↪Benj96 If it's that simple, that hearing a phrase infects my brain with a meme or idea, then I can stop this discussion in its tracks by saying, "Don't think that viral ideas are bullshit."

Still think that ideas are viral? — BC

You missed the point. The point being made does not regard what you do with the ideas or memes you're exposed to. Simply that the idea or meme is often not ignorable and thus requires automatically to be accepted or rejected. In your case "rejected" through the reactionary development of a counter-argument or rebuttal. In any case that reaction requires that your mind invariable acknowledges or absorbs the ideas and thoughts presented to you. Otherwise how can you reject them?

The issue here is not that you can't reject what you hear or see. It's that you see and hear so much that you cannot maintain awareness of every micro-indoctrination you receive. Some are simply subconsciously integrated under the radar of your conscious attention but are no less effectual on your sum outlook/perspective.

If an idea is repeatedly and subtley presented for a long period of time, its unlikely it won't effect your reality framework eventually.

This is a basis for the development of prejudices, cultures etc. The passive absorption of some thoughts and ideas you weren't actively analysing upon receiving them.

I just noticed this. What means would you use to bring this about? — fishfry

Constructive or healthy modes of competition. We cannot eliminate our desire to win or outcompete one another. We like reward, acknowledgement and status. All we can do is steer the compulsion away from competition that worsens the the wellbeing or basic rights of the losing group.

There is always a problem about excessive competition. There are usually systems in place to control it and they are at least reasonably successful. — Ludwig V

Who makes these systems? Is power and authority not a trait of the "winning faction" of any competitive environment?

Make everyone an impoverished slave and feed them all the same bowl of gruel everyday.

That's the problem with "equality." — fishfry

I agree. Competition is healthy. People love a game with a lucrative reward at the end for the winner. If we didn't, games would not be such a huge source of entertainment for us for millenia.

Furthermore competition is a natural phenomenon within and between species, and the basis for natural selection and evolution.

That being said, competition can be upheld without detriment to the quality of life of the loser. We are an animal with a sophisticated ability to not only communicate but also to imagine. And it is through these that we generate healthy competition - think the Olympics, video games, arcades, art and literature competitions etc. All ultimately arbitrary forms of reward and loss that don't directly threaten our survival.

We must subvert our tendency to compete so that we do not do so in a directly oppressive manner to society and human rights. Entertainment is the opium of the masses.

Without it, we would become toxically bored and engage in competing directing with and oppressing one another for our entertainment needs. To feel superior. A healthy society can have universal healthcare and universal income so long as we are happy consuming healthy competitions so we don't create unhealthy ones out of a desperate need for purpose and flexing our competitive prowess.

Should it come down to people who have a lot, having most of their lot taken away to support those that don’t? You know, the greatest good for the greatest number. — Rob J Kennedy

I fear taking away the wealthies money is equivalent taking away their ambition. If they're super talented and hyperintelligent yet never benefit from applying those gifts, they may resign themselves to letting lesser able people to flounder without their assistance.

On the other hand, because money and assets are material, for one to have much, another has to have little. That is a problem indeed.

In an ideal world, everyone is equally talented in diverse and complimentary ways, everyone has equal opportunity to demonstrate said personal talents/gifts, everyone has the resources they need to do so, and everyone is equally supportive and encouraging of one another rather than ruthlessly competitive.

Sadly that simply isn't the case. Some people cannot access their innate talents through education and opportunity, some are unambitious/lazy, some are easily dissuaded/highly doubtful and others are psychopathic - lacking all compassion and willing to destroy if they cannot be on top.

Society's goods (material and cultural) are not fairly and evenly distributed -- and they never have been. — BC

That's because they're material. Materials can be hoarded. Ideas and personal natures cannot.

It seems what you're saying is merit-based privilege is acceptable (the wealthy hardworking surgeon that saves countless lives), innate privilege is not (a lottery winner that "showered with cash" blows it all on drugs, sex and gambling for example).

The issue with a purely merit based privilege - is that the most unremarkable people - the lazy, the unambitious, the highly social welfare dependent or even the societally deviant - criminals could be argued as not even deserving the innate privilege of life itself. And that is rather eugenic or a "culling of the weakest links".

However in doing so we created an infinite regress of the "worst person" . And that is not sustainable because taken to its extreme it leaves only one highly meritable "perfect" example of humanity. The irony there is that I would expect such a person to not wish this system to be the case. They would obviously be generous charitable people.

Compassion for those we don't identify with but no less value - is the way forward I think.

Would you be willing to accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others, even if it means having fewer opportunities yourself? — Rob J Kennedy

It depends whether I am already at an advantage or not. As I would say is the thought of many facing the question.

I have self esteem. I don't want to be further trodden down and walked over. Similarly I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of being born with a silver spoon in my mouth that I didn't earn, especially when it means more disadvantage for it others.

If I'm perfectly in the middle, my opinion doesn't matter either way.

Moreover it is interesting that there are people that don't mind not knowing the meaning of life, some that constantly crave knowing and those that believe they already do with such determination they're willing to die to uphold their belief.

I do wonder what it is that divides them, fundamentally.

Very true. A thought that is so horrifying or harmful it makes the holder commit suicide instantly wouldn't be able to spread very successfully. Think Bird box - except the agent isn't witnessed but rather whispered from one person to another

In this case how would you say they evolve to survive?

I would propose that they evolve to either:
A). Empower the holder of the thought (ie education or knowledge
B). Personalise themselves to the holder of the thought - ie make themselves a part of your identity or become highly relatable.
C). Play on emotions - if they have an ability to polarise your emotions ie make you fear, worry or feel threatened or on the contrary alleviate stress / make you feel happy and at peace or feel love etc they will stay in your conscious attention.

This list is not exhaustive but I would say simply put, whatever makes a thought of ever greater value or importance to a person is unlikely to be forgotten and more likely to influence one's behaviour: ie be spoken to others. Or demonstrated.

It seems to me social media algorithms are tailored to these principles of highly personalised, highly relatable and outrage or community invoking sentiments.

That "flavour of characteristics" is what I call ambiguity. Your use of this word conflicts with the idea you expressed above, about using well defined words with less baggage. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your whole argument for less ambiguity is based on an impractical desire for words to be absolutely concrete and defined.

That's simply not how human languages work. This isn't binary code nor mathematics. Poetry isn't based on exacting definitions.

More so, no one uses the same words in the same personal context. They have nuanced differences in meaning for literally everyone. So my suggestion would be to accept that language is and always has been inherently flexible in meaning and definitions and instead just try to understand how another person uses the words rather than complaining about ambiguity.

We cannot ignore that some words are inherently more ambiguous than others and many of those ill defined terms reside in metaphysics.

Ambiguity is the product of 2 different people using a common language.

I can even reduce all this wordy response above to a simple, well defined rebuttal: Ambiguity exists. Get over it.

Btw, it is strawman, not strawperson. — Lionino

Did you just assume that straw persons gender??

This highlights the absurdity that can result from misrepresenting arguments and how it can lead to a situation where the original discussion is lost entirely. — Echogem222

Welcome to global politics.

information" in this case, so that the unintelligible is adequately hidden within what is proposed as intelligible, and it will appear like you are saying something intelligent. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not convinced this is the case for people that use seemingly ambiguous words. There is nuance and often careful selection in the language used to express an idea. And many time the popular terms are so heavily loaded with assumptions that people prefer to use newer or more alternative ones to approach the topic with less baggage.

For example: I often avoid the word God and use "entity" or "being" with X, Y or Z characteristics if im approaching a theological or cosmological discussion. So I don't end up in a death spiral debate about "fairy sky daddy" or "walking on water" or get instantly labelled as a theologist or an atheist due to my choice of language.

I use the term "information" myself because I think it is useful and has its own flavour of characteristics outside of just energy transfer or material arrangements.

Perhaps it's better to ask someone to clarify how they use a seemingly ambiguous term- because the ambiguity rarely comes from the user of the word. They usually know exactly how they're using it. Therefore ambiguity is more based on the interpreter which may not be sure what thr details of their definition are.

of course. I know this is not a knew thought in academic philosophy. However I think when "all limits are gone", all arguments fall so so short of what such a proposition would actually mean for us. Imagination is afterall, infinite in scope.

Yes, I think it's an idea worth entertaining that this universe we find ourselves in is a bubble, in a sea of other unique non interacting bubbles. — flannel jesus

It's very meta to be able to even imagine that.
Because in an existence where everything is possible - there would be universesor bubbles that never consider the multiverse theory in the first place. Those that do but don't have any interaction with other multiverses, and yet more that somehow find a way to interact with them or even transmigrate between them (like the film everything everywhere all at once).

To imagine an existence with pure potential for absolutely any form or variation, any possibility, is one where imagination is essentially someones, somewheres "reality". Ie anything you can imagine already exists in some alternate reality.

That lends itself to an interesting approach to imagination and fiction. Perhaps instead of being pure imagination and fiction, it is instead the ability of creatives and artists in our local universe to somehow perceive the realities of other universes. Every dream in this case would be a sort of out of body experience of another world. An impart of information about one of the other bubbles.

Perhaps each of us has a unique imagination- or access to any given number of multiverses

the different possibilities don't necessarily have to interact with each other, do they? — flannel jesus

Precisely what I'm saying. Really nice to get this concordance from another philosopher.

Perhaps they are - by virtue of being contradictory -isolated from one another, not influenced in any capacity by what is happening in the other reference frame.

That itself is a seismic thought because it means that we could be existing in a reality completely separate from 99.99999% of all possible realities. A bubble in its own path of "existence". Luckily for us it is one of ...well...who knows how many... where the opportunity to discuss this, to be aware, exists.

I really enjoy reading your posts. They're very broad and you've taken the time to ruminate over several possibilities that we - as interlocutors - have proposed. And further to combine them into a sort of affront - here is how you guys see it and here is how each of your views differs.

Just wanted to take this time to commend you style of contribution to the discussion. Its very refreshing and takes great skill, but most importantly its engaging.

Well, given that THIS universe is possible, then there must be at least some part of THAT universe which looks exactly like this one.

So... at least for a brief moment... such a universe would look like this. — flannel jesus

I agree. If everything must be possible. Then existence must include the current reality we experience.

Interestingly though, it must also include the possibilities of the physics and chemistry as we understand them, to remain constant for the duration of the universe, as well as the case where they do not.

Because both are seemingly contradictory, it lends itself to the multiverse theory.

The question then is, with separate alternate timelines of possibilities, what does it mean for such multiverses to "play out/occur" "simultaneously?"

Especially when for example, in an existence woth every possibility, time ought to run at all possible rates relative to one another. Ie multiverses that occur at the pace of a slug and ones that are over and done with in the blink of an eye. Maybe even universe states where nothing happens at all because time in this case doesn't run at all.

I think the inference I'm driving at is that to bite this bullet would be to say something impossible is also possible — AmadeusD

You haven't factored in the important influence of time. Is the passage of time, ie the "change" that occurs in the system not what divides "the possible" from "the impossible"?

Simple example: 500 years ago, were iPhones possible?

I agree that contradictions ought not occur "simultaneously" (that's the crux) ie that iphones could both exist and not exist in 2024 (the same time period).

In a similar way a manifest universe can never not be "said universe." But, because the possibility of a non-existant universe is fundamentally out of reach for those that already do exist, that isn't to say a state of non existence isn't achievable by the system. It would just mean that we could never use any existent proofs to prove the non existent state.

Just as we can't use imagination to imagine the unimaginable. Because it's circular. The outcome is contingent on the premise. Or as you said incoherent.

But I don't think incoherence is sufficient enough to determine what's possible when you take the system as a holistic whole.

It's like the proverb "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" No, it makes a vibration/air pressure wave, because "sound" is intractably linked to "an ear" (an observer/witness). Ie. The outcome (sound) is contingent on the premise (an observer).

In the same way, if a universe doesn't exist and no one is there to witness this, can it truly not exist? Again, I'm sure it can, but we as existent beings are outside of that particular set in the Venn diagram of possibilities.

Just because existent things cannot measure non existent states, doesn't mean they do not occur. Possibility must extend beyond our bias towards that which can be recorded/documented.

Enter Greek Mythology cause this is how many of them thought? Time is a Circle that repeats all things have happened all things will happen — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes indeed. It seems that there are a few options for the "everything possible universe" to exist.

Either A). The same universe continues to such a long duration that all things can occur within it eventually.
B) The same universe repeats as a cycle but each time fulfills a different possible path from beginning to end.
C). Multiple universes occur simultaneously branching from ever possible point of change

It seems to me that a universe where everything is possible entails a world with multiple, causally isolated sub-universes. So there wouldn't be a beginning nor end to this universe as a whole, nor would there be a "conclusion" to it. Every possibility is actuallized in one or more sub-universes. — Relativist

It would be possible in the "everything possible universe" that multiverses exist - perhaps as you said in order to achieve most of the possibilities without overt contradictions. After all, if everything is possible, then multiple universes must exist.

Of course one possibility is that no multiverses or alternate universes exist and this possibility must also be achieved. How this contradiction exists so that both opposing states can be manifest is Perhaps along some schrodinger cat type superposition.

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

I anticipated this comment. It is possible that we could exist in such a universe playing out every single possibility and "collapsing" from 'all possibilities' towards the final possibility (which may be the most defined or strict state).

Is the Universe not existing a possibility, in this universe? ;) — AmadeusD

I would say yes. As one state (perhaps the first state) in all possible configurations would be just the potential to 'be' rather than actually being (existing). Once such a state is achieved, all other possible states involve some form of existence.

If everything is possible, then one possibility is such - a lack of being manifest.

If the universe elaborated its need to make everything that could happen, happen serially rather than geographically or in a cascade, then each possible kind of reality might last anywhere from minutes to centuries.
17m — Vera Mont

That's what I was sort of thinking. Bizarre to think everything you know could simply turn on it's head over time to create a new reality. If nothing stays the same forever, the laws of physics and chemistry would merely be some sort of transient observation in the long journey of transformation.

If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would you not be typing these words when and where I am typing these words? If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would I not be reading these words when and where you are reading these words? — Truth Seeker

All this amounts to is "If I were you, would I be you?" Obviously. But stating that if initial conditions are identical outcomes are identical (determinism) only works in the hypothetical realm where time and space can be controlled as variables. That's why 2 genetically identical twins no matter how similar in behaviour and habits, will never be considered "one person in two places simultaneously". Even the slightest differences compound over time into deviating outcomes.

Given the fact that quantum decoherence occurs, how would quantum phenomena such as superposition, indeterminacy and entanglement have any effect on the macroscopic world? — Truth Seeker

It already does influence to macroscopic world: quantum computing, the electronic industry and new banking security systems. However if you want an older example of quantum influence than quantum biology is the place to go: Photosynthesis, magnetic navigation in animals and birds, olfaction, enzyme catalysis, many of which use either tunnelling or entanglement. Heres a reference:

https://www.azoquantum.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=281#:~:text=Photosynthesis%20is%20the%20most%20significant,is%20a%20quantum%20mechanical%20effect.&text=Quantum%20mechanics%20is%20thought%20to,at%20the%20micro%20and%20nanoscales.

So it would see that not everything is so determined as one might imagine. Quantum effects influence the macroscopic world.

So, how can we claim that we are culpable for our choices? — Truth Seeker

Even if reality was entirely deterministic, it's deterministic for everyone. So if someone breaks the law against another person that then suffers, and both were entirely predetermined acts, you can argue the punishment given and justice served as also entirely predetermined. If determinism applies to everyone than it applies to no one in the sense of culpability and what that means to most everyone.

How can quantum randomness remove determinants and constraints from the decision-making process in sentient organisms? — Truth Seeker

In a moment to moment capacity - quantum effects likely don't impact on decision making unless they are the basis of decision making. We still don't full understand the brain or consciousness. And quantum neuroscience is a new field.

But I think quantum effects likely make a predictive model deviate from actual events over longer periods of time and when larger magnitudes of variables are a contributing factor to the outcome.

Ah okay. Fair. Then where is the reaching the bottom in under 1 minute coming from? Surely even if halfing the time with every step, a minute will still eventually be exceeded somewhere along the infinite steps and before this so called "finite bottom" to an infinite staircase?!? Doesn't make sense mathematically either.

The most interesting thing I found about this is the unidirectional counting. You can count from 1 toward infinity but you can't begin counting from infinity toward 1.

He's accelerating exponentially along a linear trajectory (the infinite staircase). So he's approaching the speed of light. Hence relativity becomes an integral factor. One that hasn't been addressed in this "paradoxic" hypothetical.

Is this not a question of special relativity? It seems paradoxic until we apply physics.

create the fantasy of “first universal principles” to avoid our responsibility to look closer to see how we are ordinarily able to work things out, or work harder to become intelligible to each other, because we always can. — Antony Nickles

I'm not convinced that the desire for a universal principal is simply the result of us wanting to shirk our responsibility or culpability.

Is it a fantasy either? Who really knows. For me that's like saying the desire to understand gravity is a way for us to avoid the responsibility of looking closer at why we pushed Joanne over and made her fall to the ground.

, this does not mean the macroscopic world is like the quantum world. — Truth Seeker

"Like" the quantum world or "influenced" by the quantum world? The macroscopic world is for sure unlike quantum mechanics. But I would imagine the system of reality is holistic from the smallest (quantum) to the largest, interconnected and thus dependent on these behaviours.

If the macroscopic is hard deterministic and the quantum is not hard deterministic then there is some bizarre disconnect between them and I doubt that is the case. Quantum effects effect atoms which effect molecules which effects higher and higher order complexity and systems.

If you were thinking that evolution could occur analogously with some kind of "artificial environment." — Pantagruel

Well it would (if you set up a system of natural selection). But in an artificial environment that doesn't perfectly mirror nature itself, the outcome will not be the same as nature. That isn't to say the outcome wouldn't be desirable or useful/practical, it just wouldn't have occurred in a setting of a natural ecosystem.

It depends.

Genes are subject to mutations and epigenetics (switching on or off) - both of which are subject to environmental conditions. We understand that many environmental conditions are seemingly chaotic and unpredictable: for example - the weather forecast. Beyond around 10 days the variables compound exponentially rendering further accurate forecast useless conjecture.

Quantum physics is yet another realm in which certainty dissolves into a cloud of ultimately uncertain and merely probabilistic outcomes. Where even the act of measurement itself influences the measured.

The "butterfly effect" suggests that any slight change in initial circumstances alters the entire system eventually. If this is the case, then hard determinism can be cast out the window.

In that case, it is ultimately the agent who is culpable. Because chaos and uncertainty reigns Iver hard determinism.

I think we both would agree that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be omniculpable. I don't know if any omniscient and omnipotent being exists. If such a being existed, he or she should be sued for failing to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. — Truth Seeker

It's a neat thought, holding what essentially accounts for a "God" culpable for all existent misfortune. One of the popular reasons for atheists to opt for atheism.

However I do wonder where "free will" falls in this argument. My first tenet of culpability. True agency.

One would imagine if anyone is to truly have free will then such an omniscient omnipotent entity is simply rolling the dice of uncertainty and passively observing the outcome.

Given that such an entity did not directly have any input into the outcome in this sense (in order to allow for freedom for choice/free will) it seems counterintuitive to then hold them responsible.

The only way such an entity is responsible is if the system is fully deterministic - ie a direct result of said entities actions

So in essence "trial and error" + the "apology/ due humility -forgiveness" dichotomy is the human condition regarding the attainment of knowledge rather than the endeavour to find a first universal principal?

Also I'd like to take this time to commend you on your synesthesis of the various input of different interlocutors in the discussion. It's very refreshing to see a multitude of "in-discussion" references being made in a single post. Well done on that.

I'd kind of hoped that by asking the question, the absurdity of the idea would become apparent — Banno

Well I gave you an answer based within absurdity did I not? Something that is unapproachable, unknowable.

. 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. — Pantagruel

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.

I would like to posit that natural ecology operates in a similar way to humam economies.

1. It is competition based.
2. Resources are finite.
3. What drives these systems is success orientated.

Unsuccessful living things, like unsuccessful industries or companies are either absorbed (hybridised) or made extinct (dissolved), leaving the niche (or gap in the market) to be assumed by something more fit (entrepreneurial or innovative).

I have a personal tendency to parallel phenomena rather than make them distinct as I believe the reality we live in is ultimately reiterative - governed by the same basic permeating laws.

Interesting thought. I would think that there is a sort of evolutionistic survival of the fittest going on in our brains, at the level of different neural nets encoding different competing paradigms with which to model reality. — wonderer1

100%. It's been studied that neurons that are out-competed or in other words become "redundant" -suffer a lack of growth factor reception -ie a messenger chemical that promotes their survival and connectivity. They thus basically shrivel up and die due to inattention. This seems very similar to natural selection based on selective nourishment and competition. It is the basis of "neural pruning" - a healthy process of neurological development that occurs at a young age, and has been implicated on the onset of dementia in the elderly.

Curious indeed.

So it seems neurons survive in much the same way groups of living beings do in an ever changing environment. "If you're 'useful' or 'fit' you shall be kept."

That begs the question; knowing AI has been subjected to a similar natural selection process in the formation of their neural network, could AI indeed be approaching consciousness as we compound and condense their networks into a format that is most 'fit' to adapt (ie be intelligent or i dare say "aware") toward its environment.

I think the one who is morally culpable is the one with "awareness".

Awareness can be broken down into the following tenets:
1). Agency - the power to exert independent or autonomous choice/ free will through action.

2). Knowledge - the ability to understand both themselves and the world around them.

3). Empathy - the trust/faith (without proof) that they are not the only awareness that exists. An anti-solipsist acknowledgement of the existence of "multiple identical agents" - ie others that can experience the same sensations: suffering and joy as the self can.

Following these tenets we can exclude certain groups from culpability:

1. "The inanimate" are not culpable - a gun is not culpable for a homicide.

2. "The deluded or ignorant" are not culpable (they dont understand what they're doing even if they have good intentions). Example - the clinically insane, those with severe mental illness or who have been heavily indoctrinated with propaganda.

3. Psychopaths, uber-narcissists and perhaps AI - if one is incapable genetically or otherwsie, of being able to "walk in the shoes of another" or relate to another awareness as equals, then they are not culpable for selfish acts nor their consequences.

There is considerable overlap between the three tenets. They're difficult to separate.

For example if AI is intelligent but possesses no agency of its own, then questioning its empathy is irrelevant.

Similarly, one can argue a psychopath lacks certain knowledge of others experience, and so discussing empathy could be regarded as irrelevant.

In the end due to the difficulty in distinctly separating the tenets, I reduce them to one simple and all encompassing definition - "awareness."

By that definition I determine who is morally culpable for the results of their individual experience of reality.

Computer code is a bunch of symbols, recall. Could a bunch of symbols become consciously alive? — jkop

Are biologically active molecules not in some ways also "symbols" ie structures which "say" something - exert a particular defined or prescribed effect.

For example: Adrenaline = "panic" in some sense, or "prepare to fight or run". In a way this is the language in biology.

ATP = "currency/power". Dopamine = reward. Testosterone and estrogen = "attract" or "mate/reproduce". In effect these molecules - like the code of a computer - are basic instructions or commands that interact in complex functions and hierarchies.

Symbology is our way of understanding nature. The intrinsic or applied meaning of phenomena and objects.

At its very basic, I believe consciousness is an act of symbols internalisation, manipulation/integration and manufacture. In this case, is it as far fetched to consider that perhaps the nature of a reasonably logic sentient being (humans) is to inadvertently externalism our own essence the creative and innovative acts we accomplish (in this case AI)..

Perhaps one does not require an understanding of consciousness to imbue it into the animate. We are after all, taking simple tools and combining them in every more sophisticated ways until they're so holistic they seem to have autonomous intelligence.

Could we per chance be at a point where our knowledge of nature's laws are advanced enough that we are simulating evolution. If so I don't think it's impossible to get a similar outcome from such processes -namely sentience.