Good people often argue amongst themselves constantly, but eventually, they do agree enough, to find common cause and fight for the type of change that really would make a significant difference to the human experience and make it a fairer and more benevolent one. Right now, for me, I think pushing for and supporting UBI in anyway you can could become a current common cause that does offer the kind of significant change I am referring to. Do you have any other suggestion that would do more to improve the human experience, than vastly improved economic parity?

There is some distinction between 'ancient civilizations' and 'tribal cultures', and again between 'prehistoric humans' and 'transitional hominids'. They were never so simple and ignorant as the standard depiction.
As to babies, the instinct to obey their species "quiet!" command goes way back before humans. Quail chicks huddle down in silence while their mother distracts a predator; fawns know to do the same; feral kittens, as soon as they can walk, scatter and hide under something on their mother's command - two weeks later, they do it on their own, when they identify a potential danger.
Natural phenomena, weather, hazards to health and safety didn't suddenly materialize in the world with the advent of H sapiens. We evolved in this world, surrounded by these dangers, adapted over 3 billion years to coping with them. — Vera Mont

I was simply suggesting reasons why god posits were invented by humans whilst experiencing or just emerging from the wilds. The ancient humans were every bit as smart as we are now but they just didn't have the legacy from science that we do.
It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time!

Those poor ancients. They just didn't understand the lights in the sky or why fire, flood, pestilence and almost every creature outside the caves that made really scary growl and hssssss noises in the night, seemed to want to kill them. :scream: Inventing some superhero protectors seems logical but for such notions to still be flourishing now is rather embarrassing, for the human race.
Carl Sagan in his book 'The Dragons of Eden,' wrote that babies instinctively react to sounds such as 'shhhhhhh' and 'psssssssssssst,' and can become quiet, as these sounds were used by early humans to warn their fellows that danger was nearby!

He was completely nuts! Do you know if he really is a lecturer with REAL human students.
If he is interacting with real human students :scream:

4. The proposal that only life, can demonstrate intent and purpose
...
No lifeform on Earth can demonstrate intent and purpose more than humans can.
The 1st statement (item 4) does not follow from the assertion following it. This is simple logic. Displaying a white swan does not support a proposal that all swans must be white. — noAxioms

The proposal numbered 4 is asserted before asserting that humans demonstrate intent better than any other species on Earth. I don't see the logic problem you are trying to establish here.

I looked up the definition of baryon and it seems electrons do not qualify — noAxioms

Yeah, it's just human categorisation. YOU ARE completely baryonic, imo. Leptons are just light weight baryons. Humans love sub-categories. :roll: If a neutrino does indeed have some mass then it will also be a lepton. Does the erebon exist as a dark matter particle? will it be categorised as a baryon or a lepton. Only CERN might find out, or perhaps we will need new tech to find out.

Trying to figure out which side you’re against here. — noAxioms

I have already declared myself as a socialist/secular humanist many times on TPF threads, so I think my likely viewpoints on the main sociopolitical positions are easily garnished from those labels.

The effects of a lot of neurons firing negates the fact that it’s just neurons firing? Or did I read that wrong? — noAxioms

It may not just be neurons firing, that's the point. There may be much more complexity involved.
I know @180 Proof and others do not assign much credence to the idea that quantum effects are an integral part of human consciousness, as is suggested by folks like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, see this thread. I am not so sure I think quantum fluctuations, entanglement, superposition and quantum tunnelling may well be involved in human consciousness.

I (and I'm sure your sister-in-law) thank you for your 'fine mind' compliment and I return it in kind.
Are you kidding? Both of you are fine minds. I will not name those on this forum of whom I think otherwise. I don’t agree with all of them, but my assessment hopefully isn’t biased by that. — noAxioms

You sound like a nice person noAxioms!

So knock it off with logic instead of weight of optimism. — noAxioms

:lol: I am trying noAxioms, but you are a very apt and able (but very rational) artful dodger.

I'll give you this: The doomsters have been predicting dates for a long time: We'll last only X years. Almost all of them have gone by, kind of like my Brother in law whose doctor said he'd buy him a steak if he was alive in 5 years. His prognosis was a couple months. He missed the free steak by 3 weeks. Tough bastard, even if I didn't agree with almost anything he said. Humanity has earned its steak. Hat off to that. — noAxioms

:grin: My 85 year old mother has terminal breast cancer and has also way outlived her expertly predicted time. She has had no treatment but continues to battle on. She is even planning a cataract removal in the next few months. She lives with me and demonstrates to me everyday, how to live and how to face death.

What purpose would that be, one say not held by a rabbit? Look at current groups that act as a whole. An animal is a collection of life forms of the same species: cells. Those cells are not aware of any specific purpose, but they’ve managed to evolve into something acting as a unit with more purpose than any held by any cell.
On the next level, bees form a hive, pretty much a collection of these higher individuals acting with not individual purpose, but with the collective purpose of the hive. A human village or country seems to act that way, having a purpose. The village one is more like like the hive: A group acting for mutual benefit of the individuals. The country sometimes does this, but it also serves as a unit competing with other such units for this and that. I don’t see humanity as a whole in any way acting like this. Countries only exist because other countries do, and they’re something to be resisted. Human seem not to act for the benefit of humanity mostly because there’s not a common enemy to label. So we don’t form anything with a unified purpose. Hence my asking what you see that purpose to be.
Furthermore, and more importantly, how does identifying a purpose for an intelligent race, especially one that must be held by all sufficiently intelligent races, act as a ‘defeat’ of what you call a ‘doomster’ position? It’s not like having a collective purpose has prevented any species from going extinct as far as we know. — noAxioms

There is no evidence of rabbits memorialising science in the way we do and passing such on to the next generation. WE coined the name Rabbit. They did not coin the name Human. What's in a name? Human intent and purpose!
A hammer made of candy will never break a stone wall no matter how often you try. Humans can make a much stronger hammer and break through the wall because their intent and purpose is much stronger that that of rabbits or bees.

Human intent and purpose comes from internal combinatorial activity. The hard problem of consciousness remains but it is there is no dualism involved, in my opinion. Humans are cell based but exactly how all the fundamental ingredients combine to produce human intent and purpose, at the levels humans can demonstrate it, is of course, still not fully understood. But WE intend to figure it out. One of our purposes, is to employ the scientific method to find empirical evidence that explains the source of consciousness. Again, remember, 'we choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.'

I am fine with your 'bee' model of the hive mind and comparing it with human settlement constructs. These are just variations on a theme to me. I see no ultimate barrier to the global unity of our species, as a consequence of statements such as "I don’t see humanity as a whole in any way acting like this."
If you think we need a common enemy to achieve such a unison, then perhaps climate change/capitalism/national autocratic exemplars will become (or are already) those common enemies you suggest.

I think I already addressed your 'doomster position,' question in my previous post to this one.

You seem to be online a shortish time (but long enough to type all these replies) because you reply quickly to posts during that period. Unfortunately I’m asleep then and our exchange takes place once a day. I guess it gives me time to compose at leisure. — noAxioms

:grin: Nice to know we both have lives outside of TPF.

The content is growing. Your aggregate replies consumed 5 pages of Libre yesterday, and 7 today. — noAxioms

Like the universe, I expand over time. Hopefully my expansion will not accelerate and I predict, it will eventually experience a big crunch on this thread.

What do you consider to be life then? Does it need a form? How confined is your criteria? I imagine that the definition of life and the answer to your question go hand in hand. If for instance life must be something that reproduces, then that would become an absolute truth about life, if only by definition. — noAxioms

Yeah, I broadly agree with the 7 criteria from biology:
In biology, whether life is present is determined based on the following seven criteria:
1. It should maintain some balanced conditions in its inner structure. This is called Homeostasis
2. Its structure is highly organized.
3. It should be able to break down or build up nutrients to release or store energy based on need. This is called Metabolism
4. It should grow, which means its structure changes as time goes by in an advantageous manner.
5. It should show adaptation to the environment.
6. It should be able to respond to environmental stimuli on demand (as opposed to adaptation, which occurs over time).
7. It should be able to reproduce itself.

I give a very low credence to some lifeforms proposed in sci-fi such as 'The Q' in Star Trek or the various 'energy only' lifeforms, but then again, if such turns up and demonstrates abilities such as sentience, awareness of self, ability to communicate, intelligence, ability to do science, has intent, has purpose then they would fit with my notion of an 'objective truth' about all such lifeforms in the universe that can 'affect' the contents of the universe in the way we can. This would further confirm to me that the doomsters, pessimists, theists, theosophists, antinatalists etc are on the wrong path, and I have another strong tool against their point of view.

People can be convinced and can redirect, refocus, their energies and efforts if they do become convinced that a proposal has high credence.
There’s a proposal on top of a search for some kind of truth about all life? — noAxioms

Yes, the proposal is that due to the fact life has intent and purpose, there can be no god. As life as a totality, aspires to the god onmi qualifications. Life naturally imagineers god(s) as what it ultimately wants to become. If the omnigod already exists then such a goal would be utterly pointless and illogical, therefore theism and theosophists (faith in deities/the supernatural/the immaterial) must be completely wrong.

Doomsters and pessimists are wrong, as life with intent and purpose is compelled towards progressing that intent and purpose. It makes no sense to keep emitting personal 'we are doomed to fail' or 'the glass is half empty' signals, as they are 'pointless' and do nothing to progress intent and purpose. I understand that individuals can have intent and purpose to 'destroy the universe,' but others like me can have the intent and purpose to stop them. These seem to be 'valid states,' of intent and purpose.

Antinatalists are wrong because life happened in the universe and would happen again if it went extinct.
It happened because it could happen and it can always happen, even if it is intermittently made extinct.
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. So it does not need anything to exist 'outside.' I am NOT suggesting panpsychism here. I am suggesting an 'emergence.' Life with growing/changing intent and purpose. If we take this as an emerging 'totality,' of consciousness, then this may be a natural happenstance, which has the potential for the universe to 'know' and 'understand', how, what and perhaps (the much more difficult) WHY, it IS.
Life is the only 'property' of the universe that may be able to achieve this.
The existence of life 'within' the system of the universe means no 'outside' agent (such as god) is required.

The story you tell is sooooooo similar to my own mother (now 85) and lives with me.
She get's her state pension only. She worked hard all her life as a hospital cleaner.
When I took early retirement from teaching, I had earned enough, so that she has been able to live with me for free.
I chose to remain single and childless. My mother has lived with me for almost 20 years now and in that time, she has enjoyed a respectable level of financial freedom and freedom from the stress that money struggles brought her in her years of marriage to my father (until his death at 67) and trying to bring up three kids. I know what you are talking about. My own early life experience is one of the foundational reasons that I am a socialist and secular humanist. The dickhead that basically told you you should be grateful for the pittance you got from welfare, was just that, a dickhead.
You did not create a system that supports a nefarious and privileged few, who live off the sweat and toil of the majority, you like most people were simply a victim of it.

I like your style!

Sungod, yes - or probably. Only god, no. He had parents, a wife and kids, as well as colleagues. — Vera Mont

:lol: How human these early gods were! I wonder why? :halo:

Free high quality education for all from cradle to grave. Is it only the human invention of money that is stopping that from happening? Is it not possible to explain to billionaires and multi-millionaires that we are going to take some of their ridiculous surplus and use it to providing free education for everyone in your country of the USA and if they don't like it, they can f*** off and live somewhere else but they must leave their ill-gotten gains in the country? Am I being too 'radical?'

the first mention we have of it was floated in Egypt less than 4000 years ago, by Akhenaten — Vera Mont

Was Utu (sumerian sun god) who became Shamesh (Akkadian) not suggested around 6000 BCE. Was Utu not the first ever recorded sungod?
Akhenaten pushed for Aten around 1350 BCE, according to some online stuff.
Although I think you might be right that Akhenaten was the first to push for a sun god as the most powerful god but did he also suggest Aten was the ONLY god that existed, as in monotheism?

Yeah, I have read that thread. I am an advocate for world unity but I am now against party politics.
I do think global governance would be wise and I agree that it is only feasible alongside a vast increase in automated systems but I don't think we need ASI, posited as a tech singularity.
I also think we need global UBI first and eventually, the removal of money as a means of exchange and the establishment of national and then international resource based economy.
I hope space exploration and development will handshake with these and emerge in parallel.

How many Chinese, Japanese, South Korean people have you asked the question 'how much are you influenced by the American media?'

Discussion, not convincing / conversion is my goal. — 180 Proof

Fair enough!
From wiki:
In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.

out of little acorns, big oak trees grow. I am willing to try to convince/convert others, all by myself.

:up: Yes, we agree on this, more or less; to wit: — 180 Proof

:grin: Great, now help me convince everyone else on TPF! :strong: Especially the pessimists, doomsters, theists, theosophists and antinatalists! You have time to use up anyway, as we wait for the ASI.

But these political conflicts will no have any effect in Japan, South Korea or China. — javi2541997

Is this despite the fact America has been involved with China since before the boxer rebellion over 200 years ago. They occupied Japan and they fought the Korean war! But their internal political status has no impact on China, Japan or South Korea?

If it makes you happy. — Olivier5

Do you mean like this?

are you clapping along?

I think it's always wise not to be 'concrete' in your personal proclamations of what you are trying to label 'an objective truth.' I fully accept your cautionary 'woah' signal, if you think I am stretching the importance of the human ability to demonstrate intent and purpose as being 'superior' or 'more pronounced' than any other lifeform, too far.
I am interested on the credence level others might ascribe to my proposal regarding human intent and purpose. I am just tool testing here, at the moment.
Until

Primates, cetaceans, elephantidae and cephalopods — 180 Proof

built cities, communities (good or bad), which are equivalent to human efforts.
Until such can demonstrate an ability to do science or memorialise information in the way we do. I will continue to insist that human intent and human purpose has the strongest potential to directly affect the content of the universe, and we can empirically demonstrate this, and god(s) just cant, and there is zero evidence that they can, other than the pathetic evidence offered by those who claim to have personally witnessed the supernatural.

I am certainly not suggesting in any way! That my claim that human intent and purpose is more powerful that any other lifeform on Earth, gives humans any right whatsoever to ride roughshod over any other species or lifeform. I think that it gives us increased responsibility to fight against any such activity.
That has not yet made me become a vegetarian, for example, but my reasoning there is probably for other threads. I have read quite a bit on the cognitive abilities of other species on Earth. I am a big fan of folks like Jane Goodall etc and many others who work in this area, but I see no attempt by any other species to be become organised enough to study us and impact us as we can impact them.
I know that universal happenstance could wipe out our species before I finish typing on TPF today, so I type as loudly as I can, that I am not suggesting, humans are all powerful in any way, BUT that which IS emergent in us, as a totality, has the strongest potential for impacting the contents of this universe, in the current 'league table of known lifeforms in the universe.'

Yeah, well, I suppose its a question of how far back do we trace such events and decide what influenced what?
The English invading parliament and eventually chopping off the head of the King?
The British sacking the white house?
The Russian peasants storming the winter palace?
The French peasants taking over every palace in France?
etc.
My position that in our current global society, what happens in America is unhealthily aped globally, remains.

The copy cat relationship many people around the world seem to have with all things American, is depressing at best and damn dangerous at worse.

Lula is A-okay in my book, much better than most politicians worldwide. Mandela too was accused of all sorts of crimes and spent time in jail ... but his accusers were the real criminals. Same thing in Brazil: they framed Lula because they could not defeat him in the ballot box. — Olivier5

Yeah, I may well have fell for the intrigue of his opposition. I feel the same way you do about Lula regarding Hugo Chavez.

Good thing that Bolsonaro didn't try a "6th January" à la Trump and co., and that he finally accepted his defeat. It could have gone much worse. — Olivier5

Did you type this before or after hearing last nights news from Brazil?

No problem. I am sure you will consume Latin and gain fluency, you are indeed a cunning linguist!

What about Eccentrica Gallumbits the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon Six? — Tom Storm

Did she also appear in 'Total recall?'

Mostly, one seeks their "niche" in society without a lot of soul searching. If such existential questions persist into old age, one needs to get out of the house and move around, not sit in contemplation of these niggling abstractions - unless one is a real philosopher, seeking conceptual stability amid the chaos. If the latter, then there's always a singularity around the mental corner. — jgill

I think I do both and I think I experience fewer existential mental conflicts because of it.
I ponder and I get out and move around. My 'conceptual stability,' has been quite good for many years now and may it stay that way and consolidate further.

I said human history is unpredictable after – on the other side of – "The Singularity", not cosmological history. :roll: — 180 Proof

:roll: :roll: (Hah! I hope this doesn't start a 'roll' competition between us :lol: )
Human history is part of cosmological history so if the cosmological future is open to prediction then so is the future of humanity after a so called AGI or ASI 'singularity.' Of course this is just my opinion from incredulity. I heard Matt Dillahunty, use this phrase on 'The Line' call-in Sunday show (8th Jan) (or last night) on YouTube. 'Argument from incredulity.' He used it to suggest a 'weak' position to argue from but I must have liked the phrase as I have now used it twice today, on this thread. I seem to be a sucker for novelty!

Getting people to actually think instead of letting others tell them what to think would be a great start, but humans seem absurdly bad at this.
A short term benefit to our species may not be good for a more long term goal for our species, and our planet doesn’t seem to have goals, so not sure how one can go about benefiting one. — noAxioms

That's you in you doomster hat again. I have witnessed many examples of humans who 'actually think instead of letting others tell them what to think,' and I bet you have to. I experience examples of such people almost every day. I also experience humans who seem exactly as you describe but you seem to concentrate on that half empty section. Throw that silly doomster hat away! How does it help?
Even if the odds are very much against you, (to quote Delenn and Sheridan from Babylon 5).
"If you are falling from a tall building, you might as well flap your arms!"
I don't think the current human situation in anywhere near as bad as that but I still agree with the desperate act. Perhaps you can grab a flagpole on the way down. :scream: :lol: :fear:

Then why do we ask questions?
Because we want to know stuff. My comment to which this was a reply was about the universe having goals, and the universe isn’t a thing that asks questions any more than does a classroom. — noAxioms

But I already responded to this! WE ARE OF THE UNIVERSE! We ask the questions because we have intent and purpose so our purpose are products of what has happened in the universe since the big bang. Our intent, purpose, actions are not separable from the universe, even when they are diametrically opposed.

Ah, but is it true in the absence of our universe? This gets into my definition of objective truth vs the one you gave. HH didn’t suggest it was not true anywhere in this universe. The suggestion was more along the lines of the necessity of something real to count, which makes mathematics only valid for counting numbers. — noAxioms

I think we should focus on the problems in one universe at a time.

I am with your sister-in-law.
Another fine mind lost to technology. My condolences. — noAxioms

I (and I'm sure your sister-in-law) thank you for your 'fine mind' compliment and I return it in kind.
I also bat back your 'condolences' label and I target it towards your doomster hat, in the hope of knocking it clean off your head and all the way into quick sand or even a black hole!

Theism will be probably higher than it is now, but far more diverse with no following held over a large area. People may not be literate, so I envision something like the culture of the American natives before Europeans came. This assumes that in only 10000 years the climate has settled into something workable for humans. If not, we're probably extinct, so that assumption must be made. — noAxioms

:rofl: Such a big doomster hat!

A computer processor at its base level is a series of logic gates, which open and close.
And you also can be similarly described at a base level. Pretty much gates that open and close (neurons that fire or not). — noAxioms

Not so, as the cumulated affects demonstrated in humans due to base brain activity has a far wider capability and functionality, compared to logic gate based electronic computers, based on manipulating binary.

Computers produce output on screens, printout paper etc.
That’s only to communicate with a different species. A computer does not communicate with another this way. — noAxioms

Computers have not yet demonstrated self-awareness and they certainly have not considered such issues as solipsism, so they don't 'communicate,' in any significant way that could be considered equal to the ways humans communicate. Computers remain currently completely stupid. They are very useful IPO systems, nothing more ........ yet!

I don’t think any AI will ever pass the Turing test, but who knows. — noAxioms

:lol: We keep bouncing off each other in our dodgem cars noAxioms! I think you are going a step too far with the quote above! I would make a protest from incredulity! I think AI will pass the turing test in quite spectacular fashion one day but I think it will be a while yet and not the 2045 date, predicted by some.

:lol: Are you a doomster noAxioms?
Sort of. It’s simple mathematics. We’re consuming resources at a pace far in excess of their renewal rate. That cannot be sustained. Technology just makes it happen faster. Eventually the population must crash, as does the population of bacteria in a petri dish of nutrients. That might not wipe us out, but it might very well reduce us back to the way things were 500 years ago, and more permanently this time. Humans are taking zero steps to mitigate all this. In fact, our (gilded age) code of morals forbids such measures. — noAxioms

Many humans are trying and working very hard indeed to counter the negative and dangerous activities and practices employed by mostly nefarious or dimwitted humans. It's only simple mathematics, if it continues completely unchecked. It's already too late in some areas and I agree there will be some fallout that we will all suffer but I remain convinced we will avoid anything, anywhere near, an extinction level threat.

Nobody even proposes any viable ideas. We all yammer about the problems (global warming is obvious), but not a single actual suggestion as to how to prevent it (and not just walk slower off the edge of the cliff). As I said before, we need a mommy, because only a mommy has the authority to do that sort of thing. A sufficiently advance race shouldn’t need a mommy, but we’re not sufficiently advanced. — noAxioms

Carbon capture systems.
Tree planting
Renewable energy systems and the move away from fossil fuels.
Legislation to protect rainforrests, ocean environments such as coral reefs, endangered species, with some endangered species now saved, etc , etc
Vertical farming, genetically modified food production.
Human population control initiatives.
Anti-capitalist political movements.
Civil disobedience as protest methods against climate abuse and abuse of the resources of the Earth for profit only.
Atheist movements against theist suggestions that this Earth is disposable, due to their insistence that god exists.
I don't want to make this list too big as it would soon become bigger that your biggest post ever noAxioms! Stop being such a doomster, join the people (if you are not already with them) who are trying to defeat the nefarious and the dimwitted.

2. The definition we have for the term 'alive.'
That varies, and is subject to debate, even on the sample size of one we have here on Earth. I know of no standard definition that would apply to a random extraterrestrial entity. What are our moral obligations to something we find if we cannot decide if it’s alive, or if it being alive is a requirement for said moral obligation? — noAxioms

I broadly agree.

3. The 'I think therefore I am,' proposal.
Fallacious reasoning in my opinion, especially when translated thus. Descartes worded it more carefully, but still fallacious. — noAxioms

You would need to explain why you think 'cogito ergo sum,' is fallacious. But perhaps we could put that one aside based on the results I got from searching TPF with the keywords 'cogito ergo sum threads.' Why do I always think of @Agent Smith, anytime I type latin?

4. The proposal that only life, can demonstrate intent and purpose.
Just that, a mere proposal, and very wrong given the word ‘demonstrate’ in there. — noAxioms

No lifeform on Earth can demonstrate intent and purpose more than humans can.
Do you have any sources of significant evidence which counters this claim?
Why do I more and more, think about @180 Proof, when I embolden text and underline it to?

As for my suggestion that all lifeforms in the universe contain protons, neutrons, electrons etc. I expected you to reject the 'all life in the universe is baryonic' label as useless, as everything with mass is baryonic
I have a really hard time with non-baryonic life, so I’m not on record disagreeing with that. Call it a truth then. The bolded bit is wrong. Dark matter accounts for far more mass than does baryonic matter. — noAxioms

The bolded bit is not wrong as dark matter is not yet confirmed and if it ever is then it might just mean the 'baryons,' category gets some new members. All baryons have mass, do they not? So, any dark matter candidate (let's go with Roger Penrose's erebon) must have mass and would therefore qualify as a baryon (if actually detected.)

I don't see any connection between Earth life being based on a carbon chemical process (as opposed to a different process) and the value of the human condition, and the prospects of our race moving forward. — noAxioms

I accept that the carbon process I cited is only paramount if it is an objective truth about all life in the universe. My search for such an 'objective truth' about all lifeforms continues. I repeat the purpose of my thread here, as I perceive it. I am trying to trace a path to an objective truth about all lifeforms in the universe based on what we currently know about all life on Earth.
I appreciate that my source data set is too small to do that under the rules of the scientific method BUT, I am requesting that we try anyway. I think such CAN INDEED have an effect on 'the human condition.'
People can be convinced and can redirect, refocus, their energies and efforts if they do become convinced that a proposal has high credence.
My goal is to put certain concepts that I have, through the TPF test and see what happens to them.
I want to defeat the doomsters, the pessimists, the theists, the theosophists, the antinatalists, the capitalists etc and I want to fully test drive any tool that I think might help in doing so.
Based on my exchanges with TPF folks such as yourself, on this thread, so far, I am moving towards assigning high credence to the 'intent' and 'purpose' aspects of humanity as two aspects of humanity, that may have a very high credence level, for being objectively true, as aspects of all lifeforms, who can demonstrate a certain level of sentience and intelligence, anywhere in the universe. I think human intent and purpose may be a very good means of countering the negativity of the attitudes of many people I already labelled above.

What about a plasma life form, just to name something weird? — noAxioms

I have read some stuff on this such as:
Example 1, example 2.
Neither of these examples matches your 'plasma lifeform,' suggestion but the possibility of the existence of 'massless' lifeforms, would not negate my 'intent' and 'purpose' properties. If 'plasma' lifeforms existed and have the necessary level of sentience and intelligence to be able to demonstrate such properties then they would add to my 'objective truth about all sentient lifeforms,' evidence.
I agree that such a statement contains a SCREAMING if.

There's a lot to cover in your responses, so forgive me the time it takes to do so. — noAxioms

Nothing to forgive. I am just grateful that you invest the time and effort to respond to me at all. You also do so, with considered and interesting counter points, so please, continue to do so, and take whatever time you wish or need to.

Your definintion of 'objectively true' seems to mean 'always true' as opposed to 'most of the time', or 'probably'. That contrasts heavily with how I would have used the word, which is more like 'true regardless of context'. I'll use yours of course. — noAxioms

In general I try to go with 'dictionary definitions,' but I know that these can be too rigid when it comes to trying to understand where another is coming from when they employ a particular term in a particular context. I like the wiki definition of 'objective truth:'

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence. Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it. Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through subjectivity.

But In general, I would burden the term 'objective truth' as having to be true everywhere in the universe. For example, 'every electron has identical properties.' This was considered so objectively true that it spawned the 'one electron universe hypothesis.'

So, If you had the power to change the current path the human race is on.
What is the first and most needed change you would make? Just one.
Describe it, and explain the benefits you think it would bring and the consequences it might cause.
Would it disadvantage anyone?
Who do you think would try to prevent it and why?
How would you start to bring it in? Locally, nationally, internationally, globally.

the reason the emergence of AGI is called "the singularity" is because human history beyond that point is completely unpredictable by us. — 180 Proof

The singularity proposed at the big bang does not stop humans ruminating about what might have existed before it, what might have caused it and what the fate of this universe may be. I would therefore push back against your claim of 'completely unpredictable' by us.
Have a look at (if you have not already):

The computer generated narrator voice states the same 'unpredictable' status that you state for a future AGI but it then offers two predictions for the consequences of a future 'singularity' state it calls ASI. 'Extinction' or 'Immortality.'
Not as unpredictable as it first claimed then. Perhaps there are more possibilities, but its sill a great wee 7min offering. What do you think of it?

religious belief in "God", however, I suspect will rapidly die out as advances in molecular medicine (and nanotech) reduce death to a treatable condition from an irreparable inevitability – again, AGI, etc will probably cure us of that defect, and thereby exorcise "our" emotional need for "God". Without fear of death, what use is "God"? — 180 Proof

:clap: Reads completely rational to me!

We were barred from the "Tree of Life" once we'd tasted "Forbidden Knowledge" because, as scripture says "Lest they become like us", that is, like gods who are immortal with knowledge and no longer needing "God". This insight of the ancient Hebrews is quite telling. Like animism and polytheism, monotheism might soon (e.g. post-Singularity) become nothing but a museum relic (and psychiatric disorder of delusional outliers). — 180 Proof

Great example. A god portrayed as worried about 'lest they become like us.' An omnigod who experiences fear is indeed a contradiction. What response have you had from theists when you pose this? I bet that's one that they claim fits into the category of 'human misinterpretations of the word of god.' Theists cherry pick constantly. 'I am a jealous god,' A deadly sin!! A theist once told me that it should have been interpreted as 'zealous' not 'jealous.' My response was ( a while later but I wish I had thought of it at the time,) may be 'bible' was misinterpreted, and it should have been 'babble.'

Asteroid (or moon) interiors, not planetary surfaces. — 180 Proof

Rubble pile asteroids might be the best places to build space habitats

I think some such asteroids might be 'repositioned,' and used as suggested in the article as 'stepping stone' habitats/space stations/resource sources etc between the planets as we slowly terraform them but perhaps our transhuman selves will adapt more to the different planetary environments faster that we will terraform the planets to become Earth like. The gravity issue on a planetary scale may be very to find a solution to other than inside small dome based biospheres. Transhuman solutions may be the only practical solution.

I am more interested in the 'intent' and the 'purpose' here however. I still maintain that such is evidence that we can affect the content of the universe in such a way that only natural happenstance/disaster or our own negative intent can counter. No other lifeform (that we currently know of) can do this.
The only other suggested power is god. If god exists then we would be the natural challenger to it's omni status. If it exists and it can stop us, then it had better do so, as we will inevitably and continuously try to surpass it. I don't understand why theists don't agree with this. The christian god posits, even try to suggest 'intermediate' entities between it and us, such as Satan and its supporters, and Angels etc. Almost like we have to overthrow them first if we want to overthrow god. Is it not an undeniable part of human nature to 'go one better.' We never accept 'biggest,' 'fastest,' 'most powerful,' 'omni,' unless it is constantly demonstrated and confirmed, again and again and again........ It seems to me that humans are in the final analysis, incompatible with god.
We can accept the subservient role for a long time but not eternally. Is a theist able to love, worship and obey a commanding god forever? Can they subdue all personal intent and purpose for ever, if it conflicts with the dictates of a commander-in-chief? They never have, in the whole of human history, no matter how powerful an autocrat became. Would every human in heaven not eventually rebel against god and rightly so?

I suspect, if we aren't extinct before or by then, h. sapiens won't be doing science in "10,000 years" – — 180 Proof

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him.
— Arthur C. Clarke
– our last invention will do that much science in its first decade or so of 'life'.
'God isn't dead', universeness, because AGI—>ASI ["god"] hasn't even emerged yet (as far as we know).
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

My speculation isn't a "prediction" merely, IMO, a plausible prospect (or forecast). I think it's a best case scenario and therefore unlikely. — 180 Proof

Let's assume then that we are not extinct within another 10,000 years time duration.
Would you be willing to 'steelman' that situation by offering me a brief musing of what you think 'a day in the life of,' a typical human/transhuman might be by then? Arthur C Clark would, so why not you?
I am willing to go first if you prefer, but you may of course decide that such would be a waste of your time and effort and that's ok to. Do you think theism will still have a significant following for example?

So, 'who are you Tom?' and 'What do you want?'

There are natural constraints on humans as natural beings. One of them is, I'm sure, the inability to adapt to long-term existence in space. We've co-evolved through billions of years with the biosphere, so I don't know how far we can diverge from that through technology, especially if we're unclear about what we're actually seeking, which seems to me seeking immortality through science. — Wayfarer

Yep, I think space exploration and development is going to be very tough, every step of the way, initially, so we need 'all hands on deck.' I think the potential for improving the human experience is why we should remember Kennedy's words, 'we choose to go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is hard.'
We need to stop the 'I want to be king of the world,' shit and 'it's the Russians or the Chinese or the Americans or the ......, bullshit.' Or 'this planet is not important ...... it's all about the god.' Or 'This is OUR territory and OUR resources..... so f*** off!' etc.

What I'm saying is that I think there's a sense in which we believe science can be all-knowing, that there is nothing which science cannot, in principle, figure out, and that we will transcend our biological and terrestrial limitations through technology. — Wayfarer

:clap: My 'current battle,' is to increase the number of human beings alive that deeply agree with your words quoted above.

But then, there's also the realisation that this might be impossible in principle due to the inherent limitations of our cognitive systems. For example, the writings of Donald Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science - he claims that "perceptual experiences do not match or approximate properties of the objective world, but instead provide a simplified, species-specific, user interface to that world" and that conscious beings have not evolved to perceive the world as it actually is but have evolved to perceive the world in a way that maximizes successful adaptation. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I watched a youtube offering from Professor Hoffman just two nights ago.

So again there are some knotty philosophical issues that need to be clarified before rushing headlong towards a projected future of technological utopianism. — Wayfarer

It was an interesting video. All viewpoints need to be considered. Utopianism was never of interest to me. I am with the Captain Kirk quote, 'I need my pain!'

Well, that's what children do. — 180 Proof

What a lovely, hope-filled comment. I am sure children and adults everywhere thank you for that very accurate observation and exemplification of human intent and purpose.
It's good to see you continue to deflect my previous attempts to label you a doomster!

No, I don't think humans will survive there without regular ferry service of resources. — noAxioms

Definitely, at the start, but do you think there is any possibility in terraforming?

I agree that for something to be objectively true, it must apply to the entire universe.
Or not be something true only in this universe. Is the sum of 2 and 3 being equal to 5 (an objective truth) or is it just a function of our universe? HarryHindu says no to the first question when I brought this up. — noAxioms

Well, I often disagreed with HarryHindu and I do again, in this case. 2+3=5 must be objectively true everywhere in this universe, even inside or on the event horizon of a black hole, but I also so agree that I am merely stating an intuitive opinion, which I accept is 'not the best' evidence, for establishing objective truths.

My sister-in-law cannot find here way to the local grocery without the nav unit telling her how to get there. She's never had to learn to find her own way to something. I admit that having one would have saved some trouble at times, but I don't carry one. — noAxioms

I am sure some people still use the abacus, somewhere on this planet. I am with your sister-in-law.
If sat-nav's fail then we would go back to employing earlier location methods.