I would define addiction as a self-destructive discipline/pattern of activity. In this way, it might be possible to exclude people like the brilliant composer who is seemingly addicted to music, or the prolific reader seemingly addicted to books, or every organism seemingly addicted to food unless those addictions are actually harming them.

My question here is could it be that a superorganism, in this case a city, is actually conscious and self-aware just like we are, composed of billions of cells? — TheMadFool

Yes. However, I think the level of intelligence (interaction and response) determines to a large part how close it will be with respect to reflecting a singular human consciousness. Since we humans are still chaotic in most of our interactions, especially group activities of such a large-scale, it may be that we can't direct our actions in unison or make a unified choice. A good example would be the elections - even when the options are minimal, e.g. just two candidates, there's still a big gap in terms of trust, the level of acceptance, loyalty, expectations, etc.

Conversely, do you think our cells are conscious but we're simply unaware of it? — TheMadFool

Yes. But this is a personal choice because I also think every part of reality including atoms are conscious. That's because for me consciousness is about awareness (sensibility) and response (reaction) which I think atoms manifest a rudimentary level of.

what is so great about consciousness? — TheMadFool

Nothing. I think we make a big deal about it because we are not as familiar with that kind of perspective.

Imagine if we attuned our perspectives to identifying consciousness or its qualities in all aspects of reality at all times. Firstly, I think we will realise consciousness can be explored outside our brains (intellect) because there are loops of sensation and response which involve the spinal cord but not the brain. Also, we will discover that whatever can be said of humans can be applied to all parts of reality even if just in analogy, though some aspects will have a much closer resemblance than others. Lastly, we will discover that whenever we refer to our consciousness we are pointing to an activity or an influence which may mean that it's about energy/force and the cause-effect paradigm which are both factors of reality and are not limited to humans.

If or when AI is developed it will outpace us a thousandfold. With the speed of silicon transistors, vastly more simulations can be performed in the time it would take biological neurons. — praxis

If that were the case then computers, the internet and many other machines would have outpaced us too. Whatever AI will be, it will always be as defined and designated by its human creators and developers. Its characteristics, qualities, potential, ability, etc, etc, will be as determined by its human creators. Also, whatever AI does will be under the supervision of humans. AI is a human creation and will be limited to the human intelligence applied in its development. And even if it had the capacity to acquire and process more information than humans, its functionality and operation (processing) will depend on its programming. For example, AI can be programmed to re-programme itself, but only according to how a human thought possible. They will never be able to transcend the human limit of their creators and developers, not unless humans do it first.

I hope we can do it - build an AI. I'm a bit worried about how they'll treat it though - imprisonment for life probably. — TheMadFool

However we deal with new life or intelligence will be according to our heritage in the ongoing legacy within this reality. I think those who will have overcome their fear of the unknown will favour better than those who fight out of ignorance. Because what's clear is that we are the life or intelligence of today, we have no power over those of tomorrow.

I think if AI and humans ever co-exist, it will be the better for them (the AIs) because they would have the advantage of knowing their predecessors. We humans are plagued by the ignorance of not knowing our past, therefore before we can make any considerable step forward we must work more and harder to uncover our past. For example, we cannot clone better humans or alter genetic material definitively because we do not understand significantly how we come to be. So, for those AIs, we would be that glimpse into the past and maybe even encouragement to an even further progressive endeavour. I believe just as homo erectus gave way to homo sapiens, so also homo sapiens must give way to better adapted life forms, and I think developing AI definitively and distinctly is the first step towards that.

We need new physics and a new theory of computation before we can make progress on this mystery. — fishfry

We're going to have to go beyond the Turing machine. — fishfry

I support this idea and complement it with one of the points I tried to make implicitly in my earlier statements - that is, it's not about intelligence that we have or belongs to us, but rather nature's intelligence working in and through us. I think instead of defining intelligence, we should let it define itself through its operations. That way we learn more instead of fighting against something that is always bound to escape our limitations. Maybe we don't need to develop AI to the fullest capacity, we just have to attain a point where the intelligence operating within can proceed developing without further support from us. And maybe that's somewhat the answer to the riddle of gods and men.

It could be that we are the natural evolutionary step for the evolution of silicon-based life forms that will eventually take over the universe. — Harry Hindu

Ok, that's a rad idea. I LOVE IT!!! :love:

Also, aren't we machines in essence? — TheMadFool

See, that's another strong argument in favour of silicon or other element based intelligent mechanisms and beings.

We might be wrong, but we simply have then to have the counter example that shows the assumption to be false. — ssu

Isn't silicon-based intelligent mechanisms a good counter argument?

Check this out, https://sciencing.com/four-elements-make-up-almost-90-earth-2592.html

It says silicon makes up about 15% of the Earth's mass. That and the many uses we have for it in AI-related fields is why I find it quite interesting.

I'm not a chemistry expert but I think for a substance to base life on it requires some conditions e.g. how many bonds it can hold, the environment it is in, it's flexibility in bond forming with other substances, etc. — TheMadFool

That's what I'm trying to figure out but from a much abstract perspective. I'm wondering, what have the conditions of carbon to do with our intelligence? And, what is so phenomenal about carbon that some other elements could not achieve in their own specialised conditions (in other worlds)? For example, if you look into what scientists show us about Titan (Saturn's Moon), it's every bit as our earth. But it's different in many other ways despite the resemblance. So, I'm thinking, in terms of atoms and sub-atomic particles there may not be that much of a deviation in structure than we have already observed here on Earth. Therefore, if that other cosmic globe could mirror ours that closely and still maintain a certain level of distinctness using roughly the same materials (atoms and such) as we find here on Earth, what other phenomena out there, much more closely related to us (humans) could we be missing on?

Or, better yet, if our (human) intelligence is what operates machines and stuff, what is so artificial about it that we should conjure the term Artificial Intelligence?

Well sure, by that definition my chair is intelligent — fishfry

Not quite. But it's mechanism of existence is.

I don't regard that as helpful in the debate about machine intelligence, since you just defined machines as intelligent. — fishfry

I said machines reflect/manifest intelligence which belongs to us (humans) - And one of my points is, that our (human) intelligence seems to arise from some configuration/organisation of components which do not possess that intelligence in themselves.

But what have we actually learned by this? — fishfry

Mine is an exploratory endeavour and part of my suppositions is, if intelligence is not biological since our biology is based on chemical structures which are themselves based on physical structures, then perhaps there could be other ways of identifying life. Part of the implications is that AI which we seem to be in the process of perfecting, could turn out to be every bit as naturally intelligent as we (humans) are.

What exactly does quasi-intelligent mean? — fishfry

We refer to the organisation of the universe as intelligent; we refer to how components are organised into computer functionality as intelligent; we refer to a sports team as having an intelligent game when their organised activity yields positive results, etc, etc. Basically, intelligence for us is dependent on organisation and utility. I refer to computers and such as quasi-intelligent because their organised activity and utility is not inherently theirs even though they reflect/manifest it.

By "will" I mean the power in you to do things. By "free will" I mean you have the power to do things and you have a choice on whether or not you do certain actions. — Purple Pond

I think we always have free will at all times and in all situations. The limiting factor is whether we see fit to use it with respect to the outcome we want. To use the money metaphor again, sometimes having free will is like having money which may not be enough (or perhaps it may be undermined by priority) in providing for the things one wants. The bottom line is you have it. Whether or not it accomplishes one's goals is a different matter.

Okay, but that's different than how I defined it, no? — Terrapin Station

Perhaps... :chin:

It's the other way around. Causality negates free will as I defined it because we're talking about causal determinism, not the opposite of causal determinism. — Terrapin Station

I would say that, unless our free will is absolute, it factors into causal determinism.

You don't believe in causality at all? — Terrapin Station

I do. But, human energies, free will included, are factors in causality as well. Free will doesn't negate causality.

And I'd say that definitely you don't have free will when it comes to some things--it is possible to be forced to do some things. — Terrapin Station

I would say that we always have free will except that, at times it's not enough to overcome the limitations present in certain situations. It's just like having money but not enough to buy what one wants.

Not to speak for him bit I'd say "will" refers to the intent/directedness/conscious motivation driving actions, and "free" refers to the complement of causal determinism. — Terrapin Station

That being the case, then it's not that we ever lack free will. Instead, there seems to be a lack of the necessary response to alleviate the problem being faced. In this way, 'being forced into something' is just a consequence of lack of better choices to make. I think it would be better to blame it on our limited intelligence because it seems like we always have free will.
For example, if someone held a gun to my face and demanded that I give whatever is in my pockets, I would still have the free will to respond to them and beg them not to shoot while I complied with their demands. On the other hand, if I was suicidal and determined that this was a good way to tempt fate, I may decide to disobey. Still, in any case, there seems to be a number of ways my free will would manifest.

Usually I find that it's not that we don't have free will, but that people have a notion that free will is analogous to omnipotence.

Firstly, what do you mean by "will" and consequently "free will"?

If people didn't have such thick skulls, we would be able to hear each other's mental voice very clearly. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I think I read something close to that. The idea is that, when the voice in our head (our constant monologue and maybe even conscience) is active (talking), they are accompanied by corresponding micro-vibrations in our voice-box. So perhaps if we were attuned to hearing higher rates of vibrations (much higher than animals), other peoples 'consciences' could carry to our ears and thus hear what they were thinking.

What are you? — Anirudh Sharma

WHAT ARE WE? We are some configuration of energy. We call us human beings, for now. Anyway, as far as we are aware, part of how that energy expresses itself is the body, and another is the mind. There may be other expressions, more or less, largely depending on characterisation of what is recognised.
We don't seem to have a problem characterising the body but we seem a bit unsure as to what the mind is. I would explain it as the faculty of reason, and which employs certain mechanisms/means to organise and direct certain energies according to logic (nature's laws) or as best as possible. It is a faculty in a manner akin to perception, or even emotions, in that, it is not separate from the physical counterpart and works in conjunct with it.

On a personal note, I've been (for a while) working on a theory where the mind is a faculty or mechanism which operates within another faculty or mechanism. It is analogous to software which operates within hardware. And while the software is not material, the processes of its creation, management, operation, etc, are material and thus sensible (impacts the senses) and even empirical. I believe the same applies to mind.

Neither the body nor the mind can be distinct and separate from what we refer to as a human being. Therefore, they are defined by their relation to the human energies and the activities they manifest. The same also applies to spirit, consciousness, ego, etc.

that the bible came from a polytheistic culture that clung to relics of Canaanite gods for some time prior to its monotheism. — whollyrolling

So, is the God referred to in the Bible a distinct deity or a montage of multiple deities?

Personally, I don't think there's any God at all. I think the so-called men of God are just highly sensitive and responsive humans who're trying to reconcile forces of nature with their dawning intelligence and recognition of the large-scale human nature. I think metaphysics, superstition and supernatural representations are just a consequence of the language of those times.
I think if there was an actual deific entity, there would be some consistency beyond what is perceived in the Bible. The only consistency I see is human development and evolution in terms of ideas, practices, society, etc. The deific energy (God) seems dependent upon human activities instead of it being vice versa. It's like God wants what's best for humans but only if humans realise what is good for them. So, ultimately, everything unfolds at the human speed of life.

The point is there concepts of God are not identical. Similar perhaps, but not identical. Elijah and Isaiah each wrote and thought about Jehovah differently. — YuZhonglu

Could it mean there are different Gods in the Bible?

Is the God of the Bible one God? I mean, is Moses' God identical to Elijah's, Isaiah's or Jesus' God? If so, how do we know that their concepts of God are identical?

Like I said, time is finite. — Devans99

That is your opinion. Imo, finite or Infinite is a description of time-relations with subjects/objects. Time itself is neither finite nor infinite, just a relation of transciency of the subjects/objects in question.

We have evidence of only one Big Bang — Devans99

We have evidence of numerous super/mega novas but we suspect the one which supposedly took place about 13 billion years ago was biggest and the birth of our cosmic neighbourhood which we, so far, choose to designate as our universe. We have not yet dismissed the probability or possibility of other big bangs like it.

'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?’

I think it's because we can't affirm 'nothing' and we can't negate 'something'. Therefore logic dictates the presence of something instead of nothing.

so we're back to the initial argument where possibilities abound and there's nothing, as far as we know, that prevents the possibility of a multiverse or other big bangs.

Since time is infinite in this supposition, it means we have an infinite amount of time prior to this moment. So, how come we have not succumbed to the infinite density problem, and how many more infinities does it take for that to occur?
Also, by principle, whatever has a beginning, must have an end. So, I don't think there's anything like infinite density, else, density would be infinite like time (in this supposition).

I think you've missed the point about what/who God is to the believers. For them, in so many ways, God does exist. In the least, God is the creator of this reality (universe/world/life) for them and, since we're real, then how can that which made it possible not be real.

I think you're expecting God to be someone/something that appeals to the senses. However, God could be equally real as an object/subject of mind (and be related to logic - by logic I mean the laws which govern reality). God could be representative and abstract and still be real. That's because, fundamentally, everything is based on reality. It's just a question of, "in what way is God real (for you)?"

I think the best argument against God is that He/She/It is generic or derivative. There's no story which starts with God but somehow people manage to fit God into everything. But, for most believers, that doesn't matter anyway. And neither does it matter to logicians. Because, it's not where to start, it's whether the connection is feasible within the bounds of that reality.

I think you should not dismiss God or faith which you clearly do not understand because that sword cuts both ways. Your ignorance of God and people's faith cannot validate your arguments.

You can present all of the evidence you want to support your claim, but at the end of the day you may as well just admit that you don t know if God does or does not exist, because that is the actual truth. — Maureen

Allow me to be a little argumentative and question this assertion. So, back 2000-2500 years ago when the theory of atoms (atomos) was first stated, was it out of certainty or reasonable expectation (intuition)? I think the theories about God and consequent beliefs are based on such a criteria. It's not about certainty, it's about intuition, predominantly a reasonable expectation which may or may not be enhanced by superstition.

That theory is mainly about trying to figure out NDEs and such. Coz death isn't just about how/what a person perceives, it's also how/what they're perceived as. A person can alter their perception into various simulations of consciousness but how does a person alter everyone else's perception into simulating his/her death? Death is beyond a person's subjective report in consciousness, it has objective ramifications too, e.g., the dead body.

What I'm trying to say is, the working of the universe as we have observed so far seems to be intelligently designed such that there are forces which maintain equilibrium. For example, after the super and mega novas (and even the big bang) there follows a considerable period of 'calming' sorta like regaining equilibrium. Therefore, it may be that even with infinite time and a continued occurrence of big bangs, the equilibrium may still be maintained. Perhaps that's what gravity is for, to ensure recovery to the state of stability for the system (universe) and all its components.

That sort of leads to a pet theory of mine: if big bangs were naturally occurring and time was infinite then there would be (with infinite time) infinite big bangs at each point in space leading to infinite matter density. So either the Big Bang was an unnatural singleton or time has a start. — Devans99

Not necessarily. Even if there was infinite matter density, each part of the universe would only interact in relation to its environment. It does not mean that the potential for the whole universe would act in its absoluteness at every point. Also, there already have been multiple super and mega novas in this supposed universe since that hypothetical big-bang and matter still seems to be relatively well-organised.

Therefore it follows that all universes are connected to all universes. In what sense is that a multiverse if they are all connected? — Devans99

A while back and the same could be said of galaxies. Initially it was difficult to tell whether the stars observed all belonged to our galaxy or not. In time, with better facilities even cosmic space will be better perceived. However, personally, the theory that has fewer limitations tends to most approximate what reality has in store. So, for me, if there's one universe, there's bound to be others. And why not?

So you doubt the Big Bang theory? — Devans99

The big bang is a theory but not a certainty. There are other theories, all with different probabilities. Right now, the big bang may be the best fit according to our current scientific endeavours.

The red shifts of galaxies seem to clearly show expansion starting 13 billion years ago. — Devans99

The measurements are only within the near (reachable, by our facilities) perimeter of our cosmic environment. So, therefore, it is natural for there to be greater familiarity and proximity of a causal relation.

The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation confirms the Big Bang also? — Devans99

Just a big bang. They have discovered a lot of those and there's no guarantee that the one they reference as 'the big bang' is the first and only one of its kind. It is possible that with the hypothetical of a multiverse, there is potential for multiple big bangs for each universe.

The expansion of the universe — Devans99

They have specified their limits as those of a universe. This means that it automatically has the potential capacity for intrinsic expansion as with most limits (or objects).

So it is the metric that is expanding. — Devans99

Hypothetically, yes.
But, the space-time reference is another hypothetical. So they're claiming that a hypothetical factor (space-time) with a hypothetical value (the metric), is undergoing a hypothetical change (an unproven expansion). I think that is the scientific version of faith.

Galaxies are flying apart at faster than the speed of light so it is space that is expanding I believe. — Devans99

I don't see a connection between the premise and conclusion.

Galaxies are flying apart at faster than the speed of light

Ok.

so it is space that is expanding I believe.

What directs to such a conclusion?

As you have pointed out,

infinity is unmeasurable so has no size so cannot expand. — Devans99

This could even imply that if space were infinite, then it is just as possible for galaxies to keep moving apart without the need for space to expand. Anyway, this is just more conjecture on an unknown. I think there's no need to calculate probabilities of unknown factors.

Imo, if by space is meant the limits within the universe, then it is probable that it is expanding since by universe we define some sort of limits. If, on the other hand, by space is meant limits pertaining to reality's capacity to contain 'things', then perhaps infinite is a better tag given reality isn't really limited even by our standards.

Distant galaxies are flying apart... — Devans99

I think whatever hypothesis we develop should not overlook the facts we're working with. The fact is we've noticed the galaxies moving apart in space. However, we can't say anything conclusive about that space. Whether space is expanding along with the galaxies or it is constant while the galaxies expand within it is yet to be determined.

I guess it is expanding within nothingness. — Devans99

I think space is a very difficult subject/object to define even before the inclusion of another even lesser defined abstract as nothingness. The unknown factors are too great for any conclusions.

For me, the two abstracts seem to obscure any logical connections I might want to make. Nothing is just a placeholder for an idea that expresses a relative, tentative and conditional situation and thus cannot be a 'something'.

Is space expanding or are things expanding within space?
If space is expanding, within what is it expanding?

Here are a few other translations which reflect the teachings better:

19. RETURNING TO NATURALNESS
It is better merely to live one's life, realizing one's potential, rather than wishing for sanctification.
He who lives in filial piety and love has no need of ethical teaching.
When cunning and profit are renounced, stealing and fraud will disappear.
But ethics and kindness, and even wisdom, are insufficient in themselves.
Better by far to see the simplicity of raw silk's beauty and the uncarved block; to be one with oneself, and with one's brother.
It is better by far be one with the Tao, developing selflessness, tempering desire, removing the wish, but being compassionate. (http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an142304.pdf)

19. When falsity and hypocrisy of this kind are removed, people are much happier. Falsity, aspiration to wealth, theft, and cruelty towards living beings disappear when people possess true knowledge. It is so because the reason for all people’s vices is a lack of knowledge. It is knowledge that makes people understand that it is in their personal interest to be simple and kind, to control one’s own worldly desires, and to liberate oneself from pernicious passions. (http://www.swami-center.org/en/text/Tao_Te_Ching.pdf)

I think the first part asks us to discard our subjective distinctions of sanctity and righteousness for the benefit of all, not just the few who would understand and adhere to such edicts.
The second part asks us to avoid judging others because even the least in morality among humans would seek out a brotherhood/family to belong. Thus, even instinctively, we understand unity.
The third part asks us to discard the significance in materiality (material values) for the sake of truer and more humane values in society.
It goes on to teach that, as good as the three teachings are, they have no value without having first developed compassion. In other words, without compassion (love), the teachings appeal only to the mind and lack the impetus to consolidate into actions.