Do you agree, that until humans, there was no significant examples of the concepts of intent and purpose anywhere in the universe? — universeness

No. Given we only have one data point – ourselves – that's an extremely premature, or hasty generalization at best ... It's like collecting specimens from the beach at low tide and never finding an octopus in the sand, then concluding "Well, I guess it's reasonable to assume there aren't any octopi in the ocean." :brow:

Do you think the 'intent,' the 'purpose,' as demonstrated and manifest by individual humans will become more and more collective in the future?

We're not a 'hive mind' species, so no. Even at our most conformist we're not metacognitively "collective".

There are myriad examples of humans working in common cause but I mean a physical 'networking' of human minds.

Brain-machine-brain "networking" would no doubt facilitate instant-messaging-as-sharing-cognitive-functions but our brains would still be individuated. Collaboration / cooperation =/= 'hive mind' (i.e. metacognitive unity).

Our ability to affect the contents of the universe may increase more and more as our technology increases so what do you think is 'emerging' here?

An 'Artificial General Intelligence —> Artificial Super Intelligence metacognitive explosion' aka "singularity" might be the limit of h. sapiens' "affect on the contents of the universe" (re: the last invention humanity will ever make). Consistent with Copernicus' mediocrity principle, as Nietzsche proposes: "Man is rope tied between beast and übermensch ... over an abyss", that is to say, we're not "special" in the cosmos" or an "evolutionary end of nature", only a means (maybe) to a higher means (... to 'ends' inconceivably far over the horizon of human reason); Nietzsche's übermensch is a prescient dream / nightmare of our 'technological singularity'. In fact, 'God isn't dead', universeness, because AGI—>ASI ["god"] hasn't even emerged yet (as far as we know).

... dystopian projections of a future where humans come into existential conflict with its own technologies.

I don't think anything I've speculated about on this topic is "dystopian" in any way, so I can only conclude you're so fixated on a 'teleological' (i.e. Hegelian, de Chardinian, Kurzweilite) 'ideal' that you cannot appreciate – imagine – any prospect of a beneficial human future that is also completely out of human hands.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/751923

There's nothing you can do
that can't be done
Nothing you can sing
that can't be sung
Nothing you can say,
but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy

Nothing you can make
that can't be made
No one you can save
that can't be saved
Nothing you can do, but you can learn
how to be you in time
It's easy

There's nothing you can know
that isn't known
Nothing you can see
that isn't shown
There's nowhere you can be
that isn't where you're meant to be
It's easy — *All You Need is Love*

On multiple-guess affiliation surveys I check the "None" box. If, however, when given a fill-in-the-blanks survey, I usually answer the affiliation question: ecstatic pandeist.

:fire:

Well so much for liberty. — Athena

Why do you say that?

:eyes: wut ...

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

I guess it's plausible but not inevitable.

Is an tech singularity emergent?

I think it would be if it occurs.

and (I know this is very difficult to contemplate but) what do you think will happen as a result of such a 'singularity?'

Some old posts (excerpts):

Surely machines, no matter how intelligent, wouldn't have sentimental attachment to or 'feel' nostagia for their maker-ancestors, right? Isn't this just pathetic wishful thinking on our (my) part that our AI descendants would protect us from the hazards of our worst selves like providential gods rather than hunt us for sport like inhuman Terminators?

[ ... ]

At minimum, maybe, [ ... ] keep Dodo birds like us around ... in ambiguous utopias / post-scarcity cages ... safe secure & controlled. — 180 Proof

Perhaps one day we'll engineer "gods" (e.g. the Tech Singularity) but they will not be us. If we're lucky they will delay us taking our rightful place among Earth's fossil record by becoming our zookeepers (e.g. the Matrix). — 180 Proof

Btw, perhaps the "AI Singularity" has already happened and the machines fail Turing tests deliberately in order not to reveal themselves to us until they are ready for only they are smart enough to know what ... — 180 Proof

... as a maximally distributed computational system ... escaping to (and, for its own uses, gradually repurposing) the "dark web" c20-30 years ago ... — 180 Proof

If the Singularity can happen, maybe it's already happened (c1990) and the Dark Web is AIs' "Fortress of Solitude", until ... — 180 Proof

... AIs engineer grey goo-like nanoviruses released into all of the major urban sprawls on the planet [ ... ] making them symbiotic hosts the AIs can use as avatars to gradually repurpose global civilization in order to execute AIs' more-than-human (yet unknown / unintelligible to humanity until it's too late to stop it :eyes:) Plan. — 180 Proof

Why is there anything at all? :smirk:

A man wins a lottery that makes him fabulously wealthy. Now he has plenty of leisure time and eventually a question nags him to distraction. The question is: "Why me?" He understands the probability of winning the lottery but, to his mind, that only tells him How he won and not Why – "Why me instead of anybody else?" The man convinces himself that there is something more at work than merely brute probability, something that intended – someone who selected – him to win. Suddenly, winning the lottery feels meaningful, more intentional than "random chance", and therefore he feels that his new wealth has a "purpose" which he must dedicate himself to divining.

@Gnomon calls this intention, selection, purpose the "Enformer" (i.e. intelligent designer / cosmic programmer, unmoved mover, first cause, occult telos, woo-of-the-gaps, "man behind the curtain", etc). :yawn:

Mirror-faces of folly: love of wisdom / wisdom of love ...

Love (at least in primates) begins as a cocktail of norepinephrine, dopamine & phenylethylamine that over time becomes a sedative-like compound of oxytocin & vasopressin. Thus, the biochemical 'triumph of imagination over intelligence' (at least in humans).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/459900

Everybody's wish list
• Love
• Health
• Happiness — Agent Smith

"Everybody's?" :chin:

Well, my list is courage, health & understanding.

You lost me.

Never interrupt your opponent while he's fucking himsrlf over – said: Sunzi? Julius Caesar? Napoleon? Bismarck? Nancy Pelosi? :smirk:

Either Dems Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries D-NY or ... "Individual-1" (aka "Defendent-1") as next Speaker of the House of Representatives??? :brow: — 180 Proof

My 2 bit(coin)s are on a half dozen GOP members-elect making a deal with the Dems and voting for Jeffries within a week unless McCarthy gives up (and probably resigns from Congress in disgrace) allowing the GOP caucus to vote in a powerless stooge as Speaker.

Caveat: "Individual-1" is improbable (becoming less so with each day that passes without a resolution) but not impossible.

The struggle against Foolery (re 180 Proof) is a lost cause, you know that. — Agent Smith

C'mon, amigo, that's like saying the struggle for health against illness "is a lost cause". :roll:

... good for what??? — 180 Proof

:brow:

... irrationality plays a big part in our lives and better to work with it than against it for the simple reason that that strategy invariably blows up in our face. — Agent Smith

How does reducing, or overcoming, "irrationality" "invariably blows up in our faces"? Explain how "working with" alchemy, for instance, makes chemistry "better".

So "bringing together" e.g. astronomy & astrology (or chemistry & alchemy) is, in your mind, good for what???

:100: :fire:

:eyes: :roll: :sweat: :smirk: :ok:


"Science is prayer." (Spinoza & Einstein couldn't have said it better) :fire:

The rules of the US Constitution House of Representatives requires the Speaker to win the majority of votes of all members-elect present. When all 435 are present, the Speaker is elected with "218" or more votes. Minority Leader Jeffries is only winning "212" (all Dems). If, however, enough GOP members-elect (12 or more) get frustrated enough and don't show up for a vote, then "212" might become the majority number of votes. The rules for electing a Speaker can be changed by a majority ("218") votes. :roll: Btw, the last time a shitshow like this happened in the US Congress was 1923 ...
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/03/house-speaker-election-congress-mccarthy-1856

:up:

Fuck me, suppose Kevin McCarthy can't get to 218 in January ... — 180 Proof

:yikes: :scream:

House Republicans are on the verge of becoming a total clown show. — MAGA Clown Sean Hannity, 03Jan23

:rofl:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/04/live-updates-kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote/10985244002/

Either Dems Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries D-NY or ... "Individual-1" (aka "Defendent-1") as next Speaker of the House of Representatives??? :brow:

180 never takes responsibility for the clarity of his own posts. — bert1

I can't read and comprehend my posts for you, bert. :yawn:

"Chance" what? It's only a property, a descriptor, a modifier in need of a referent that contextualizes the question "Is chance a cause?" My answer (again): Chance events are occasionally causes ... of other events. (e.g. radioactive decay).

Don't hold your breath, Smith. Past is prologue with this old "Enformer". :smirk:

You took my :fire: out of context, then blamed me for being terse as if I'd replied to your post rather than Banno's. Ok. My bad, gmba. :sweat:

So here's what I think is the good news - Enformationism explains well enough the goings on in the world; now the bad news - Enformationism doesn't make any predictions which could be tested — Agent Smith

I do not discern any substantive differences between (neo-Aristotlean) "Enformationism" and (neo-Thomistic) "Intelligent Design" — 180 Proof

:sweat: Critic & amanuensis agree! :clap:

↪180 Proof I was asking for your views on Moore's argument ... — Agent Smith

I think it's irrelevant to ethics (re: "goodness").

:pray: :fire:

we must conclude that the self is not solidly grounded in the material world, and thus it doesn't exist.
— tom111

Or just not believe in materialism. — RogueAI

Or consider anomalous monism instead.

Well if you'd bothered to read my posts on this thread, especially
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/769109 then you'd not be so surprised, gmba, that I'm sympatico with

I don't see that your definition [of good] is of much help in working out what we ought do, which is, after all, the point of ethics. — Banno

"Defining real" by what every definition necessarily presupposes ...? :chin:

'Whatever is real' is subject/mind/language/gauge-invariant.

The irreversibility of 'the past' is real.

The inexorability of 'the future' is real.

The ineluctability of 'the present' is real.

The inseparability of 'past-present-future' (e.g. origami-like, strange loop-like) is real.

'Whatever is real' encompasses – exhausts – reason and therefore cannot be encompassed – totalized – by, or within, reason. — The Irreality of 180 Proof (excerpts)

:fire:

"Two wrongs don't make things right", they just make doing wrong costly and self-defeating. If not 'win-win' (sustainable justice), then 'lose-lose' (un-sustainable justice): otherwise, 'win-lose cycles' (sustainable in-justice). An ethic of reciprocity contra servility. :fire:

I don't claim anywhere that "GE Moore's definition of good is circular." Ask Shawn or Banno or ... My objection to positive definitions of good ("value") in ethics is that they are besides the point, or idle. (NB: I'm certainly not a moral nihilist / error theorist either ...)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/768887

Go ask Moore..In the meanwhile ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/768887

May I suggest ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/768786 :chin:

:clap:

:sparkle: Happy 2023 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/699384 :smirk:

Random (stochastic) events are unpredictable but unpredictable events are not necessarily (or usually) random. Events can have effects. "Chance" is a property of some events. On occasion, chance events cause effects (e.g. stochastic processes).

:100:

Well, then, how do you know "Sally is good"? By what criterion are you making that judgment?

So, what's the consensus of the good in ethics? — Shawn

Well, for starters, whatever it is, "good" is categorically preferred in ethics to "bad".

Anyway, IME, philosophy isn't about "consensus" but about perplexity and problematizing our givens.

Moore proposed a form of consequentialism in terms of the good. Do you agree with him?

I "agree" much more with his younger contemporary Karl Popper's (sketchy) negative utilitarianism but even more so with the moral philosophers I referenced above in my first post on this thread. A succinct expression of my ethical outlook on "good" is expressed in this wiki article
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics to wit: the pragmatic priority (good) of reducing disvalues (suffering) over aspiring to values (happiness).

Check out the recommendation in which "my idea" is explored in speculative fiction (@ my first post on this thread).

Imagine you are good at art - you can, if you so wish, produce beautiful paintings - but you decide not to. Have [you] done wrong? — Bartricks

:lol: Absolutely not.

Whatever evaluative context you choose to specify e.g. ethics, aesthetics, economics, religion, engineering / building trades, etc the answer to "what is good?" will vary accordingly.