not to reach for omniscience?

Only Science and God are expected to do that, and of course, neither one says an intelligible word in response to Who am I?" "Why am I?" "Where's the universe come from?" "What's it all mean?" — Vera Mont

Science is a manifestation of human intent. In my view, science aspires to omniscience.
This relates to my discussion with @noAxioms in my thread 'Emergent,' and I don't want to bore everyone by repeating too much of what I typed there.

Personally, I refer to purposes, meaning the purpose of science is to tell me about the world. The purpose of religion is to tell me how to live in it — Hanover

Can you give me an example of a way that religion tells people how to live, which could not be delivered by irreligious moral humans? What moral exclusivity do you suggest religion or god (in any of its descriptions, ancient or modern,) has, that humans cannot equal?

Fun, happiness, joy, belonging, common experience, love, cause (even a hopeless one), dreams, imagination, awe, wonder, inspiration, aspiration, hope and this list is not a complete list.
A fulfilled life does not knock on your door and offer itself to you in a pretty box with a nice bow on top:


Baby, life's what you make it
Can't escape it
Baby, yesterday's favourite
Don't you hate it?
(Everything's all right)
Life's what you make it
(Everything's all right)
Baby, life's what you make it
Don't backdate it
Baby, don't try to shade it
Beauty's naked
(Everything's all right)
Life's what you make it
(Everything's all right)
What you make it
Baby, life's what you make it
Celebrate it!
Anticipate it
Yesterday's faded
Nothing can change it
Life's what you make it
(Everything's all right)
Life's what you make it
(Everything's all right)
Life's what you make it
(Everything's all right)
Yeah, yeah
(Everything's all right)
Baby
(Everything's all right)

I think some folks get to a stage where they have typed everything they wanted to type about and have received all the answers they are likely to receive from the members of TPF. I think they reach a saturation point and need a break from TPF to recharge and assimilate what has been offered to them. But I have noticed that many, if not most, come back after a while, so why 'burn yer boats,' in the way Olivier5 seems to have done? Why not leave in a dignified manner, if that's what you want to do.

This sounds really interesting. No link provided. — noAxioms

What do you mean 'No link provided'? Did you not see the video I posted by Jim Al-Khalili about how quantum physics is employed in the biological world?

When I clicked on the link you posted, it took me to the OP of this thread??

You then go on to discuss some aspects of quantum physics in the biological world but I remain confused as to what source you are using.

I don't know what you mean by:

“appears to make use of quantum entanglement — a linkage of two or more very small objects so that any change to one is immediately experienced by another”
Entangled particles do no such thing. Information could be sent faster than light if this were true. — noAxioms

A change in one IS immediately experienced by the entangled object, regardless of the distance between them. No signal physically travels between the entangled particles.
Quantum entanglement experiment

I think the term monism has weaknesses. Priority monism or the concept of existence monism, can be used as arguments in support of god, such as in BS ontological arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument. I am monistic in the sense of the credence level I assign to the existence of, and the search for a t.o.e.
Didn’t understand any of that. Maybe I should say naturalism: The lack of need of supernatural to explain what happens. — noAxioms

From wiki:
Monism attributes oneness or singleness to a concept, e.g. existence. Various kinds of monism can be distinguished. So basically monism traces everything back to a single origin, which suits big bang theory or the idea of a t.o.e (theory of everything,) but it does not engage any multiverse theories or cyclical universe theories etc and it can also be used to support monotheism.
Monism is a term from philosophy (I think), so, perhaps someone like @180 Proof or @Banno could confirm I am not misusing the term here and if I am, they could perhaps correct me.

I just don’t agree with this connection. I have no trouble envisioning question-asking in a setup with a god. — noAxioms

Then, try running your thought forward. We are emergent, god is not, so omnigod cannot develop, grow, improve, aspire, etc. We can. We have purpose, it has no purpose at all, so it might as well not exist and I am suggesting that it is therefore rational and in fact irresistible to declare god, nonexistent.
Time for humans to stop scapegoating gods and take full ownership of free will and emerging capability.
A nonexistent god, free's life such as humans and allows us to continue to be emergent and eventually become whatever we are able to become, within the time frame offered by the life time of a universe, constrained within an entropic future. Human's could exist for many many 'billions' of more years.
How long will the theists tolerate the complete absence and silence of their supernatural superhero?
They need to stop being afraid of what's outside of our caves! We need to trust each other, to allay our fears. The Klingon stated what theists need to do (in their heads) , quite well with:

Agree to all, but with the implications of being useful/functional to the people. You go from that to “the bus knows itself”. — noAxioms

No I don't, as the difference is, the bus is OF us, it is our tech. WE ARE OF THE UNIVERSE! I agree there is no evidence that we come from it's intent (as this let's god in again). We came from happenstance. BUT we have emergent properties. Properties that can grow in strength and extent of influence. We have the potential of affecting a larger and larger extent of the content of the universe.
Fast forward this, and through lifeforms such as us, the universe may become a system that ultimately grows a communicative system that can affect every part of its 'body.' I don't think that such an anthropocentric projection of a 'networked mind' which will eventually become, say, intergalactic, is impossible. I would assume that the reality will be quite different from my suggestion here, but it is still much more exciting to me than any future suggested by theism, theosophy or the moronic antinatalists.
The question of exactly who's future musings are correct here, remains to be realised.
We must all plant our flag/make our choice or we will stay forever fogged.

Humans were not the first to do this. A huge extinction event 2.7 BY ago took place upon the emergence of Aerobic Metabolism, wiping out or at least driving into hiding the prevalent anaerobic life at the time. That dwarfed the change that humans so far have had on the planet. It wasn’t particularly intended, but neither is what the humans are doing. — noAxioms

Many natural happenstances could wipe out all life on Earth, before I finish typing this post. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct. But that misses the point here. Has any other species that you know of or that has existed on Earth, visited the moon or built a space station or a city?
Have any of them memorialised information in some equivalent system to books? Did any of them reach the scientific knowledge we have or created tech which is anywhere near the equal of ours?
We are even beginning to create tech/solutions to such existential threats that killed the dinosaurs, such as the recently, successful DART mission. What the humans are doing on Earth was and is very intended. Some of the consequences are very bad indeed but the base purpose and original intentions (good and/or bad,) are irrefutable. For example, 'I intend to settle here and grow food, farm animals, control water flow,' etc 'our purpose is to build a city here, and mine available resources to do so, and to maintain and grow the city and ...... I shall be king (let's not forget the nefarious b********. We have still to deal with them effectively.) These are irrefutable examples of human intent and purpose, with the ultimate goal of reaching the omnis.

Remind me of the reasons. I seem to have missed it, unless the question-asking thing is it.
The reason we ask questions in the face of an omniscient god is that said god seems to not communicate those answers. Be great to have a god that acted like a google search, but we both know there’s no such interface. If there is an omniscient god, it keeps its secrets. — noAxioms

The reasons are:
1. We ask questions
2. We demonstrate intent and purpose, that can significantly change our surroundings and potentially, the contents of the universe. There is no evidence of god(s) creating anything.
3. We aspire to the omni states, because they do not currently exist. Why would you aspire to creating a wheel, if a wheel already exists? By the same logic, why would we aspire to omniscience if an omniscient already exists?
You yourself make the statement 'If there is an omniscient god, it keeps its secrets.' Then we are being rational, when we conclude that this god suggestion, has no existent and it is irrational to suggest it exists. This is an example of where a statement such as 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' fails. As the evidence that god does not exist is very strong (I accept that it's not yet strong enough to irrefutably 'disprove' god, but all it has left, are pathetic god of the gaps suggestions.)
In the case of a posited creator of everything and the posit that it has all the omni properties, the fact that it refuses to reveal it's existence, irrefutably, to everyone on Earth, IS, a very strong reason to conclude that it does not exist. 1, 2 and 3 above are also very strong reasons. Free will, if it truly exists, is a natural happenstance, it was never given to us and its consequences are emergent.

I must refute this assertion of yours.
I’m in an Alaska ice cream shop 9 years ago awaiting my turn. I know what I want for me and the kids and I have the cash already counted out, sales tax included. I order and have the exact change on the counter before she says the total. “How did you do that?” she asks. I reply dismissively “It’s just math”. Take the cones and exit the place. After I’ve left, she remarks to the next customer: “What a mean old man!”. Next customer was my brother. The label stuck and I embrace it. I’m now known in my family as the mean old man. We’re all still laughing about it. — noAxioms

I repeat and even more so, since your posting of the humble story above.
You sound like a nice person noAxioms but I add, you have a nice family to.
'Ribbing,' those you love most, is a very strong part of my own Scottish tradition.

else creatures would long ago have evolved mechanisms to take advantage of it. — noAxioms

From [url=http://Birds like the European robin have an internal compass which appears to make use of a phenomenon called quantum entanglement. ((Vasily Fedosenko/Reuters)) Bird navigation, plant photosynthesis and the human sense of smell all represent ways living things appear to exploit the oddities of quantum physics, scientists are finding.]here[/url]
Birds like the European robin have an internal compass which appears to make use of a phenomenon called quantum entanglement. ((Vasily Fedosenko/Reuters)) Bird navigation, plant photosynthesis and the human sense of smell all represent ways living things appear to exploit the oddities of quantum physics, scientists are finding.

Also you might like this, if you have not watched it already:

Life changed the universe into a system which contained intent and purpose. A demonstrable ability for a system (the universe) to know itself from the inside.
No idea what you suggest by this. An example would help. A bus hasn’t intent just because everyone on it wants to go to the same destination. — noAxioms

The intent of the people on the bus dictates the direction of the bus and therefore the bus is 'useful,' has a function,' 'SERVES a purpose'. The people give meaning to the existence of the bus. They do the same for the universe.

What purpose would that be, one say not held by a rabbit? — noAxioms

There is no evidence of rabbits memorialising science in the way we do and passing such on to the next generation of libraries. WE coined the name Rabbit. They did not coin the name Human. What's in a name? Human intent and purpose!
— universeness
That’s what’s in a human name. Not sure how this was relevant to my text to which it was a reply. — noAxioms

So yes, the purpose and intent of rabbits is a poor comparison with the intent and purpose of humans.
Rabbits cant impact their environment like humans can.

From one monist to another, there is no hard problem of consciousness. — noAxioms

I think the term monism has weaknesses. Priority monism or the concept of existence monism, can be used as arguments in support of god, such as in BS ontological arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument. I am monistic in the sense of the credence level I assign to the existence of, and the search for a t.o.e.

Whereas the logic gates in a computer require no more complexity to do whatever they do? I mean, there are more parts than just neurons and logic gates to both things — noAxioms

Logic gates and binary are fully understood and are as 'fundamental' in computing as quarks are in physics. We don't yet know the fundamentals of human consciousness. We don't know enough yet imo, to make any exciting fundamental comparisons between electronic computers and the human brain.
There are plenty of similarities, yes but none of the current comparisons overwhelm me .... yet.

This bit started from your assertion that computers cannot be information processors, but I’m looking for the distinction that makes this so. — noAxioms

The distinction is that current computers have no self-awareness and do not demonstrate any ability to 'understand.' That includes demonstrating 'understanding' of what 'information' IS, (labelled data).
In binary addition, 1+1 is 10. A human and a computer can both do this calculation but only a human 'understands' it. A computer processes 'on' + 'on' as two closed gates representing two 1's in the binary 'units' numerical column and produces an open gate in that column and a closed gate in a representation of the decimal 'two's' column. The computer does not understand why it connects this low level operation to its HCI (human computer interface) system which places the output bit map displaying the image of '2' on a screen. The computer assigns no meaning whatsoever to the process it just performed or the output it placed on the screen. IT IS A BRAINLESS MACHINE!

I can think of forms that don’t reproduce. — noAxioms

Then, unless they are immortal, they are doomed.

Now we’re asking if it’s intelligent, not if it’s life. Something can be either and not the other, so it’s a different question. — noAxioms

Remember, my 'objective truth' candidate is now life that can demonstrate intent and purpose to a minimum level of being able to affect it's environment(planet) (and potentially its interstellar neighbourhood) in the same way we humans can. So my criteria for qualification, is currently, very much in flux. I am hoping that I can fine tune it effectively, due to interaction with folks like yourself.

the proposal is that due to the fact life has intent and purpose, there can be no god.
Doesn’t seem to follow. Most argue the opposite, that it is the god that supplies the purpose otherwise absent. Your proposal of inherent purpose is equivalent to that of objective morality without involvement of actual commands. — noAxioms

I think it does follow. I have already given my reasons. What's the point of asking questions, if god already has all the answers? But WE DO ask questions and WE DO have intent and purpose.
WHY? If god exists, we would not experience such compulsions. For me, this IS evidence that god cannot exist. I accept that others (especially theists), wont agree.

Doomsters and pessimists are wrong, as life with intent and purpose is compelled towards progressing that intent and purpose.
Excuse me, but I never said I (people in general) didn’t have purpose. — noAxioms

Consider yourself excused! I am glad you agree people have purpose! Do you agree that god is not needed to produce such a property of life?

What is an antinatalist to you? You bring it up a lot. Do they propose letting the human race go extinct by not having any kids? All that will do is make antinatalism go extinct, sort of like the Jim Jones colony. — noAxioms

They advocate for their own extinction as part of their goal of ending all suffering, based on their convoluted moral imperative. They are not benign. They have, for example, a vile organisation in the USA that think that perhaps they should try to help the extinction of our species happen, if they cant get our consent. They are total kook's, yes, but we ignore any growth of such at our peril.

Really? Like to see them try to make a dent in it, positive or negative. — noAxioms

Well, perhaps I went too far by referring to destroying the universe. I am happy to restrict their threat to life on Earth.