A lot of quibbling about "the god of the new testament" versus "the concept of god." This could be recast as a debate about the existence of atoms. By the reasoning in this thread, Democritus' atoms "cannot possibly exist." And yet we know that they do exist. Democritus' description was simply constrained by the limited information available to him at that time, which resulted in a gap between the "sense" and "referent" of the term, to the point which it becomes possible to dispute their identity.

Similarly then, any god of any tradition can be viewed as a "best approximation" to the concept of god. Criticisms of the adequacy of this god or that god are nothing more than an acknowledgement of the particular cultural limitations wherein the idea was formulated. The concept of a citizen used to include the right to own slaves. We don't contend that there were no citizens in ancient Rome or Greece.

Ergo, proving that the Christian God "couldn't exist" is really just pointing out the universal historic fact that concepts are constantly being updated to keep pace with cultural evolution. Tilting at windmills.

An atheist doesn't necessarily claim (though some may) that no kind of supernatural entity could possibly exist, or that no entity which might seem like a deity to humans could possibly exist. Most of us simply reject the god-forms that have so far been held up to worship by human agencies of one kind or another. — Vera Mont

Which kind of atheism is essentially a socio-cultural critique, which is the most reasonable version of atheism I have heard. Unlike the nonsensical version that seeks to prove that "god cannot exist." Quantum physics is rife with things that defy reasoned existence, until they are discovered.

You did not write the following?
[P]redicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).

Because it sure looks like you did. Which is what I disputed. You are searching for something that is well-defined. You are not proving the non-existence of an unknown something, you are proving the absence of a known something. I fail to see exactly what it is you are failing to see.

I think this proves we can prove a negative. — 180 Proof

It only proves this if you can definitively say that and where the missing item ought to be. Which is absurd. The only way you could say that would be if the missing item actually existed, then disappeared. You are conflating a "disappearing existent" with an unknown. Anything which is to whatever extent unknown can not be definitively identified sufficient to this putative "proof of non-existence." This is exactly what Dennett failed to appreciate.

A Modern Utopia
by H.G. Wells

Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization
by John Rogers Searle

Imagine a universe where not only is everything possible, but that all possibilities must be fulfilled before its natural conclusion.

How might such a universe look? — Benj96

Perhaps like overlapping superpositions of possible states which gradually collapse into optimally configured forms? Oh wait, that's this universe....

There are things I would argue with but it makes sense to me. I think there's plainly an ontological discontinuity between the mineral and organic domains, and so on for the other domains. — Wayfarer

This aligns with Nicolai Hartmann's "ontological strata" approach also, for another perspective.

The Mucker (Mucker #1)
by Edgar Rice Burroughs

In this case I would like if you consider the ecosystem as an economy of sorts. Limited resources (money we'll say) in a space or playing field where sentient beings compete for this currency. — Benj96

The difference being that the ecosystem is naturally holistic and exceeds our limited conceptualizations thereof, Whereas the economy is artificial and far more constrained by limitations and arbitrary anthropocentric biases. If you were thinking that evolution could occur analogously with some kind of "artificial environment."

It seems that for AGI to join us, not only does it require some form of "reiterative automaticity" - that is to say, to spontaneously rewrite, live/in the present moment, its own predictive algorithms independent of us, but that such algorithms must be further compressed until they no longer require googols of data but the same or less data than a typical human in order to reason. — Benj96

Yes, it would require the same type of freedom and environmental control and impact that every other form of life enjoys. However it seems completely unlikely that the resources to do this will ever be committed authentically - which is to say devoid of some underlying economic driver which, so long as it exists, will preclude the evolutionary development of the thing in question.

Swords of Mars (Barsoom, #8)
by Edgar Rice Burroughs,

If we are to believe life emerged from the purely mechanical, we cannot exclude the possibility that AGI can do the same. — Benj96

Do you believe that human-constructed artefacts, which are engineered to correct errors in order to function within a predefined scope, are subject to the same emergent possibilities as organic systems, which can exploit apparent errors and thereby expand their scope of operations?

Reasoning is essentially functional problem solving in an environment and is both a logical and a real antecedent of linguistic reasoning. Language empty of the intrinsic ability to execute tasks is just that, empty of the possibility of reason. A mechanism will always be just a mechanism, however much it sounds like it is thinking, it isn't.

A Fighting Man of Mars (Barsoom #7)
by Edgar Rice Burroughs

Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology
by Alexander Wendt

Children of the Lens (Lensman, #6)
by E.E. "Doc" Smith

The Construction of Social Reality
by John Rogers Searle

Beginning a foray into social ontology for the next few books....

Sound education and responsible mass communications media would go a long way toward making that possible. — Vera Mont

I agree that this is one fundamental path to enlightenment. Whatever good ideas there might be are ultimately limited by the prevailing degree of social consciousness or social awareness, which is essentially a function of education, or more accurately, the relative lack thereof.

For me the problem is twofold. There is this issue of political practicality, how can consensus be built to the optimum end. And then there is the associated question of the effectiveness of the apparatus of government, including its democratic institutions. Are the existing voting practices even democratic? But, specifically, recognizing the crucial core problem of corporatocracy. Because corporations are not and have never been democratic. They are, in fact, anti-democratic institutions that exploit and abuse the inherent freedoms of democratic societies. One of the main features of the corporate entity under the law is its ability to shield individuals from culpability. That is about as un-democratic as you can get. If anything, corporations should invite liability. That way, all of the massive expense that right now gets absorbed as "externalized cost" would be billed directly to the parties profiting the most, as it ought to be.

Most people segment into liberal versus conservative, for starters. Democrat versus Republican. Again, are these more than words to the vast majority? I've read extensively on political ideology and history. It isn't obvious to me that any existing party really reflects its historical origins and ideologies.

Tales and Fantasies
by Robert Louis Stevenson

Habermas I believe characterized constitutions as a kind of a catalog of the failures of a the old society which are to be redressed by the new. In The Construction of Social Reality, Berger and Luckmann comment how constitutions are framed by the shared-collective experience of a unique cultural historical milieu. But, over time, the nuanced character of this milieu evolves to the point where the constitution no longer speaks the same language to a new generation. At which point it becomes necessary to reframe it in more relevant terms. Habermas describes the application of enlightenment values as "the attempt to test the realizability of the utopian content of cultural tradition."

This is the spirit and context in which I'm suggesting an attempt to transcend what I conceive to be the outmoded political categories of the right and the left. I believe that, for the overwhelming majority, these categories are no longer germane. The haves have elevated themselves economically to the point where they are in effect isolated from the rest of humanity by their privilege.

And by traditionally divisive categories do you mean things such owner/leaser, employer/employee, rich/poor, man/woman, student/teacher, or something else? — Lionino

More traditional political categories. My sense is that the upper echelons benefit by playing groups off against one another in order to forestall their uniting against the common problem (the wealthy and privileged).

It will take more than a clear vision and good intentions to dislodge them. — Vera Mont

Suggestions?

I still don't understand what you mean by this. Can you provide some examples? Socialism or communitarianism, perhaps? — Tom Storm

Again, as an ideological guide or norm, broad enough to bridge the traditionally divisive categories. I think the true divide lies between greed and generosity. And I hope most people are enlightened enough to want to be generous if it is possible to do so. Certainly it is easy enough to spot the greedy.

I'm really interested in finding a way to transcend traditional divisions. As mentioned, I don't think they are meaningful in the elite strata who exercise much of the influence as is the overriding motive of personal gain. I think that mostly they just serve to foster divisiveness within the burgeoning majority of largely disenfranchised human beings, many of whom are just awakening to the fact that they are disenfranchised. Certainly there are rumblings in Canada that retirement is increasingly unlikely for more and more people. It's something I looked forward to my entire life, and just reached. I can't even imagine if that possibility had been taken from me.

I think universal inclusivity ought to be the norm. Enlightened? Perhaps that is just an aspiration. The enlightenment was about the growth of individual awareness, and of the awareness of the value of the individual. Social institutions have to enshrine individual rights, the collective is only as strong as the individuals of which it is composed.

I don't know what enlightened universal inclusion means? Got an example? — Tom Storm

Yes, this is the heart of the issue. What does a stated value equate to? It is easy to cite "traditional family values" as your gospel. But what the heck does that even mean? On the other hand, I hope that the term enlightened universal inclusion does speak at least somewhat eloquently as to its intent and meaning. Hopefully as that ideal is applied in unique circumstances, it will emerge in a more substantial form. In essence, this is how the law evolves....

You can look at mind as the manifestation of brain-consciousness. Or you can look at mind as the correlate of the products of the "sciences of the spirit" (Geistwissenschaften). From a scientific standpoint, it is evident in both. Which is why Nicolai Hartmann can say "the same mode of being, reality, encompasses everything from matter to spirit." (New Ways of Ontology)

Some people are only able to intuit the evidence of mind as it correlates to their own thoughts. Which leads to an organic limitation. Some people are able to intuit the evidence of mind in this broader sphere, which aligns with a broader, "spiritualized" conception of mind. The fact that mind evolves cybernetically (as growing knowledge) over generations testifies to its trans-physical nature

unified meaning of concepts — Abhiram

You keep saying this like it is a thing. What you are talking about is an artificial language suitable for application within a definite and restricted conceptual space. Exactly the opposite of what philosophy aspires to, understanding of the nature of universals.

I would say that the process we are involved in now itself represents the development and evolution of meaning, which is integral to philosophy. Meaning is not static.

New Ways of Ontology
by Nicolai Hartmann

Abstract concepts like being, self, and consciousness are expressed using language, and most of the time, their terms don't have a unified meaning. — Abhiram

The lack of what you call a "unified meaning" reflects a lack of consensus, hence a diversity of opinion. This diversity is the source of the richness of philosophy, not a problem to be overcome. Your proposal is essentially one of linguistic despotism.

"For how can one assign to perfection bounds that it cannot exceed?"
~Emile Durkheim

The Rules of Sociological Method: And Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method
by Émile Durkheim

Noogenesis: Computational Biology
by Alex M. Vikoulov

The Arabian Nights
Husain Haddawy (Translator)

If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus

In the complex system wherein and whereby the embodied brain operates

No, I don't think you can reasonably argue that human beings suffer model collapse.

↪wonderer1 linked an article that says AI outperforms humans in standardized tests of creative potential.
↪Pantagruel linked an article that says AI get stupider as it consumes more and more AI generated material. — Patterner

Yes, these results are in direct opposition. The degradation of neural net performance is specifically a failure of divergent thinking. Moreover, while the "standardized" test of creativity is, in fact, subjectively evaluated and judged by human beings, the degradation of neural net performance is objectively measurable and quantifiable, through both uniformity of outputs and absurdity of outputs.

Also, it seems to me, humans are not getting smarter. So AI will never have better material to draw on if it only draws on our stuff. Which would lead to the same problem of Model Collapse? — Patterner

Specifically, if human beings rely too heavily on AI then essentially we are back to the self-consumption of AI and model collapse, yes.

I think that some people believe that AI is hoisting itself up by its own bootstraps, programming itself, perhaps in some sense that is a precursor to sentience. In fact, AI is parasitically dependent on human intervention. As AI begins to be more widely used, its outputs find their way into our world and, eventually, AI can start to consume its own outputs as training data. When this happens, AI doesn't get smarter, it gets stupider:

"The more AI models consume AI-created content, the more likely they are to "collapse," researchers find"

Here are a few articles about the nature of this problem, highlighting the fact that AI is well dependent on human beings for direction.

Model Collapse
Dangers of recursive learning
Self-poisoning AI

"In the immediate future, it is likely that companies with a stake in creating the next generation of machine learning models will rush to acquire human data wherever possible. They will do this in anticipation of a future where it will be even harder to distinguish human-generated data from synthetic data."