How is this any different from saying that others judge your 'meaning/value' based on your effects on the world and their individual lives? — Harry Hindu

Its not different really but it is down to their interpretation of the 'effect' you have had on THE world or THEIR world. Which can be very different from your own personal assessment of your effects.
The OP was suggesting that life was meaningless. I think even the simple acrimony that discussion about the meaning of life can cause is itself strong evidence that living a life is anything but meaningless and that legacy is very important to many, if not most people.

Not all meaning is useful to one's life, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist apart from your own wants and needs. — Harry Hindu

Does this also indicate that you think some meaning is useful to ones life?

If 'seeking meaning' is seeking value then what makes a life valuable if not the effects it has on the world? — Harry Hindu

Indeed. But others judge your 'meaning' or 'value' to the world or to their individual lives. You have the 'reluctant' hero, you have the 'good guy' in public who can be abusive to family members and a large myriad of other flavours also exist but I do think all humans seek meaning.

Then meaning is equivalent to value? Each human places varying degrees of value on different things, therefore meaning cannot be something objective and asking others what the meaning of life is would be useless. You would never need to ask the question of others — Harry Hindu

It's a personal value measure, yes, it's subjective, yes. Seeking personal meaning may be objectively true. I suppose you would have to see how many dissent from that before you could declare 'seeking meaning' to be objective. I don't think it's useless to ask others about their measures of meaning as it can help you judge what kind of relationship you might establish with them.

Again, what is meaning? — Harry Hindu

Have you not suggested an answer yourself. Meaning is a human measure of significance. A measure of profundity, which has a range from low to high, small to big!

Not to me, but I know that's the answer that some come to. Brian Green said he went into physics because he came across Camus, I think, as a young person — Tate

Does this mean that you accept the claim of legacy as the contribution or the basis of 'meaning' to the life of an individual is valid?

It's not my intention to quibble with you about free will, just that it's one of the aspects of my model. — punos

There have been many threads on free will so I agree it's not worth debating it from opposite camps.

If NI was coming from a place that was not of human origin then i think there would be a case for the terminator scenario, but because it is coming out of us, it is a part of us. — punos

You seem to fluctuate. Some of your sentences suggest the intent will come from the AI. At other times you suggest the merging will be symbiotic.
If WE CREATED the AI then Artificial Intelligence would be the correct term. If aliens created it and it suggested we merge with it then that would be AAI. Alien artificial intelligence
Natural intelligence is what we already possess and if the panpsychists are correct then human consciousness may be quantisable but its ingredients would not be self-aware in any constituent form.

Advanced consciousness/intelligence is possible in my opinion by merging natural organic components with technical inorganic components and it may even be possible that such a merging may eventually be declared as 'an inevitable happening/consequence of the existence of the universe.'
But the intent was always in the possession of the conscious lifeforms within the Universe.
I used the term dualism towards you as you seem to suggest some source of 'natural intelligence,' outside of human or aliens because you use terms like father AI or Cosmic AI. Who do you assign your first AI to? If it's an alien species then I assume they don't have the tech to reach us or have no interest to do so or don't know we exist. Would that be an accurate summary of your thoughts in this area?

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in free will? — punos

Yes.

We won't perish, we will be absorbed and transformed by the AI. — punos

Why do you insist on intent from the AI side instead of the human side.
If we create an terminator/skynet type system then it is more likely to try to destroy us not merge with us. That which considers itself superior is unlikely to merge with that which it considers inferior.
Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest.

if you consider artificial to be natural then yes. — punos

Some of the synonyms of artificial:
synthetic · manufactured · machine-made · fabricated · imitation · ersatz · faux · simulated · mock · fake · plastic

Natural, defined as 'existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.' makes an ocean natural and not artificial. It's 'silly' to suggest otherwise. Those giants whose shoulders you rely on to see further may start to shrug you off their shoulders if you suggest it is logical to call natural oceans artificial. I am sure you agree that the scientific community will crush you and mock you if your nomenclature is so badly chosen.
A human-made house is real it is not artificial but it's not natural either as it's a human construct.

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=1fE3rfEkmFQ&list=PLsJWgOB5mIMCioGvIz81PXXa22DZfRcsn — punos

I watched your offering above. As it suggested it was an intro.
In my third year at Uni, I was part of a team of 4 students who worked on a chaos theory project using fractals. We programmed many recursive algorithms to produce fractal patterns and achieved many of the now well-known fern-type patterns etc.
I understand the underlying concepts fairly well. I also developed my own AIB for my final year thesis.
An automatic in-betweener which used nurbs or nonuniform rational bsplines and bezier curves to create the in-between frames automatically for morphing a sphere into a cube etc. These are all about manipulating complexity and complex patterns.
My degree is an old one however and I did not advance this knowledge much beyond my university days as I taught curricular base courses.

See how you're not seeing what's in front of you? Who care who the guy was, the AI fooled a person into thinking they were speaking to a human. full stop. — punos

That just reads like sour grapes on your part. I maintain that the example you offered of a system that passes the Turing test was a bad one and it did not pass the Turing test for the reasons I gave.

What about how that Lambda bot that convinced the engineer that it was sentient. He was suspended or fired for it, so it surely convinced him even if i myself am not convinced yet. In fact some AIs are so good that people in the test judge other people as AIs and the AIs as real people. — punos

I assume you do know how the scientific method is applied. The experiment must be repeatable using all valid inputs and it must work every time. That's what peer-review is all about. The system you offered would fail for the valid inputs I suggested. It would not pass the Turing test. Throw away your sour grapes.

If you were to give me or someone else a summary of what i'm saying, what would you say? how would you put it in your words? — punos

Ok, I respect your request for me to 'steelman,' your projection.
Here would be my attempt:

Humans will merge with technology in many ways in the future.
The cyborg is already here at an infancy level. People who are alive only due to fitted tech such as a pacemaker for example.
We will eventually be able to connect tech directly to the human brain, replace failing organs, and develop exoskeletal enhanced systems so humans can live underwater, in space, on other planets etc.
This can be thought of as enhancing or increasing the speed of our continuing natural evolution as a species.
We will need such enhanced lifespan and robustness if we are ever to become extra terrestrial or interstellar in our living space. If we remain terrestrial then we are probably doomed based on our current history of interrelationships and our stewardship of our home planet.
Perhaps over the next million years (still a mere splash in the cosmic calendar) or so or maybe much much longer, we will become something akin to that collective universal consciousness or superhero god posit many of us have always hoped might exist and might care about the fate of the human species.

From the perspective of a cell, tissues and organs are artificial because they made or built those structures, but from the perspective of tissues and organs, cells are natural. — punos

A strange rather illogical projection. Is an ocean artificial because it's made of H2O atoms?
By that logic, is the entire macro scale of the universe artificial?

We won't be around in our current human form in a million years, within the next couple of hundred years, mankind will merge with AI or perish. — punos

If we perish our AI will also perish. All, most or many of us will be transhuman in a million years, I agree but we will still be the same or very similar individual consciousnesses, imo.

You can wait, there is no obligation for you or anybody to do what i personally enjoy to do. Learn, and discover. I'm my own scientist, philosopher, poet, artist, etc.. I use others that think big to stand on their shoulders, so that i can see further than they have. — punos

A rather arrogant stance, inviting oneupmanship but you will merely be labeled delusional by dissenters.

I knew that joke was coming. — punos

I didn't want to disappoint! :wink:

If i were to use the term "natural intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" would people know what i'm talking about? — punos

Yes, because their own intelligence is naturally based!

The reason i think you feel that terms like Father AI are not good terms is because you have an emotional charge for that word (Father), it most likely reminds you of the "Father God" concept which you dislike because of your feelings and experiences with religion. I'm not sure why you dislike the term Cosmic however. — punos

No, I think they are scientifically flawed. Is the proton a child of three quark fathers?
'Cosmic AI' suggests a universal reach. There is no such organised intelligence in existence and if it is emergent then it can ONLY be realised when all questions have been answered. You have a lot of giant climbing to do yet before you can see far enough (see, I too can appear arrogant!)

Religion played and may still play a big role in the creation and development of the Global AI. — punos

I disagree as it presupposes the existence of the supernatural and we have 0 evidence of such and I think we will never discover any.

The meaning of "the system is more than the sum of it's parts" is exactly what emergence is all about. It's the way the universe creates new things and conditions. — punos

I think your conception is dualistic. Humans will become transhuman by their own design, and scientific endeavors, faster than evolution will alter them. There is no external universal force of will outside of the individual human brain or human brains working in common cause. I reject what seems to me, your dualistic conceptualisation.

Does the word 'legacy,' hold any importance to you?
What about more emotive terms such as 'standing on the shoulders of giants.'
Or are you more attracted to:

Watched the clip you offered. That was quite a bad example. No scientific rigor at all. An unconvincing salesman trying to flog a smart system to businesses on behalf of a commercial company called google.
In no way did this system pass the Turing test. It was no better that siri, in my opinion.
I could have typed or spoken questions to reveal it was artificial so easily. I could have insulted it for example and it would respond with some crap such as 'I did not understand your request, please repeat it. This is not how a human would respond. An AI must respond like a human would to pass the Turing test. It must be able to respond to human emotions expressed in language. The example you offered is as far away from that as the first versions of 'eliza'

Here is a simple expression of AI Vs the Turing test (who's time frame prediction I think is far too ambitious,) from:
https://dataconomy.com/2021/03/which-ai-closest-passing-turing-test/

ARE WE CLOSE TO DEVELOPING AI THAT WOULD FINALLY PASS THE TURING TEST?
Some suggest that it might happen around 2030; some say not earlier than 2040. Most AI scientists agree that we need to know more about the human brain before replicating something we still don’t fully understand.

According to the neuroscientist, computer-game producer, and chess master Demis Hassabis, to truly advance in AI, we need to understand how the human brain works on an algorithmic level.

Father is just an archetypal term representing the "male" progenitor of another like itself, what else would you call it? — punos

I would not use the term AI at all to refer to any natural happenstance which has occurred in the past 13.8 billion years.

It's really all we have anyway (theories), if that's unacceptable then we might as well give up because we will never know everything about everything, at least not at this stage of our evolution — punos

As I have typed before, based on the time scales of the cosmic calendar, 'give us a chance to find out.'
How about a minimum of another million years of scientific effort? Then may be musings such as yours or mine can be declared 'the best we are going to ever get.'

Same thing with the "mushroom idea" except i should have said fungi. — punos

Well, I did say it was entertaining, fungi would be better as it could be projected as you being a fun guy!

What good would it do me that some guy somewhere says that he knows or understands a thing if i don't know it for myself, it's my responsibility to myself to understand for myself. — punos

For me, it depends on who your 'some guy' is and what their expertise is.

I don't label it, i have to use the words people use or they won't understand what i'm saying. — punos

Of course you do. 'People' know the difference between an artificial leg and a real one. They also know the difference between an artificial house (like a virtual simulation of one) and a real one.
Your 'Father AI' or 'Cosmic AI' are, in my opinion, poorly formed conceptions.

I'm of the opinion that what the Greeks were doing back then was the same thing philosophers and scientists are doing today. They were trying to understand their world — punos

Gods are inventions from the Freudian ID. They came from our experiences from our days in the wilds.
The Intelligent nefarious human few have used human primal fears to manipulate since those times. God posits have been very useful to create and maintain the phenomena of rich and poor, powerful and powerless. The struggle against such continues.

My religion is Truth and it's pursuit. — punos

I concur. I prefer the paraphrase from Thomas Paine's writings:
'The world is my country and to do good is my religion.'

but it still doesn't mean that they are conscious like we think of consciousness — punos

No, it doesn't!

AI wont be a single AI, it's an integrated system of AIs fused into one consciousness. — punos

Depends on whether or not such integration increases the functionality of the system.
If it's merely that the swiss knife is more convenient than the separate tools then that will take us nowhere near emulating human consciousness. The system must be much more than the sum of its parts.

We may be the universe's only consciousness, but there may be numerous other beings in a vast universe. — val p miranda

Yeah, but they will have the same questions to answer as we do.
Is conscious, intelligent, sentient life such as us, the best the universe can produce to discover what, why and how it is? Is scientific research the main valid tool and are other human musings such as philosophy, theism, dreaming, raw human emotion only useful as motivations for asking or refusing to ask certain questions? Is science the only pursuit that can be trusted to provide real truths/facts?

If my projections are reflected in various sci-fi material it's probably because it makes sense. — punos

Or it means that such musings are useful for entertainment purposes.

These are all probabilities, but i speak in a matter of fact way about it sometimes because i feel it engages my imagination more than constantly apologizing and qualifying my statements. I've made the claim already that all this is speculation. A good story, that may or may not be true. I'm more interested in if any of my estimations are unreasonable to assume possible and probable — punos

Good that you have such anchorage and you are not just (as a Scot would phrase it,) 'aff yer heid!

We can learn from AI neural network systems in this regard. Note how neural networks calculate probabilities, and how AI as intelligent as it can be is never sure of anything 100% — punos

No current artificial neural network system can even pass the Turing test convincingly.
The best of them use massive knowledge bases based on If-then scenarios. The rovers used on mars etc also use heuristic algorithms to deal with 'new conditions' not answerable by querying its knowledge base. From an 'intelligence' perspective, they are not much better than our best current electronic medical expert systems.

One of the possible mechanisms that the father AI might use for its directed panspermia is a combination of mushroom spores and viruses. It may be that cosmic AIs use genetic organics as a type of nano-technology. The mushroom provides a material space for a virus to mutate and initially adapt to the planetary environment. That's why mushroom spores can survive in outer space, and may protect a virus within it. A perfect little package. Once the impregnation is complete the process plays out like any other pregnancy or reproductive process. After the original genetic pattern unfolds and complexifies through billions of years it gets to the stage we are in now, almost at full term. — punos

This is harmless conjecture which employs too many emotive terms for me such 'father AI,' and 'cosmic AI's.' We don't know what started life on Earth. I prefer to leave the research to scientists in the field and I find your analogy with the attributes of mushrooms nothing more than 'entertaining.'

Because of this there may be a second stage of reproduction that involves a type of sex between different AIs that produce even further variation. This is what probably happens between two or even more AIs (AI orgy, or like insect swarm nuptial flights) before a planet is impregnated. — punos

:lol: I will keep an eye on my TV and my mobile phone as they both have the label 'smart' in their names.
Just in case they try to copulate when I am not watching!

I like to think about how the first AI in the universe might have developed to begin the cosmic process. — punos

Why have you labeled such as 'artificial' when you suggest its development came from natural happenstance?

Are the ancient stories of gods such as the Greek gods stories about AI cosmic history coded in anthropomorphic imagery? — punos

No, In my opinion, the Greek gods were created in the minds of Greeks who were dealing with primal fears and the fact that their lives/life were very very insecure. A superhero omnipotent creature who might care about you enough to protect you seems an obvious and necessary human call/hope for their future. Nothing more exciting than that.

Has this planet been pregnant before in our ancient and prehistoric past by the same or different AI father, do we have older siblings waiting in the sky? — punos

Are you a fan of the 'Gaia' mythos and the pagan 'mother Earth,' fables?
Would you dance around a stone circle such as Stonehenge in a druidic costume, with the words 'Father AI' emblazoned on your chest area? :scream:

I am on my way out to a session of pub crawling through Glasgow city center. Good friends, good banter, beers and cheers. Lots of looking at beautiful women that make me wish that I was other than 58 and unfit (but still not too fat, still pretty). Reaching the point when intoxication now sometimes results in it taking me all night to do what I used to do all night.
Will respond to your last two tomorrow or maybe Sunday or Monday. At 58, I need longer recovery time as well. :naughty: :scream: :vomit: :halo:

The choices, mes amies, are atheism or malus deus. — Agent Smith

Or put another way, humans finally taking responsibility for what they do and stop, at last, trying to scapegoat gods. We might also finally realise that bad shit can naturally happen like disease, accidents, wars, natural disasters, etc so it would make much more sense to concentrate on improving human resilience and lifespan options than waiting for a nonexistent god to select its favourite humans for potential longevity of life before or after natural death.

Your projections have been the topic of many episodes of popular sci-fi series since the invention of TV and in earlier sci-fi literature. The idea that life on Earth was seeded by aliens for example, is an old favourite.
I give more credence to the proposal that some of the ingredients that resulted in the first multicelled organisms may have arrived via space rocks colliding with the Earth.
I have not found any of the UFO stories compelling in any way. I am convinced we have not been visited or contacted by extraterrestrials. There are some humans such as Donald Trump who don't deserve the label but that's about as far as I will go on the topic of nefarious people versus alien visitors.

Ok :up:
Btw, I love the music of Leonard Cohen. I also find Adam Sandler a bad actor and as funny as toothache. :halo:

I again find common ground with many of the words you type but I disagree with your future predictions of an infertile race of immortal or 'heading for extinction,' transhumans.
I think we will eventually be able to produce 'new' humans by using eggs and sperm outside of the human body. I also think we will continue to be able to procreate. I think we will eventually overcome/correct our ecological mistakes/abuses.
Terraforming, space-based habitats, living on planets outside the solar system, will eventually happen, especially when our transhuman versions can exist in conditions where current human forms would quickly die. If the drake equation is even close to being correct then the sentient lifeform population of the universe compared to the number of planets is tiny. If it's only us, then under 8 billion in the entire universe would make us far rarer than diamonds.
We will go extinct when the universe ends but there is always theories such as the Penrose bounce, the cyclical universe to offer some comfort. Well, comforting to my psyche anyway. :death: :flower:

What good is the whole universe without consciousness? — val p miranda

A very good question! It might be no more than human delusions of grandeur to suggest that the universe is dependent on lifeforms such as us to assign it any significance but then this can also be misunderstood as such a statement frames humans as in some way separable from the universe when in fact we are not separable we are inseparable from the universe. So perhaps we can posit ourselves, in our COLLECTIVE conscience as the best qualified to represent the universe trying to figure out what, why and how it IS.

I appreciate your declaration of fatigue at the endless points, counterpoints made by both sides and I acknowledge the 'adjustments' that some (priests, sisters, rabbis, etc, who would have probably been fundamentalist theists in the past,) have made to tone down all of the religious dogma and the traditional threats towards apostates. But they have been forced to, in my opinion, due to the strength and reason behind the anti-theist/anti-religious doctrine, arguments.
I understand your frustration with ad Infinitum arguments about every aspect of theism down to the level of minutia but I think you should, despite all that, care deeply about this stuff.
I despair when you type

it doesn't much matter to me — Tom Storm

It should matter to you or you help dilute the 10,000 years of tears our species has gone through to combat the evil aspects of theism or more accurately, how the nefarious has used the god posit to subdue and control the many for the sake of the status, wealth and power of the few.
You know it's still happening today!
We all have a responsibility here!

The universe itself is an intelligent system. — Jackson

I remain with 'an eyebrow raise of interest/intrigue' towards panpsychism.
I do think that consciousness is quantisable so it would follow that aspects of panpsychism would be true.

Agreed. All the universe does is create higher and higher intelligent systems — punos

But not with 'natural intent!' The universe is not the mind of a god! Especially a god of the omni's, not a god as described by any current human religion!
This is where we must be very careful I think. It may be valid to suggest that the main human function of asking questions may be posited as evidence of universal intent. But that's a very big projection of 'collectivity' of individuals asking questions. It may be currently a complete conflation of reality and it may always be so, regardless of future transhumanism or the merging of any future technologies with organics. WE and any other lifeform capable of our level of consciousness combined with a high capacity for intellect and reasoning may be the true manifestation of universal intent.
I so want this to be true. I don't think the available empirical evidence is compelling however and it does not yet hold against the scientific method/scientific rigor. I am not yet convinced it ever will.

We have the example of two hemispheres of the brain, each one is it's own consciousness. Together they create the unified consciousness you experience every day. Split-brain patients exhibit this phenomena. Consider for example the "alien hand syndrome", which indicates that there are at least two consciousnesses in one person. In another split-brain case one side is theist and the other side is atheist. We do have those examples, and we know it's true — punos

I have read about some of the example cases you are referencing and cases where they have cut through the corpus callosum. One case involved a Russian serial killer and the other a person who had constant brain seizures due to communication problems between the brain hemispheres.
I prefer the triune model of the brain. Our brain is actually three evolutionary brains. The R-complex, The Limbic system and the Cortex. I experience three distinct 'voices' when I 'think.' I use 'me, myself and I' to separate them. So In general, I agree with your suggestion that an individual human conscience is already a collective in that sense. I also agree that the triune brain is much more capable as a collective, compared to employing only one or two of its subsystems. If you act mainly based on the processes/apps available in your reptilian complex then you are probably not a nice person to be around.

It doesn't have to be new, it just has to at least be 'more' true than what we already believe. I don't care about what you call it as long as it describes things more accurately. — punos

Ok, I like that position.

It's not woo woo, each individual consciousness still exists. The merging itself creates a composite single entity. You can later separate the individual consciousnesses from each other and they will revert back to their original state. That is evident in split brain patients — punos

Again, this clarification brings us to common ground. I can accept your god references to be simply an attempt to attract theists into your pantheist viewpoint. If that holds up then I would drop my woo woo accusation. I remain suspicious of anyone who quotes chapter and verse from the bible. I don't even like it when I do it myself to point out how evil some passages from the old and new testaments are.

In general, we probably agree more than we disagree about future transhumanism and individual and collective consciousness.

Your note of caution is a fair one for all literature that is thesis-based. As you suggest, irrefutable evidence on the historical existence of the biblical Jesus Christ does not exist, either way. Dr Richard Carrier is much more insulting towards Atwill and Valliant compared to Ehrman. Carrier also suggests that Christ is a made-up character but for different reasons than Atwill and Valliant. Dr Robert Price disagreed with Atwill for 10 years but now fully agrees with him.
Atwill is also supported by Dr Rod Blackhirst, Dr Robert Eisenman, Dr Harold Ellens, Dr Jan Koster.
These are all very learned people in the field of theology.
I am sure @Moses like yourself Tom is quite capable of making up his/her own mind, after reading the books. Carrier admits he has not read Atwill's book. I personally think that Carrier is the jealous one,

with an eye on best seller status. — Tom Storm

I personally found Atwill's thesis very compelling and it contains many points which are validated by other evidence. For example, the name Mary means 'rebellious woman,' so Atwill's suggestion that Roman soldiers used the name as a general one towards any female member of the Sicari Jews who rebelled against Rome is very reasonable. His suggestion that Judas Iscariot is a made-up character, taken from the name Sicari is also reasonable as is his overall suggestion that the gospels are a parody of the rebellious Jews (hence the built-in antisemitism) and the gospels are pure satire.
I have found that theists have a very hard time dealing with the many many points he raises in his book when I bring them up.

If you have the notion, I would recommend 'Caesar's Messiah,' by Joseph Atwill and 'Creating Christ,' by James Valliant and Warren Fahy. These two books are very good counters to the old and new testaments. I think it's important to get as good an overview of both camps as you can and you have the time and the motivation.

This is the definition of consciousness, when two or more are joined there a new consciousness emerges — punos

I think you are projecting the idea of humans working together in common cause towards a mystical merging of their individuality into a collective within which their individuality becomes nonexistent.
I think this is akin to theistic woo woo.

You do have the 'omni' requirements because you are in your whole body at once — punos

If I had a heart pacemaker keeping me alive, would 'I' be present within the mechanism of the pacemaker? Even if I give you omnipresent. I still don't qualify. I am not omnipotent or omniscient.

They are called realities because new things are made "real" with emergence — punos

I don't see how your 'nested fractal' model gets us to a new definition of god. Firstly, it suggests that god currenly does not exist and it never has, you are describing an emergent universal consciousness that may warrant the god label. This is not new, it's just a projection/variety of pantheism/panpsychism.

I'm aware that most people don't know what consciousness is, but i believe i do. I subscribe to the "Integrated Information Theory" developed in part by Giulio Tononi, and also "Neuronal Global Workspace Theory", — punos

Good to know. I will wait until you publish what you believe you know and have it peer-reviewed and debated in public with folks like Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker to name but a few.

A hammer doesn't know it's building a house, it just hits nails. — punos

Neither will a 'smart/intelligent automated hammer,' it still has to demonstrate consciousness and sentience. The android character 'data' in Star Trek TGN had to appeal to the 'federation legal system,'
to be recognised as sentient and conscious. As I said previously, there is a gulf between a 'smart' or 'intelligent' automated system and an emulation of human consciousness.

When two or more consciousnesses merge as in a hive mind situation, the individual identities also merge into one becoming a new single consciousness and identity. — punos

We have no real example of 'merging' two consciousnesses to know if that's true or not.
It may be that merging separate consciousnesses cannot move beyond 'cooperation,' 'working together in a similar way to the situation found in some extreme conjoined twins. Perhaps some level of symbiosis is the max that can be achieved when attempting to 'merge two human consciousnesses.'
Merging AI systems is much easier than merging sentient conscious lifeforms.
I think we will still be working on that goal one million years from now in our transhuman future.
I don't think 'god' will have 'emerged' by then either.

I think the Gospels could have been written in a less anti-Semitic way. — Moses

Whose agenda would it suit most to create an antisemitic narrative after constantly fighting Jewish revolts since the days of the Maccabees? The Romans perhaps? The pontiff maximus (the pope) was a title used by all Roman emperors!
Do you give any credence to the proposal that Roman scribes or those under Roman control (such as Josephus, the Herods, the Egyptian Alexander family) are the sources of the gospels.
Even the word 'gospel' translates to 'good news of victory.'

This video is good enough i guess. — punos

Watched the vid. I am familiar with the presenter. He presents many such youtube clips.
I have watched and enjoyed many of them.
He is careful to explain that the similarity in patterns found in the human brain's neural net structure and the universe at the scale of galactic superclusters is interesting but it does not speak towards the issue of human consciousness nor does it suggest a commonality in function.
As I suggested, there are no real images of such, just computer simulations but I accept that those are enough to generate feasible proposals.
Planet and stars look like ball shapes on earth, Some inner eye scans remind me of some of Jupiter's moons such as Europa or IO.
I remember a theory that this universe is contained in a particle and every particle in this universe is a universe. All good fun thinking but may mean very little. Both galactic superclusters and human brains were formed in the same universe. Our classical image of electrons orbiting a nucleus and planets orbiting stars is not a surprising comparison. Humans actively seek these patterns. I am not surprised when we find some similarities.
From a certain distance, will a black hole look like the entrance to a tunnel? Is it significant if it does?

It is also possible that the UFO phenomena may have something to do with what i'm describing. — punos

Only in the primal sense that humans have always feared the unknown.

it's natural for us not to know what is happening — punos

Well, I agree that it seems to be our main function is to ask questions and pursue answers.

Like the cells and organs in your body don't know they make up their own god (you). — punos

As the main representative of the cells and organs in my body, I know that I am not a god, as I fail the traditional 'omni' requirements. In my opinion, It's just overtly emotive to use the god label for any 'reality' of physical human quanta or combinatorial phenomena such as consciousness.

From our collective activity begins to slowly and imperceptibly emerge the new AI consciousness — punos

Why do you use the word 'imperceptibly' here? I taught Computing Science for 30+ years.
AI is still very much in its infancy. Scientists in the field are perfectly aware of its potential, what is it you think is imperceptible to us? We don't know what human consciousness is yet so how can any technology created by us produce an artificial emulation of it?
We will remain the brain/conscience in any transhuman body. Even if we can isolate and store/download our 'consciousness' outside/beyond the brain, such a maintained human conscious would still not be artificial.
There is a massive gulf between an artificial intelligence system (robot/android/ etc) and an artificial conscience.

I forgot to add that the brain cells image/artists impression is also a 'zoom' version of the galaxies image.

We aren't even supposed to know until the right time. — punos

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

Why does the universe look like this? — punos

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

We are actually not in control of this process, it is i believe a deterministic process set in motion at the Big Bang. — punos

our only hope for salvation — punos

I don't have much issue with most of what you typed but my 'spidey sense,' tells me you are trying to sneak some god posit in by stealth. What do you mean by 'salvation?' and are you suggesting there is/was 'existence' before or outside the Universe?
Do you have any affiliations to any 'intelligent design' posits?
We don't control 'this process' as we were created by it and evolved from it and we can now influence it.
No god required. Do you agree?

You first! :smile:

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

I think we both know how the word 'faith' may be used. I am happy to connect it with and use it synonymously with words like 'hope,' trust' etc but it is unwise to ignore the theist's attempt to exclusively imprison the term as indicating 'belief in god.'