I have just accepted that god exists in the form of omniscient aliens. — Vincent

Would this not be gods born of naturalism rather than the supernatural?
If we become omniscient in the vastly distant future because we have answered all questions would we then be god? This is the eventual projection of some panpsychist viewpoints. We have had a few recent threads on that topic.

The freeze component is taken to an extrema in possums known for "rolling over and playing dead" which kinda vindicates my earlier claim that animals only attack when provoked (when they perceive a threat). — Agent Smith

I think the 'playing possum' scenario became highlighted in importance to humans because it has been employed so many times by so many soldiers during battles in history. It's a good human survival tactic if you can hold your breath long enough and emulate a human dead body when being directly prodded/kicked by the enemy.
I don't know if possums learned to do this by observing early Australian humans or the ancient humans learned it from them, perhaps we both learned such behaviours due to a strong survival instinct.

Playing possum is not so useful if you are a deer being attacked by a tiger. Play possum there and the tiger will start to eat you whilst you are still alive. :scream:
I think deer are only ever going to threaten the existence of tigers if there are no more deer.

Just my counter, rather random musings.

have you looked at any of the small forays into biological computing?
Do you think this future tech could deal with the complexity issue you raised?
Biological computing is, for example, currently trying to identify a process within proteins, which is reliable/stable/controllable enough to emulate at least the two binary states (0,1) within electronic computer systems.

From this reasonable posting:

To address the question asked, the answer is a firm-sounding yes. It's expected that minds gradually appear in robots, which already today can perform ingenious motion. There are robots answering autonomously. Complete autonomy as not been achieved yet but the state of the art is growing exponentially and the limit of miniaturization is still far away. We could, in principle, construct a neuron-sized micro computer and use the structure of the vacuum as memory. Imagine a three-dimensional packing of these and it becomes clear that in comparison with the brain a progression is made. Already now, the retina can be replaced by an artificial structure and the artificial heart is a fact. The paralyzed can influence computers by thought. We can upload the results of knowledge gathering and make it available for everyone, leading to new knowledge and new technology, in a mutually reinforcing dance. Etcetera, etcetera. We only have taken the first steps, still falling a lot, but the signs don't lie. And with quantum computing just born, we should not be surprised if we will have created a first artificially mind this century — Hillary

To this:

Peddling atheism and transhumanism while actually advocating for God. It's a well-known theistic tactic to accuse others of doing that, thereby strengthening the atheist cover. — Hillary

:roll:

Now who's a 'little bit paranoid?'

Thanks, right back at you. I am still not sure if you are 'credible,' INcredible as ever, is in the judgment of others but I prefer to be genuinely, instinctively, ever so humble, without secreting or hiding disingenuous humility or using stealth tactics to hide arrogant pomposity or deeply ingrained beliefs of superiority.
I am not a little paranoid but someone who makes ridiculous statements such as

You can say that! Let's hope the nukes are dropped! — Hillary

are either employing very skewed logic or have a very poor sense of humor considering the situation in Ukraine where innocent children are being slaughtered. So I don't think it's unreasonable or a little bit paranoid to suspect you of trolling.

My self-effacing manner is but an acknowledgement of genius (read Buddhas, sensu lato) past, present and future. — Agent Smith

:smile: Ok.

Yep, that's something I wanted to touch upon, it slipped my mind. Isn't it better to control one's passion "apps" than to delete them altogether? Isn't a man who wanted to kill but didn't better than the man (the Buddha?) who never has murderous intentions? I dunno, the jury's still out! — Agent Smith

Imo, yes to the first question and I am conflicted as to my answer to the second one. I would rather reword the question. I would not miss an 'app' such as one that invoked 'murderous intent' but I would pehaps still need one that could invoke 'the intent to kill.' I think I might need an intent to kill someone that threatens my life or the life of other innocents. It would be better if I choose not to because I could rely on the 'law' and 'justice,' but I think I would still need 'the ability to kill.' I may not need it however if every other human lost the ability to murder.

For the sake of Richard, his surname is Feynman. Small detail, but still.. — Hillary

Yeah, I put the extra n in just for you!

I have always been an atheist and just discovered the existence of god. I thought this forum was a place for free-thinking people to come together and exchange each other's thoughts, but apparently I'm wrong. Apparently you already know it all.
I myself never had the chance to go to school and learn anything from anyone. I had to figure everything out myself. So I'm here to learn something. I grew up with freedom of opinion. If that's not accepted here, then I won't comment anymore. I will leave you alone. I'll live my life the way I want to — Vincent

Well , if what you type here is true then that's fine. I am merely a member of TPF and I am more science-based than philosophy based so I am an interloper myself on this site. I would say this is a site for 'free-thinking,' but it also gets its fair share of cranks. I was simply probing to find out.
Please continue to post your views, you will perhaps gain a lot from the responses you receive.
Please do continue to live your life the way you want to as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing the same.

Si, we're back to square one! Snakes & Ladders. I always get eaten by the longest snake — Agent Smith

I don't know your back story Agent Smith but based on some of your postings, you are quite harsh on yourself. You don't need to put yourself down, there are plenty of nasties out there who get great pleasure out of doing that for you. You should take great pleasure every time you defeat them by not putting yourself down. Humility yes, genuine self-deprecation no f****** way!!!!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for transhumanism but I feel you're expanding its scope in a way unintended by its proponents - into modifying our nature which is being done as we speak via incarceration and executions which amount to expulsion from the gene pool. In short, we're doing to ourselves what we've been doing to dogs over the past 30k years or so. While the intentions maybe honorable, the road to hell is paved with good intentions says an old adage. It may backfire is what I mean — Agent Smith

I think some scientists do develop new tech without thinking too much about its ramifications but not that many (I hope). Why would a human who has learned to control their Darwinian inherited basic instincts, be a 'modification,' even if that improved control is assisted or encouraged by transhuman tech?
It could backfire, absolutely but all progress involves risk, yes?
I think your clarion call of caution is very important and I amplify it but not towards fear and rejection of new tech but towards the need for detailed analysis and debate of the issues involved.
We must be very careful where and on what we tread. We cannot just 'expel from the gene pool,' based on a misguided view of 'human perfection,' or design humans like we have designed dogs.
I know there are many complications and difficulties involved but do you think the potential rewards are worth the risks?

But I know one thing. Nobody knows the truth.
— Vincent

:clap:
a minute ag — Agent Smith

Sounds like an equal starting point for all of us then.

I really should watch some of those videos, time permitting — val p miranda

:smile: I cant recommend the cosmologist offerings on YouTube highly enough. Time well spent.
I find anything from Carl Sagan, Richard Feynmann......all the way to.....Laurence Krauss, Alan Guth, Carlos Rovelli, Sean Carroll and many others to be amongst my most 'life-affirming,' moments in 'spacetime.'

Vincent talks about worldpeace! What's wrong with that? He has a future vision where man has left his evolutionary superfluous baggage and has replaced it by the miracles of technique. It's an optimistic vision. Except maybe the WW3. — Hillary

I see no point in exchanging viewpoints with you. I don't trust your intentions. I think you are a troll.

I'm a atheist. I'm just curious why you think I'm a theist? What in what I wrote makes you think that? — Hillary

Theistic trolls use the roleplay tactic often.

Tough question! I've heard this said more often than I could care to count but don't animals attack only when provoked? In other words, aggression maybe a good thing, part of our wilderness survival toolkit.

What I would suggest however is to channel that aggression into more benign activities (part of the ability model of EQ) like sports, board games like chess, you get the idea! — Agent Smith

Animals will attack to kill for food/resources or to protect their territory or their young or to gain status within their ranks or if they feel threatened or cornered.
All behaviours that humans will recognise and we can see these behaviours still practiced by humans all over the planet but humans also use the word 'animal,' as an insult, especially towards those who we think act from these base, Darwinian instincts without any attempt to counter them with our ability to be more discerning and 'civilised.'
If humans can take their basic needs for granted and are mentally stable and can be offered purpose in their lives then they become much more affable in my opinion.
Future transhumanism may help in allowing humans to be more affable.
I don't think future transhumanism means that humans have to become something like 'the Stepford wives' or the human-like replicants that have been dramatised/projected in some of the more depressing or threatening sci-fi stories. Theism would like us all to be terrified of transhumanism so that many are forced back to there religions.

I just read some of your material based on the link you provide in your profile:
http://paxmundi667.com
I recommend that members read some of this before exchanging with you.

Where do you read I'm a theist? I didn't mention God once — Hillary

Well if you are just here to troll then you would roleplay, wouldn't you.
I think you are doing exactly that, roleplay.

So, yeah, minds can be uploaded onto other minds and hence onto computers — Agent Smith

Do you think that future life extension and more protection against suffering etc will cause humans to become less territorial, less aggressive towards others?

Your poor attempt at mockery of transhumanism is obvious and transparent.
Are you a theist?


Your musings are a bit too esoteric and irrational for me.
Perhaps you are simply a theist who is slightly mad.
I would normally just ignore postings such as yours and Hillary but you are spoiling what was a fairly interesting thread

Yeah. I am rarely a fan of important technology pursued and controlled by billionaires.
Musk has made a lot of claims about neuralink that have little evidence to back them up.
The system was rated quite low in an MIT technology review report.
Professor Andrew Jackson, professor of neural interfaces at Newcastle University, commented that he didn't "think there was anything revolutionary in Neuralink's pig implant presentation" but that the wireless features were "nice".

The monkey playing 'pong' demonstration was claimed to have been achieved 20 years ago in 2002.
The only difference was neuralink is a wireless interface.
Musk loves publicity stunts. I think he has sunk about 200 million into neuralink, which is pennies for him if you compare it with the $44 billion he just paid for twitter.
He initially employed 10 neuroscientists on the project and 8 have since left.
Don't get me wrong, I wish and hope I am wrong and the linking of a human brain to an artificial neural net, which allows a 'meaningful, useful and direct,' human computer interface/interaction between the two, is a lot closer in time than I currently think it is. But I see little evidence based on any current system or projected system for the next 20 years. I still think the first human to live thousands of years is technically, thousands of years away.

You might find this site interesting:
https://transhumanity.net/becoming-the-first-transhuman-a-call-for-the-right-stuff/?msclkid=12a4cb63c64e11ec95a8555796f6ce24

I am most impressed by the projections for nanobot tech over the next few decades. I think this may well provide real life extension possibilities and it is why I take seriously a New Scientist article I read a few months ago which stated that current evidence suggests that the first human to live to an age of somewhere between 135 and 180, is alive today.

"Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar ..." — Alkis Piskas

Caesar tried to become an autocratic despot. I applaud those who killed him.
Caesar stole the majority of what he 'had.'
I hope future transhumans will be wise enough not to use positive quotes in regards to vile historical humans such as Julius Caesar. I'm sure Putin would say 'give me Ukraine because after all, it does belong to me.'

I think this will be the case in a decade or two. — Vincent

I agree with you in principle but I think your time frame is off by many thousands of years.
What current 'neural link,' tech are you suggesting will be able to directly connect a human brain and a computer system within the next 10 or 20 years?

No, only teachers appointed by the SQA who have the necessary years of curriculum familiarity and have already been previously been appointed as markers and examiners for the final exam.

Beware of the Watchtower material — Haglund

A polytheist naming a theist magazine (Jehovah's witnesses) to warn against the atheist viewpoint?
Go figure? :rofl:

You are digging your own pit.

I would recommend you watch the youtube debates between Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty and others, against prominent theists.
I would also recommend you watch some of the youtube phone-in recordings posted by 'the athiest experience,' and Matt Dillahunty, such as:



or/and:



There are also many many educational vids/lectures on all of the greek philosophers and almost every other philosopher since. Just do a youtube search using the name of any philosopher you wish and you should get quite a bit of material on them.

It's strange, mr. Universe. I have seen Carl Sagan pop up many times this week. I heard him mentioned in "The Big Bang Theory", in a breakfast show last week, in another program, and just saw him again! Weird! — Haglund

:lol: What can I respond with that does not invoke the supernatural?
I can only hope that the coincidences you kindly mention and your own personal knowledge of the great man are coming to the front of your own consciousness.
The reason and rationality you employ in your scientific endeavours are manifesting as little gnaws at your psyche, due to coincidental 'pop up's of Carl Sagan's name.
Imho, your 'reason' is suggesting you pay more attention to Carl's viewpoints on the human condition and your own knowledge of him is encouraging you to realise that you don't need your fictitious gods which you yourself state, do not even exist in the same Universe as you do. You have a good analytical mind and you insult it with woo woo from your Freudian ID.

I apologise for using this 'door of opportunity,' you kindly opened to make this appeal to you.
You can always claim that it is your reason, rationality and analytical skill that results in your god conclusions but if that's true then I would personally consider you one of the lost people.
I am sure you see me in a similar way in that case. The Universe continues regardless. I guess it's up to others to add to the numbers we identify with or choose yet another of the many alternate paths available.

On Saturday, I meet up again with a group of around 9 friends. Four of whom are religious education teachers with different theistic personal beliefs but we have more in common regarding what's important in life than we have differences in our atheist/theist/theosophist positions.
Sometimes our disagreements can be heated but we remain friends and we have given each other food for thought on occasion. I would honestly say I have given them more cause to question their personal theism than they have ever given me cause to question my atheism but I doubt they would agree with me.

Btw, All 9 of them would 'round on you,' if you said you found 16-year-old female children physically desirable. You would not be invited back.

:up:

It's hard to discern on TPF if a poster really knows what they are talking about, especially topics in physics. — jgill

Very true. You get a lot of gifted amateurs as well. It's the same on all discussion websites, you have to trust what people type to an extent. I think it's important to get layman viewpoints as they can often represent the majority of the population but the input of expertise is vital to combat inaccurate viewpoints.
I also understand that any expert in a particular field may get very impatient with those who they can clearly see don't understand or know much about the topic under discussion.
Asking for evidence in support of their position is a good way forward I think.
If they can't provide evidence and they are insulting and dismissive towards those who are expert in the field then I think the majority will judge their viewpoint to be simply wrong and their personality to be simply compromised.

One member here suggested a metric used in GR and when I read it on Wiki I could not tell whether a crucial term meant proper time or spacetime. And guess what, neither could a few of the "experts" speaking out in the general TALK discussion. Another instance was my attempt to find out what measure was appropriate for Feynman's path integral. In the article itself its just a brief hand wave, and when I asked about it in TALK I got no response. After a while I deleted my question — jgill

:smile: I have had so many similar experiences when trying to gain a deeper understanding of a particular concept or area of cosmology. As I have stated before, my degree is in Computing Science.
I have post-grad qualifications in education (PGCE, chartered teacher, SQA final exam setter etc) and I have taken many ' internet-based modules,' on Cosmology (mostly through edx.org) but like many others, I also do my own background study. I think that a poor or acrimonious exchange with someone on a forum can have the advantage of reinforcing your own viewpoints or in some cases force you to review some of the details of the viewpoints you hold.

Thanks for the video; I enjoyed it — val p miranda

Rovelli has a lot of YouTube offerings, all of them are worth a viewing imo. I think it's hard to argue against his point about the 'now' aspect of time. I don't see why the vid was titled 'time does not exist' however as I think his evidence suggests we need a more detailed understanding of time not that it does not exist. He and his team are still moving toward publishing papers on Loop quantum gravity.
I assume his findings will not use time as a component.

Look who's tubthumbing now... — Haglund

I don't mind that you get up again. YOU have to live in the skin YOU are in.

:rofl: :down: :down: :down: :down:

Yeah, another to add to the many many such short dramatisations in existence.
Poorly chosen phrases such as "the monster computing machines," suggest to me that poor wee Frederic was a 'fearty.' Let's hope future transhumans will be intelligent enough not to wish to cause suffering of any kind to any living creature or any flora or planetary system.
Love, benevolence, altruism and philanthropy are also very much a part of being human or transhuman.

Again, reference to a faraway future without any impact. I could argue just as well that gods show themselves in the future — Haglund

My projections of future transhumanism are based on current technological progress. Your unconvincing claims that you are a genuine polytheist has been reduced to 'they dont exist in our Universe' and 'I only argue in support of them because you argue against them.' You also try to randomly throw in the word dogma as an attempt to hold up a 'shiny,' to distract.
You simply enjoy playing devils advocate. It's a position I am very familiar with. I have witnessed many other people engage in such roleplay in the past.
As I have stated to you before, I think you are just 'pissed' at the science community for your own reasons but I also accept that you are free to feel how you feel and 'dis' them all you want, even to the extent of playing the role of a polythesist.
I know you will say I am totally wrong but I think I am spot on.

No wonder you fell asleep reading Krauss He's a total bore and little girls lover... — Haglund

I did not read Krauss, I listened to him narrate one of his audiobooks.
I listen to audiobooks often before I fall asleep. Sleep happens regardless of the author of the book.
I don't hold with your opinion of Krauss and I would take care when you accuse people of heinous
tendencies on a public forum.

Why shouldn't something infinite be able to expand? — Haglund

Which doesn't mean infinite space cant expand. Eternal inflation posits an infinite space eternally inflating — Haglund

It can. In infinite many regions, the regions can expand — Haglund

How can space expand? I can see how it bends, but expand? — Haglund

Space simply doesn't expand, nor is there new space created. It's an apparent effect only — Haglund

You are not exactly consistent in the way you present your arguments. Your approach regarding expansion is rather 'scattergun.'

It doesn't matter to me the number of others who hold similar view. I don't check statistics like that. But maybe it's fair to say that science or scientism has always been the anathema as to why dualism might be treated with a lot more skepticism. — L'éléphant

Fair enough.

If we really could extract textures from our mind, then couldn't we just pass on this trait to our offspring and let them experience roughness without setting foot outside? — L'éléphant

Ok I see what you mean by 'extract textures from our minds.' You mean to extract the actual experience and pass it to someone else. But I don't see how this marries with the duelist viewpoint.
Surely abilities such as telepathy would have to be convincingly demonstrated to provide evidence that brain thoughts could be externally manifested due to the duelist reality of the human 'mind.'

Why do babies need to be trained in all aspects of their existence in order to become a normal human being, let alone survive? — L'éléphant

Is this not evidence against any claim that the mind can exist/manifest outside of the brain?
We can only teach our children by word of mouth or physical demonstration or by the written word or visual aids etc. If the mind exists outwith the brain then where is the empirical evidence?
Is dualism then merely faith-based?

There is no location of the mind — L'éléphant

Easy words to type but I think such concepts are much harder to convince other people of.
Like theism, it's fine if such is just a harmless product of your own personal woo but I very much advocate that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I hope my comparison of dualism with woo does not offend. I can only offer my honest opinion or else I am being fake.

There is no "mind" in computers. — L'éléphant

Not yet!

With God as the first existent, how can that be attacked? Maybe by asserting that man created God, not otherwise. — val p miranda

Perhaps you could have a quick look at my thread titled 'The Penrose Bounce.' I cant be bothered repeating here what I typed there in response to your point above.
I have also always insisted that man created gods.

"How does something come out of nothing?" Nothing does not exist. Either something exist or nothing exists. But nothing does not exist; therefore, something existed, the first existent which initiated the universe. In the pre-universe was the first existent; there was no time and, therefore, no before and no cause. How does something come out of nothing should be reworded as I did. From nothing comes nothing is true, but there never was nothing in the pre-universe, otherwise there would not be a universe. — val p miranda

I like Christopher Hitchen's response to this. Firstly he recommends reading the Laurence Krauss book on the subject of something from nothing and then suggests that you worry more about the fact that all the current evidence suggests that the fate of the Universe is to become nothing.

Some theoritical physcists who are proponents of loop quantum gravity think that time does not exist; they want to reconcile relativity and mechanics, too. — val p miranda

Carlos Rovelli is one of the most respected proponents of loop quantum gravity. Have you watched his youtube offerings on time such as:

Some theoretical p's in loop view think that time does not exist. — val p miranda

I think time is a measure but I also think it's a measure of motion from the standpoint of 'the duration of an event.' I think the view of reality for humans is that time is linear, past present future but I accept that may merely be what humans label reality rather than what reality IS. Mark Tegmark posits that past events have not 'gone.' I think he views events in time as being recorded in some sense in the fabric of space. Almost as if each 'bit' of space holds a series of layered photographs of all that has 'happened' in that bit of space since it formed. Perhaps the expansion creates the layering. I think I am now at best paraphrasing Tegmark and at worse projecting on him or misunderstanding him.
Have you ever tried to describe the Universe without reference to the concept of linear time?