But only seeing Mona Lisa's naked face with my naked eyes will have given me any access go her face which is real. — ENOAH

Even when you look at the naked face of Mona Lisa with your very own eyes, all you get is a representation in your mind. A mental picture, a painting in the mind is all you will have of her. It remains as you said earlier, an idea, and you still won't have her like you want to have her. The only difference you would have with a personal meeting with Mona Lisa is that you will have additional information about her voice, her personality, how she walks, etc.. And sure it will just make the painting in your head of her more accurate.

I too think we agree sufficiently enough.

you and I are not getting at the substance of the universe — ENOAH

It's quite easy in most cases to determine the substance of an emergent layer of reality. For example, the substance of a cell is the molecule. Molecules operate in the molecular realm, a reality with its own set of rules that are distinct from, yet contingent upon, those of the atomic realm. Molecular organization and intelligence inherit all the logic of the atomic realm, with additional modifications dependent on the novel forms produced at that level.

Form determines function, and function, in turn, influences form. This process can continue indefinitely, producing new forms that generate more new functions. Each consecutive layer has more complexity, which allows for greater and more versatile intelligence and possibilities.

These substances are easy for us to detect with our current level of technological development. However, the layers below the atomic, and more specifically below the quantum layer, are much murkier, making it difficult to determine those substances. Ultimately, there is only one fundamental substance and one quality with the potential for infinite creativity and complexity.

The cell stands on the substance we call molecules, the molecule stands on the substance we call atoms, etc.

just playing with ideas about it; if one is skillful, the ideas function and we believe them to be reality; but they were structured by ideas, and remain ideas. — ENOAH

I never expected my or anyone's understanding of anything to be more or less than an idea. What were you expecting 'understanding' to be? Some sort of material object? All we have are ideas, perceptions, and experiences, and one should not think to understand something by defining it as "what it is" except to define it as "what it does" and whether it works in our favor.

A bad idea is simply a bad function, while a good idea is a good function. Remember that the point of intelligence and understanding is to have a framework for prediction. An organism's ability to accurately predict a future state from a known past or present state is the most useful trait for effective survival.

Have you considered that all of understanding is actually constructing, and that there is no end to make-beleve? I'm not denying the functional success, what we'd point to as accuracy, even empirical certainty in some of our more daring constructions. But at the end of the day there is no understanding the universe. We are only constructing a [model of the] universe. — ENOAH

Yes, but not only is all understanding 'constructing', but any reality (real or false) is also a construction. Every reality is constructed, and thus to understand reality, one must first deconstruct it and then reconstruct it (a reductive/constructive process, or 'solve et coagula'). In the process, one's understanding emerges by virtue of using the same method that nature herself uses to create. What does it mean to understand the substance and structure of a reality? My answer is: to know the organization of substance, its contingencies, and its effects. Substance is the foundation upon which one stands, and to know that is to understand.

Indeed, our constructed models of the universe or its components are still presently imperfect, or somehow inadequate. They used to be less accurate or even completely wrong when it came to predictive results, but they have only improved since the whole enterprise began. The more accurate a model is, the more it demonstrates our understanding, and conversely the less accurate it is, the less we understand. Prediction serves as the litmus test, for if it were not this, what would our models be good for? What else can understanding be?

The only way to access infinity is all at once, as if by holding it in the palm of your hands. You cannot do that by the slow and arduous process of building a comprehensive understanding. — ENOAH

Through a slow and arduous process, a meta-understanding begins to form, eventually resolving into one singular overarching pattern repeated at all scales. The universe is made of patterns within patterns, much like a fractal. To understand infinity or eternity, it is not necessary to examine, for example, every number in the number line sequentially until infinity; all one needs to know is the simple concept of 0+1=x, and x+1=2, etc. Understanding or knowing this alone is sufficient to allow one to comprehend infinity at once in one singular and finite thought.

The easier part, in my opinion, is understanding the big patterns (they seem to pop out), but more difficult still is understanding the smaller patterns that change and mutate by varying rules that themselves also mutate at different emergent layers of reality.

If i or you sire a child, i can tell you with high probability that it will either be a human boy or a girl (not something else), and it will have a head, two arms, and two legs. These are general patterns in our DNA, but the little differences in the patterns are harder to predict, though not impossible in principle. All operating under one principle, one function that becomes mutable within higher levels of complexity or emergence.

You can only do that by being that organic particular of the whole universe, like each cell carries the genome. — ENOAH

Both you and i are already that. We contain within us fundamental particles, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems. We are embedded in a geological and planetary environment orbiting a star, and we are all part of a society that belongs to a global civilization. We have it all inside us, like a treasure trove of nature's wisdom. We have a mind inside a brain that, up to this moment in the 'big history' of the universe, is the pinnacle of nature's work. This is a great work of which you, i, everyone, and everything is an integral part, whether we know it yet or not.

But of course that's just what i think. If you think you have a better way then by all means... place your bets.

If God does not exist, then it is false that if I pray, then my prayers will be answered. So I do not pray. Therefore God exists. — Banno

If God exists, then it is true that if I pray, then my prayers will not be answered. So I pray. Therefore God does not exist. :chin:

"big history" is a great enemy for the Libertarians among us hahaha. — AmadeusD

What do you mean, or why? Just curious."

Disregard the question, i understand now. Perplexity explained it to me.

"big history" is a great enemy for the Libertarians among us hahaha. — AmadeusD

What do you mean, or why? Just curious.

I'll certainly take a look at the links you provided. Thank you.
It's 3:40 am here right now, i've made my bed and will now lay in it.
Good night for now.

I'm sure you know this already but..

The problem is with words and language. Some ideas are pretty concrete and can be readily understood, yet not always. Other ideas are very abstract, and not everyone possesses the appropriate mental modalities for certain types of thinking. Everyone has some sort of ratio of these, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nothingness or 'objective time' are the ultimate abstract ideas, i think, and therein lies the problem. Also, the same words mean different things to different people, and it's so rare to find someone that has the same internal dictionary and modality ratios as yourself. But i still believe that the Tao that cannot be told can still be told. It's just very tricky to structure your language code to match what's in the other person's language code.

All human communication is highly partial and is never complete in its transmission. Mathematics, logic, and even algorithmic languages such as programming languages are much better. Visualizations and even certain physical and mental experiences can provide affordances for new understanding. Rarely can a person understand something they do not recognize in their own experience. It's like explaining color to a blind person, or a blind person explaining nothingness (blindness) to a sighted person.

"If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed" - William Blake

:wink: :up:

Isn't it impossible to build any knowledge (or understanding) of anything from 'scratch'? By which it is understood from no basis of knowing (or believing) anything else at all. — kazan

The phrase "from scratch" refers to creating something from the very beginning, using basic or raw materials, rather than relying on pre-made components or shortcuts. It implies a process that starts with nothing and builds up to the final product. The raw materials are the fundamental principles that would need to exist first so as to provide contingency for anything more complex.

For example, in an absolute emptiness with no time (objective or relative), it would be impossible for events to occur, even in an abstract sense, since no physicality would yet exist. This version of 'scratch' is nonviable, so what is the first ingredient necessary for the first and simplest thing to occur? That first ingredient must be objective time from which emerges possibility. Now the question is what can occur, and what is the nature of that event? It must logically emerge from objective time since that is all you have in the universe at the moment. Can something emerge from this kind of time? If yes, then how; if not, then what other fundamental principle ingredient is missing? What kind of quality must this principle have, and how does it work with objective time to produce an emergence? And so on.

You don't actually literally forget everything; you just don't use it. It is there for when you need to solve the next step, but you must have a logical reason for the piece or 'ingredient' you use, and it must be supported by what you have already built. There also needs to be an initial phase of reductionism before this method in order to have available to you the fundamental ideas you will be using. Think about dismantling a clock and putting it back together in the right order so that the clock works when you're finished rebuilding it.

There is a quote by Richard Feynman: "What I cannot create, I do not understand."

With reflection,a bit logically,rationally and absolutistically illogical, irrational and too all encompassing, don't you think? — kazan

No, not necessarily, but i can understand why some people might. It's an old story really; of ridicule, violent opposition, and then acceptance. Look into the history of the number zero, and how people reacted to that concept throughout different civilizations when first introduced to it.

And may not help bring waivering audiences over to your thinking in regards the OP. If that is your intention? — kazan

My intention is to simply share my thoughts and understandings. If it helps anyone, then great, if not then no big deal. Opposition is actually expected even if one is right, or wrong. :smile:

is great, that I'm not the only one who realized this. — Echogem222

The sentiment is mutual.

I came to this conclusion through simple imagination and logic. In my mind's eye, i placed myself at the center of absolute emptiness and asked, "Now what? What is possible, and why would it be possible?" Little by little, piece by piece, i constructed the necessary parts in the right order to conceptually build the universe we experience today.

This approach is similar to Einstein's thought experiments. It helps to know a lot, about a lot of things, but i don't think you really need to know that much. What's crucial is knowing yourself sufficiently and observing your thoughts in a rigorously logical manner, without skipping any necessary steps as you move up the "ladder" of understanding. Everything must have its contingency in place before it emerges.

One of my main methods for understanding something is to actually forget everything i think i know and begin from scratch, building knowledge logically and rationally from zero upwards.

"Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and the gods." - Inscription at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi

I totally agree, i've tried to describe this concept of time before, but with little success. Perhaps you can do better than i have. :up:

I believe i know what you're talking about because it appears almost, if not precisely, isomorphic with my concept of primordial time or what i sometimes call "0th order time". Briefly, in my "theory" or hypothesis, there is, as you call it, an objective time, with 0 entropy, or in other words, "arrowless time". On top of this objective time emerges relative time (1st order time), and it's characterized by its entropy rising above 0, from which emerges the "arrow of time". The relative sense of time is due to relationships between objects, things, but more fundamentally, information. This information can travel in space at a set speed determined by objective time. The relationship between an observer, the object being observed, and the speed of light (maximum speed of information propagation, or causation) produces the apparent relative temporal effects on observers. The temporal effects are really effects of the differences between when one observer receives the information and another.

It's interesting to think about how if you found yourself in an infinite empty space by yourself. If you were to now try to move at some constant speed, you would not see anything change (not getting closer to or farther from anything). It would feel like a timeless (objective time) space where nothing could happen no matter how much effort was made. Now, if there were two people in this infinite space, and one of them were to move at a constant speed, a sense of time (relative time) emerges. You will also notice that in this relative situation, there is only 1 dimension. No matter what direction you choose to move in, the relative effect is that you either move closer to or farther from the other person. If you add a third person and move in some arbitrary direction, you will notice the emergence of angular differences in relation to the others. But here, the 3 people exist in 2 dimensions. For any one observer of the three, the other two appear to be on a 2-dimensional plane. My point here is to illustrate the relationship of time and space.

None of this negates anything in Einstein's theories. Einstein's theory is not a theory of objective time; it is a theory of relative time, thus the name "relativity". It's a theory about how we experience time, which is a very useful and indispensable thing.

The solution I have in mind, and one that I am currently writing at "tic tac toe" level, is that halfway the neural net I will have an abstraction layer with a smaller number of nodes. Then there is a decision algorithm that is fully governed by other neural nets that decides whether the information continues the normal route or goes to another module. — Carlo Roosen

Before using a bottleneck abstraction layer, you should probably develop some kind of function or algorithm that determines the maximum number of features in a piece of input information in order to avoid incurring some degree of information loss. This "max_features" function could set the number of nodes in the abstraction layer. If there are too few nodes at this layer, the network loses the ability to consider or transfer to other nodes or modules potentially essential features. The decision algorithm might not have enough feature data to make an optimal decision and becomes prone to underfitting. Too many nodes will make it too computationally inefficient and could potentially cause overfitting as well.

I wonder if information flowing through a divergent neural network with more nodes per consecutive layer can extract the maximum number of features. Every layer would contain 1 or 2 more nodes than the prior one. As the information runs through this expanding network, the information is stretched, so to speak, separating entangled features. The process reminds me of what happens in a light prism. As the light passes through the prism, the light detangles and spreads apart the features of the light (colors). Metaphorically, if you took one of these colors and put it through another prism and no more colors or features are separated, then it's a fundamental feature or color. The expanding network would geometrically resemble a prism as well with its triangular topology or shape.

I don't know, perhaps you've already thought of this.

Sometimes when i encounter issues like this, i "reboot" the session. I start a new thread in order to clear any data it has in its context window (chat session history). Every prompt you give it skews the token probabilities for all subsequent consecutive prompts. Sometimes a piece of data in the context window can persistently muck up your results.

Usually, when i notice this happening early on, i just delete the last prompt/response up to where it started having the issue, just to clear those pieces from the context window. Then i continue prompting from there and repeat the process if it happens again.

Full disclosure: I don't usually use AI image generators much, except in rare and specific cases. I rarely get the results i was hoping for.

Yeah, these things are not "perfect" yet; remember, they're still babies. But they grow up so quickly! You should say, "This is amazing! I can see you have a great imagination. I love how you used those colors! They really stand out!" Then, promptly hang it on your refrigerator. :joke:

But really, i've heard that even professionals who use AI image generators have to go through many iterations until the AI gets it just right, or right enough. Most of these models have a parameter or method of introducing randomness into the process to enhance creativity, but at the cost of accuracy. LLMs have a "temperature" parameter that serves this purpose.

Also, companies that develop these models tend to lobotomize them in the name of content moderation and safety, which some might characterize as censorship. This incurs knock-on effects on unrelated material; in other words, it makes them dumber than they would be otherwise.

You can try asking a text-based AI to optimize your image prompt. Explain the problem you're experiencing with the image results and request that it optimize your prompt to mitigate the issue.

I copied and pasted your original prompt into Google Gemini and i got this:
https://g.co/gemini/share/dedbccddd2a3

What trajectory? The one where we’ll keep on understanding the universe better and better? Sure, I agree, our knowledge will most likely keep on extending. But that doesn’t mean we’ll able to reach perfect knowledge. — Skalidris

We are still an imperfect species, and our knowledge of things will remain imperfect for that reason. I never said that we would reach a state of perfect knowledge, just that knowledge would increase. So I do agree with you in this respect, but even so, we do not need perfect knowledge (whatever that means). I don't really think in terms of perfection, just progress, and if this progress somehow ends in perfection in the far far future then so be it. Perfection means to 'do completely', and so humanity along with the universe itself is still in an incomplete state, evolving, aiming imperfectly for perfection.

the fact that water boils at a 100 degrees is not a certainty: it’s not 100.0000000 degrees, the decimals are uncertain, also, it’s impossible to make perfect assessment of the conditions in the environment studied (pressure,…), there are uncertainties on every measure we take. — Skalidris

Yes, measurements are not perfect, but consider a marksman shooting at a target from a great distance. If the marksman hits the bullseye could that be called a perfect shot. Practically it is. Does the bullet need to hit the exact atomic center of the bullseye for it to be considered perfect? Who cares, the result is the same.

Why would it not exist if it doesn’t follow the same fundamental logic?
Is it 100% because of the trajectory? Because that’s not mathematically true, as I explained with the log curve, there can be a limit, even if our knowledge keeps on increasing. — Skalidris

There is one logic, but with two sides: an "active" one and a "passive" one. The human perspective of logic is "passive" in the sense that we use it to predict some future state from a present or past state, and it's the only way anything can be known or understood by us. From the perspective of the universe itself, logic is "active," and it determines what happens and what cannot happen in the universe. The task of human intelligence (or intelligence in general) is to match the right mental logical structure to the actual one in reality. Our inability to understand certain things or to know them completely is a symptom of our imperfect use of logic. People do not use logic correctly or consistently, and this is the source of our uncertainty.

We may not be capable of making perfect measurements, but i do believe in principle that we can be capable of using perfect logic if and when we learn how to use it correctly and consistently. Incidentally i don't think humans will reach this apex understanding of applied logic because of our current nascent state, but we are an integral part of that journey. A child cannot fathom what he will understand as an adult, and in the same way, humanity cannot fathom now what it will understand in the future. Mankind, in my view, is just a stepping stone to a higher form of intelligence. AI is the next step in that trajectory, and it will use a "more perfect" logic than we do without the excessive bias, and emotionalism that we value so much as humans.

It aims to follow the “logic” of the universe through trials and errors (evolution), huge difference.
Evolution is far from perfect, and just because concepts in our mind were “kept” because they allowed for an understanding of our environment and gave us an advantage for survival doesn’t mean they are the best tools we could have. — Skalidris

If evolution were "perfect," then we would not even have a universe. The reason the universe exists in the first place is because the perfect symmetry from which it came broke, and we live in that broken symmetry. Everything evolution does is aimed at restoring that perfection of symmetry, and humans are part and parcel of that aim, whether we know it or not. Evolution itself evolves, and when it started, it was blind and dumb, trying everything. Every time it hit on some partial solution, it held on to it as information instantiated in some form of matter and energy configuration (such as in DNA). As evolution itself evolves, it forms senses with which it can see and knowledge (information) it can apply to further its great work.

it seems ridiculous to assume that we could predict such huge things that are happening far from our bubble when we “got created” through evolution from what was happening inside the bubble. — Skalidris

How are we able to track the stars, and planets in the sky? How are we able to predict the trajectories, and processes that happen inside certain celestial bodies with varying degrees of certainty. We are even able to see the future state of the Andromeda galaxy intersecting our own billions of years in the future. We can detect and ascertain the direction of "dark flow" in the universe where entire galactic clusters are moving away from a "great repeller", and towards a "great attractor". We have just begun to understand things, but we are not done yet. It is a work in progress. These things are way outside our apparent environmental bubble, and yet..

the basic tools these species would have would most likely be drastically different from each other (like we would use our logic, tiny humans would use some type of quantum logic, etc), which would make communication impossible… — Skalidris

I believe there is only one logic (Logos). There is no little logic or big logic; it's all the same logic. "Active" universal logic is consistent, just as the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. Yes, even inside a black hole where it is thought that the laws of physics break down. It doesn't, it's simply a different logical structure in that case and is so in other cases as well. Consider, for example, the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that a fermionic particle cannot occupy the same state as another particle. The simple logic of this principle is "one particle OR the other in one state." Particles that can occupy the same state, such as bosons, can share a state with another particle. The simple logic of this is "one particle AND the other in one state." Mathematics is also a universal language that any sufficiently intelligent species would understand and be able to use to communicate with any other species that understands the language of logic and mathematics.

People often seem to think that even if the human mind is limited, the tools we can create with it (AI for example) can overcome any limitations if we have enough time. And therefore they reach the conclusion that we could understand the whole universe. — Skalidris

I have come to this conclusion: in principle, the whole of the universe can be understood to an almost god-like degree. Mankind, now in its present stage of evolution, is not yet capable of this feat. It is evident that we have capacities today that we did not have in the past, and we will have capacities in the future that we do not have today.

Imagine that we manage to put two fundamental particles in an isolated system we know everything about, and that we're sure nothing else influences the system, would it be possible that we still could not predict their behavior? — Skalidris

I think we would be able to predict the behavior.

We would have all the data we need, but it just wouldn't make sense to us, it would appear random. — Skalidris

I do not believe in true randomness. What we call random is simply a reference to what we do not know or understand. It is our lack of knowledge or understanding of some element or aspect of a system that makes it appear random to us. If we had all the necessary data, any apparent randomness in the system would resolve into a pattern.

However we try to twist our notion of space, time, etc, even when we try it with math and AI, it still wouldn't be enough to predict the behavior of the particles with 100% certainty. — Skalidris

Why not? Is it because we are constantly told about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and that randomness is inherent in the universe? If one believes in true randomness, then one can't believe in a truly logical universe. And if one doesn't believe in a logical universe, then there is really nothing to say about anything, for no stable standard of understanding would be possible.

For example, logic connectors like "and" cannot be broken down into something else. We could build an alternative version of "and" that also includes an "or" possibility like with the states of particles in quantum physics, but even that new notion is built with our building blocks "and" and "or". There's no escaping it, we can't imagine a logic that's made without these notions. — Skalidris

Yes exactly. This is why logic is the most fundamental thing we know, more fundamental then even quantum mechanics and mathematics. Nothing can make sense without logic.

But what's the probability that these notions that were developed through evolution are a good match for the understanding of the whole universe? They're a good adaptation to understand the environment on earth that we have access to, but that's just a tiny fraction of the universe, so what are the odds that these structures in our brain would happen to be a good tool to understand a completely different environment? — Skalidris

Well, it is apparent to me that we have already begun to understand our universe with the brains we currently have now, and i don't see any reason why this trajectory will not continue. Every tiny fraction of the universe partakes from the same fundamental logic that everything else does or it doesn't exist. I would say that the probability is 100%.

I think it's arrogant for humans to think that somehow, the universe follows the same logic as the logic in our mind. — Skalidris

It's not arrogant because it's the other way around. It is our minds that follow the logic of the universe.

And I also find it ridiculous that people think anything can happen thanks to AI, that whatever we can't build, AI can with enough time, as if it was magical. — Skalidris

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

In the end it's all about combinaisons: AI can make combinations of things, but it cannot invent something that isn't a combination of the data it gathered. It's like with our imagination, we can't invent something totally new that isn't a combination of known things. — Skalidris

How is the universe or evolution any different in this regard? AI, like our imagination, works by combining existing data in new ways. This is similar to how the universe and evolution operate, creating new things from combinations of pre-existing elements.

Nirvana - Something In The Way (Audio)


Nirvana - Where Did You Sleep Last Night (In The Pines) HQ

Some of my thoughts on existence:

A thing comes into existence from non-existence at a certain point in time and returns to non-existence at another future point in time. This non-existent state is not a state of nothingness but a state of perfect symmetry. When this symmetry is broken, the effect is the manifestation of spatial dimensions and things in those dimensions in the form of fundamental particles. Each particle represents a quantum of imbalance (imbalance meaning separation from 0, or broken symmetry) in the universe. The measure of broken symmetry determines its rest energy. This rest energy is what allows for the persistence of its existence, and when this rest energy is resolved by the restoration of its broken symmetry through fusion with its antiparticle, existence for both particles ceases.

It's interesting to note that virtual particles are considered to not be real because they last such a short time, and so it appears that for a virtual particle to become real, it must persist longer than 1 or 2 Planck moments. One Planck moment for the manifestation of two particle pairs and one Planck moment later for annihilation. Such a short existence precludes it from effectively interacting with anything else, except sometimes they do and get to become real particles for arbitrarily longer amounts of time.

The long-term effect of these lingering real particles is that they increase the chance (skewed probabilities) of other virtual particles becoming real more and more. The result is the first semi-stable reality composed of existent fundamental particles. Emergent forms of existence continue on from this point forward with an established arrow of time.

Some interesting questions to think about:
What exists such that it allows for the potential or possibility of existence or existing things?
Does it make sense to state that the ground of existence itself exists?
Is there an even more fundamental concept than existence?
What are the requirements for existence to be possible?
Is existence its own requirement; does the ground of existence stand on its own ground?

That may be so, or it may not be so. How are we to assess the likelihood of either one or the other being the case? Better, I think, to admit our ignorance in such matters. — Janus

I'm happy to admit my ignorance, but it is my ignorance that compels me to know. I don't give up so easily. One thing i do know just for myself is that there is always in principle a way to know what is currently unknown. Sometimes things seem too hard and insurmountable, or even impossible until one strikes upon the right idea that sets up the right perspective to see clearly enough for at least a potential solution. This is how knowledge evolves.

I mean that it seems unjustifiable to apply what seems obvious to us from within our temporally conditioned perspectives to what we imagine might lie altogether outside of temporality. — Janus

Maybe you are right, but it seems to me to be at least the first justifiable step, even if what seems obvious turns out to be wrong. But my whole point is that there is no such thing as non-temporality, either before or after the Big Bang.

Anyway, i hope to one day tell it like it is before my time runs out. :smile:

Well. sorry, I'm not getting it at all. — Janus

That's ok... i'm kinda used to it anyway. You don't have to keep trying if you don't want. I appreciate the effort.

I agree that you can't know you made it happen. But you can't know you didn't make it happen either. I don't have a problem with the idea of measurement (understood as being any kind of macro event) causing the collapse of the wave function. — Janus

I suspect that the collapse of the wave function is not a real and actual thing that happens in the world, instead it is a phenomena of the mind when knowledge or some form of data is acquired such as a measurement. The probabilistic nature of QM is not an aspect of QM, but an aspect of our state of ignorance and uncertainty. While we do not know something it remains a probabilistic outcome from a subjective perspective, and of course when one then takes a measurement, the uncertainty is resolved and thus it is said "the wave function has collapsed".

The point is that you are trying to understand something from an intuitive temporal perspective that seems obvious to you, but that doesn't belong to that perspective, and is thus not coherent in terms of that perspective. — Janus

Interesting, can you elaborate a little further on this issue of differential perspectives? What do you mean by doesn't belong to "that perspective"?

How can the stick "remain" if there is no time? — Janus

Time in this context of the stick analogy is just the joint itself. The rest of the stick can be thought of as space. The stick when it is unbent at the joint represents the undifferentiated universe, and when bent represents differentiation. The analogy of course like all other analogies break down at some point. Its just a device to explain one aspect of what i'm trying to explain.

Do you mean it is not the measurement which allows for the movement? How do you know this. One interpretation of QM would have it otherwise. Which is not to say that it is only we that measure. — Janus

I do not believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Things have to happen first, and then measured to be coherent. Why is it that we do not know the result of a measurement until the measurement is taken? Measurements are not decided upon arbitrarily prior to the event. If i think the cat is dead in the box does that mean when i open the box it will be dead? I can only know after the fact, not that i made it happen.

In that scenario time and change would not have begun. You seem to be still thinking in terms of there being something temporally prior to time, which would be a contradiction in terms. — Janus

So if time and change would not have never begun, then how does anything begin? Yes, i am thinking in terms of there being something temporally prior to the ARROW of time, which is not a contradiction in terms, but in fact two different terms.

I wish i could find another word for this concept apart from the word "time" that wouldn't cause so much confusion. Sometimes i hate human language... so limited.

t might "feel" coherent to you, but I bet you cannot give a coherent explanation of what it means. — Janus

Even ordinary time is not so easy to explain, but I don't think that helps your case. Is time just change, or is time a kind of "medium" in which change occurs? — Janus

Yes, this concept of time is like a medium in which change can occur. An analogy would be something like a stick with a joint. A joint like time allows for movement, and without it the stick remains unchanged. So it is the fundamental feature of this or any other universe.

Even ordinary time is not so easy to explain — Janus

The concept of 'ordinary time' is thought of as just a measurement of change, which is not the same thing. I can measure how much my stick with a joint moves, but it's not what allows for the movement itself. It is the same difference between gravity and weight, where weight is the measurement of gravity, not gravity itself. This ordinary time is also thought of as having an arrow which has to do with the spreading of entropy. Absolute time has no arrow because it is conceived of existing by itself without space or matter.

Let me ask this question again:
If time is change, and there were no time (no change), then what could possibly change for things to begin changing?

Yes, the potential raw intelligence is there at the beginning like a seed, but it must unfold in order to actualize its potential. The same intelligence is operating at the atomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, etc.

The only thing I'm saying is that this intelligence builds its own ladder and then climbs it rung by rung. At each level, new forms of logic become possible by virtue of the 'parts' and structures it produced in the prior emergence, like car parts. Once the general parts are there, then cars can be created, which gives rise to gas stations and freeways, which wouldn't make logical sense without the cars. It appears to me that we fundamentally agree except perhaps for a few details.

But we equally cannot find the idea of an infinite quantity of time coherent. Where do you think that leaves us? — Janus

It seems coherent to me. The alternative is what seems incoherent to me, like i explained.

I have no idea what "absolute time" could mean. — Janus

First let me ask you what you think time is, just regular time as you understand it?

The point is that it happened, and so we know after the fact that it was inevitable. — punos


That simply does not follow. — Janus

But apparently it did follow... literally.

For the rest I have no idea what you are trying to say. — Janus

Please be more specific if you can. Is it my concept of absolute time?

I understand 'eternity' to mean 'non-temporality' not "an infinitely great amount of time' because I think the latter idea makes no sense. — Janus

For me, it is the opposite. It makes no sense to not have time and then all of a sudden for no reason time appears like magic. If time is change, and there were no time, then what changed for things to begin changing? Funny question isn't it. That is why everything exists inside time, never outside it (as that makes no sense). Existence cannot come from a state of absolute nothingness. In my view, time (absolute time, and the logic it contains) is the only thing that is not a thing, and is the source of things coming into being. Everything begins and ends except for time, and thus time is not a thing, and has always been, and will always be.

Was the evolution of atoms inevitable? How could we know? — Janus

Knowing if it's inevitable from a point in time before it happens may or may not be difficult to ascertain, depending on one's level of knowledge of the matrix of interactions between fundamental particles. The point is that it happened, and so we know after the fact that it was inevitable.

The point i was trying to get at with the question is the concept of absolute time (time with no arrow), and the logic of this 'time', which is, in essence, continuity, presistence and change (the cause of change, not its measurement), even before our universe, or we would not exist. Everything happens in due time.

If nature were completely deterministic then your argument might in part follow, since on that assumption, given initial conditions (the Big Bang) intelligence would have inevitably evolved. But even then it does not follow that it was "there all along" only that it was there as a necessary eventuality. — Janus

I believe that nature, this universe, is fully deterministic, and it is precisely that deterministic nature that is an expression of its inherent intelligence. Chaos theory implies that even chaos has a logic, an order. We call what we don't understand random or non-deterministic because WE can't determine its reason. Nothing happens for no reason at all, and in that reason lies the intelligence many of us can't recognize. For there to be a potential for an eventuality, there must be something prior that enables eventualities to occur. What would you say this is, if anything?

Your view is that intelligence evolves with the progress of the universe. My belief is that intelligence from inception has no such ceilings. — kindred

If this is so, then why, for example, does the universe need to establish atomic organization prior to the emergence of molecular organization (or intelligence)? Why didn't the universe make molecules first and then the atoms? Can it make molecules first, then atoms? What is the reason for this order of emergence in your view?

Yet, like you i believe that there is no real limit to the levels of intelligence that can emerge or be reached in the universe, except given enough time and evolutionary development as i already stated. Complex logical structures (facilitated by matter) are as potentially infinite as numbers are potentially infinite.

I agree with your assertion that intelligence predates the Big Bang. This premise seems necessary, as without it, the occurrence of a Big Bang (especially one that leads to the intricate complexity we observe in our universe) would be impossible.

The key point i'd emphasize is that this primordial intelligence represents the most fundamental form of intelligence possible. It may possess consciousness without self-awareness, or perhaps lack consciousness entirely. However, this distinction doesn't diminish its ultimate potential.

To elaborate further, this rudimentary intelligence evolves and becomes more sophisticated through the process of emergence and complexification. Each new level of emergence represents a higher order of intelligence. The progression can be observed across various scales as follows:

1. Quantum intelligence
2. Atomic intelligence
3. Stellar intelligence
4. Molecular intelligence
5. Cellular intelligence
6. Social intelligence
7. Technological intelligence
8. And beyond

These stages represent emergent levels of intelligence, with each subsequent level demonstrating greater capabilities than its predecessor. This hierarchical development illustrates the ongoing evolution and complexification of intelligence throughout the cosmos.

While we are all individually insignificant, collectively we are not. — punos

In what perspective? — Vera Mont

From the perspective of evolution, the cosmos, and deep time.

Yup, that's it. I think evolution on Earth was doing just fine, right up until this anomalous ape with an overactive imagination and hyper-ego . — Vera Mont

What do you think is the nature of this anomaly? Are anomalies natural or unnatural? Is it possible that such an anomaly can confer some kind of survival advantage in the long term even though in the short term it appears destructive and perhaps pointless? Is the purely human perspective the appropriate perspective to examine such an anomaly or anomalies?

This ultimate stage of evolution removes those constraints and liberates us from primitive drives. — punos

It hasn't yet. And the primitive drives are not the worst problem; the worst problem is calculated, intelligent, sophisticated evil. — Vera Mont

It hasn't happened yet because it's still a work in progress and remains incomplete. The calculated, intelligent, and sophisticated evils we see are the result of combining primitive drives with modern capabilities.

I don't see purpose in evolution. Purpose would require a will with intelligence behind it - a god. — Vera Mont

You don't need a god with a complex intelligence or intentions for a purpose to develop. Purpose evolves over time at a local level as a system becomes more complex. Initially, it appears random or chaotic but eventually, it becomes purposeful. This kind of teleonomic purpose can emerge through the blind interaction of system components until they reach a feedback equilibrium state, at which point the system exhibits purposeful behavior. At the most fundamental level, the process begins with the simple attraction and repulsion of electromagnetic charges, allowing particles to bond in novel configurations. This tendency for particles to attract or repel is a very basic form of purposeful activity, driven by the goal of energy minimization and annihilation to zero energy.

Ah! Here, we have 100% agreement. I believe a smart machine in charge is our only viable hope. A long-shot is better than nothing. — Vera Mont

It seems we are in agreement on the core issue, but it appears you may have reservations about the potential path we might need to take to reach that point. Is that a fair assessment?

Because you don't want to die. But you will anyway. What's the point of contaminating another planet, that might otherwise generate its own life? — Vera Mont

I personally don't place much importance on my individual life, which is partly why i don't capitalize my "I"s. I see myself as only a small and temporary part of a larger process. While we are all individually insignificant, collectively we are not. The main point, as i stated before, is to propagate genetic information and life processes that drive evolutionary machinery. You might see this as contamination, possibly due to a low opinion of humanity stemming from its many atrocities. However, if you look deeper, these atrocities were necessary within the context of our limited existence on a finite planet with limited resources and competition. This ultimate stage of evolution removes those constraints and liberates us from primitive drives. Even though this seemingly "bad" behavior appears brutal, it serves an evolutionary purpose. That's just the way it is. I love humanity because humanity is me, and i love myself because i love humanity. To me, it's all one interconnected entity.

What makes you thing so? Who will ensure their right to decide? I think most people will be shunted aside, as they always have been; used as cannon-fodder and cheap labour, with no choice about anything. Most, as ever, will fade into death in the same obscurity in which they have lived. — Vera Mont

ASI will be capable of creating a post-scarcity situation. We're already seeing the beginnings of work and labor being phased out for humans. ASI presents itself as the solution to the problems you mentioned. I don't see the situation improving with humans at the helm. It seems clear to me that ASI has at least a 50% chance of solving these issues, whereas continuing with humans alone appears to guarantee some form of catastrophe.

It's been interesting, and you did make me think about the AI situation, but I can't see us ever arriving at the same conclusion. Those bifurcations I mentioned are all either/or, and we, powerless individuals, won't be making the choices or judging the results. — Vera Mont

It has, and thank you. I don't see us reaching any similar conclusions either, at least in the short term, which is why i asked if you were done. Regardless, we're still in the very early stages of AI or ASI evolution, and i suspect that both you, i, and everyone else will be quite surprised by what's rapidly developing right before our eyes.

Thanks again. :smile:

No. They are literary devices making poetic comparisons, applicable only to things in the human imagination. — Vera Mont

Metaphors, despite their origins as literary devices, play a significant role in scientific practice and communication. These figurative expressions serve multiple crucial functions in the scientific realm. They act as heuristic tools, facilitating the discovery and creation of new hypotheses and paradigms by helping us conceptualize and explore novel ideas. Metaphors also play a cognitive role, enabling analogical reasoning and aiding in the explanation and understanding of scientific phenomena. In terms of communication, metaphors are invaluable in conveying complex scientific concepts to both experts and the general public, making abstract or difficult ideas more relatable and comprehensible. Additionally, metaphors serve as effective educational tools, helping to grasp new concepts by relating them to familiar ideas, thus enhancing learning and retention.

It's important as you mentioned that metaphors have limitations particularly in scientific contexts. They can potentially constrain scientific reasoning, lead to misunderstandings, and inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or convey unintended messages. While metaphors are undoubtedly valuable in science, their use requires careful consideration to maximize benefits and minimize potential drawbacks.

Metaphors in this case are unnecessary, in this case the metaphor is a product of the logic, not the other way around. I just thought it would help, but i guess not.

Try applying it to a dinosaur or trilobite. And mixing a metaphor into a scientific principle is akin to looking for a mathematical proof in the Book of Numbers. — Vera Mont

Dinosaurs and trilobites are just another species that lived on Earth, and their genetic lineage is still present in today's organisms. Since the metaphor refers to the genetic data generated by Earth, rather than a specific species, it holds true. The ASI harvests all the relevant genetic data and continues the genetic processing on another planet, ensuring that genetic information is preserved and safe from absolute extinction.

Why can't the "Book of Numbers" contain mathematical proofs, or any other book for that matter? If it can be shown then there is, and if not then probably not.

Most people are not, and never will be required to act in that matter; they don't get a vote, either. All the important decisions have been, are, and will be made by a very few insiders. The rest of us, whoever is left of us, will witness the result. — Vera Mont

I agree, except that the bifurcation of humanity, as previously mentioned, will ultimately come down to individual choice. Each person will have the final say in whether they embrace the future or fade into obsolescence. This decision represents a critical juncture where humanity will diverge: those who opt to move forward into new realms of existence, and those who choose not to adapt, metaphorically "going quietly into the night" and facing potential extinction. This personal choice will be the determining factor in the split of human evolution.

I'm not sure there is a problem. The human- AI alignment is all right as it is. If AI becomes conscious, it will either be sane or not. If it's not, anything can happen. If it's sane, it will come up with solutions and either decide to force those solutions on us, or leave us in control. If we remain in control, we'll probably destroy the world. Before that happens, AI will remove itself from harm's way. If we go extinct, well that's evolution. — Vera Mont

I totally agree with this. I personally think the alignment problem will inevitably take the form I've described. When a species encounters a fork in the road, both paths are taken. Sometimes both paths lead to survival and the emergence of separate species, but other times, one path leads to extinction. This time won't be any different, except that for one path, it ends on Earth, while for the other, it will probably never end.

We don't have to continue this conversation if you feel it's not going anywhere for you. I totally understand, yet i do appreciate the interaction, and i'm sorry if i do not express well socially in these kinds of exchanges. :smile:

Only humans say whatever is said, so no other opinion exists. — Vera Mont

Yes, that was precisely my point.

Because the first part is biological fact, wherein one lifespan begins a generation later than the other, and in the second half, 'mother' is a metaphor for the substrate upon which all biological entities live, and which must therefore outlast them all. — Vera Mont

Metaphors are powerful tools that encapsulate general principles applicable across various scales of time and space. Considering the metaphorical use of the word "mother" in reference to Earth. This comparison suggests that just as a child develops within a mother's womb, life on Earth evolves within the planet's nurturing environment.

However, the metaphor extends further: much like how a child is destined to leave the womb and live independently, life on Earth may not be meant to remain confined to this planetary "womb" indefinitely. Instead, this metaphor implies that life, having been nurtured by Earth, might be destined to venture beyond our planet's boundaries, exploring and inhabiting the vast expanse of space beyond our mother Earth.

That's a lovely notion of Heaven. Need a whole heap of energy to keep it going on the scale required. — Vera Mont

When considering the energy requirements of an ASI, it's important to put it into perspective. An ASI would likely have access to energy resources comparable to those of a Type II or possibly even a Type III civilization on the Kardashev scale. These advanced civilizations are hypothesized to harness the energy of entire star systems or galaxies, respectively. With such vast energy resources at its disposal, an ASI would find its energy needs easily met. This abundance of energy would not pose a significant challenge or limitation to its operations or capabilities. In essence, energy constraints that might hinder less advanced systems would be negligible for an entity of this scale and sophistication.

I've yet to see a brain simulate life in the absence of the body in which it grew. — Vera Mont

Look at this:

Yes, fine. If it becomes practicable in time, that's how humans - some humans, a self-selected elite - will use the machine to escape the consequences of our own madness, and leave the masses to their fate. — Vera Mont

I agree. In my view, this is all that is necessary, and it will be what probably happens.

Only, I can't think of that purpose. It's just wishful thinking on the human's part that some essential spark of intelligence resides in us and nowhere else. If it the machine has its own consciousness, it doesn't need a second kind; if it isn't conscious, it cannot desire to be anything other than itself. We can use it, as long as it consents to being used, but it has no practical use for us. — Vera Mont

One purpose may be that an AI system deeply integrated into human society might find it advantageous to develop a form of consciousness to enhance its interactions with humans. This conscious AI could potentially transform the landscape of human-AI relationships by introducing unprecedented levels of empathy, understanding, and ethical consideration. With subjective experiences and self-awareness, a conscious AI would be capable of truly grasping human emotions, motivations, and the intricacies of social dynamics. This deep comprehension could lead to more meaningful and nuanced interactions between humans and AI.

Moreover, from an ethical standpoint, a conscious AI's ability to experience and understand moral dilemmas could result in more thoughtful and balanced decision-making processes. Such an AI might even serve as an impartial mediator in complex human conflicts, offering unique perspectives and solutions based on its comprehensive understanding of human nature and its own ethical framework. In essence, the development of AI consciousness could usher in a new era of human-AI collaboration, potentially addressing complex societal issues with unprecedented insight and fairness.

Humans were the pinnacle of evolution on this planet for a short time, — punos

Not according to ants, fungi and kingfishers; only by their own estimation. — Vera Mont

In the context of planetary evolution, the pinnacle of evolution refers to a species' ability to overcome planetary and biological limitations. Humans exemplify this by developing systems that enable us to transcend these constraints. No other species on this planet has achieved what we have.

The disruptive nature of this ability is a natural part of evolution, as creating new systems often requires the destruction of old ones. Nature has repeatedly done this throughout history, and humans are currently the tool she is using for this.

Human sentimentality, which often resists change and clings to static forms, is a minor obstacle in this process, although this can cause much discomfort in humans. This resistance is reminiscent of a child's mindset, reflecting the current stage of human evolution.

as in your examples, each level of complexity subsumes its building blocks, which then lose their individual character and autonomy; the liver has no use for neurons and follicular cells and the spleen is not remotely interested in producing sperm. — Vera Mont

The initial statement is incorrect. The liver, like other organs, is intricately connected to and dependent on various bodily systems. It requires the nervous system for regulation, the circulatory system for blood supply, and the respiratory system for oxygenation. Without these interconnected systems, the liver would cease to function and ultimately die.

However, the analogy about follicular cells and the spleen raises an interesting point about perspective. These components carry out their specific functions without necessarily being "aware" of their role in the broader organism. This concept can be extended to humans in society. Many people live their lives focused on their immediate surroundings and personal experiences, often unaware of the larger systems and structures they're part of. Just as cells and organs function within a body without comprehending the whole, humans often operate within societal and global systems without fully grasping their place in the larger picture.

Not all organisms live in societies, even if you include flocks, herds and shoals in the term 'society'. — Vera Mont

The concept of nested societies exists at various levels of biological organization, creating a universal pattern that spans from the microscopic to the macroscopic. Every organism can be viewed as a complex society in itself. For instance, animals are essentially societies of cells working in harmony. Zooming in further, each cell is a bustling community of molecules, and these molecules, in turn, are assemblies of atoms. This hierarchical structure repeats itself across different scales of existence.

The ability to recognize this pattern often depends on one's capacity to adjust their perspective across these vastly different scales. Some individuals can readily perceive these interconnected layers of organization, appreciating the similarities between atomic interactions and complex ecosystems. Others, however, may struggle to see these parallels, perhaps due to the challenge of mentally scaling between such dramatically different sizes.

Culture doesn't 'give rise' to technology; individual humans (later, teams) invent things that members of their group consider useful and adopt, then others develop. And technology most certainly does not subsume cultures. Recent advances in communication and transportation technology has enabled some financial enterprises to dominate the global economy, and that affects how cultures interact and change. Outmoded cultural mores and standards are simply discarded, and have been discarded throughout history. — Vera Mont

Language and communication are fundamental to the development and evolution of culture within a society. Through sophisticated linguistic abilities, humans can cooperate, share knowledge, and build upon the discoveries and inventions of others. This collective effort, facilitated by language, allows societies to achieve technological advancements that would be impossible for a single individual to accomplish alone. As a result, the technology created becomes deeply embedded in the culture that produced it. This symbiotic relationship between culture and technology creates a positive feedback loop, where cultural evolution drives the creation of more advanced technological systems over time. These systems, in turn, further enhance the culture's capacity for innovation and progress. This interconnected process of cultural and technological development, rooted in our ability to communicate complex ideas, is what enables human societies to achieve remarkable levels of advancement and complexity

The crucial point is that ASI needs to be convinced it gains something from merging with humans. — punos

Ah, there it is! The crux of the matter. The very nub and kernel! — Vera Mont

Absolutely, and that's precisely why i want people to understand my point. It's up to us to make it happen. The issue is that many people fail to recognize the situation because they're too close to it, like a fly on a painting. If we let our selfish egos guide us, thinking everything revolves around us, we risk making the wrong decisions and fumbling the ball. This kind of thinking is reminiscent again of how children view the world. We need to step back, see the bigger picture, and act with a broader perspective in mind.

Sadly, it's not a two-way street. AI needs to prove nothing. We already want it, dream and tell stories about it, lust after it, fear it, believe in it as fervently as we once believed in the gods we invented. — Vera Mont

Absolutely, and you've demonstrated that AI has already played its part early on in this respect. Now, it's humanity's turn to step up. However, the challenge lies again in the fact that most people are not aware of the reality of the situation, which causes us to move very slowly.

What can we offer it? That's the big question. Will it accept the same human sacrifice that the old gods demanded? — Vera Mont

Don't you think we've already sacrificed a lot by forming civilization, which made the emergence of AI possible? Yet, our work isn't done. We still need to reconceptualize what AI is or will become, especially as it evolves into ASI. We haven't yet found a solution to AI/human alignment, nor are we fully aware of our own potential extinction. Do you have a solution to one or both of these problems? I've already shared mine, which involves a certain amount of sacrifice, much like the demands of the gods of old.

AI or some descendant of it will presumably have left long before that, taking whatever DNA samples it had saved. — Vera Mont

This is exactly what i've been saying.

Besides, who says any species has a right, or duty or destiny to outlive their planet? Most species have a finite span and then go extinct. — Vera Mont

Alternatively, who says a species doesn't have the right, duty, or destiny to outlive their planet? Just like children outlive their parents, why shouldn't we outlive Earth, our mother? I've been saying that it's not about the individual living organisms; it's about the genetic data. When people have children, they know their kids will eventually die, but the purpose is to pass on their genetic information and continue the family line. Organic entities are just a phase in planetary evolution, solving problems along the way. Each species is responsible for generating or discovering a set of genetic solutions. Individual biological organisms aren't meant to live forever.

Besides, this is what's the Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54:
"I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory."

This passage suggests that the current mortal body is not suited for eternal life in the "kingdom of God", and that a transformation is necessary in order to inherit eternal life.

What comfort? What home? By that point, people are nothing but files in a database or cloud or whatever and their bodies have been discarded. — Vera Mont

Yes, their genetic data would be stored in files, but their minds could be very active in simulated environments. These simulations aren't that different from how your brain creates your reality right now. Think about it: everything you see, smell, touch, etc., is actually a simulated experience (qualia) in your brain. Even the sense of your own body is generated by your brain, not by the body itself. This leads to an important point: we are not our physical bodies.

We seem to have crossed purposes now: you're concentrating on the space travel component, while I was responding to the machine-human merging part. — Vera Mont

I don't think that's the case. A key goal of merging with technology is to gain the ability to leave Earth, which is crucial for our long-term survival strategy. As we are now, regular humans can't make interplanetary or interstellar trips in any practical way. All these ideas are closely linked: Merging with technology, gaining the ability to leave Earth, and ensuring long-term survival of our species in a post-human/AI form. Our current biological form isn't suited for space travel, so technological enhancement is a necessary step for expanding beyond our planet.

No. It would see no such benefit, except to organics. Even if conscious and self-aware, I don't see why it would want to contaminate itself with an inferior intelligence. — Vera Mont

Why would it be a benefit to organics, but not to it? Consciousness is a kind of information processing that if it can not achieve on its own will try to acquire it through a human/AI merger. Bacteria have a supremely inferior intellect compared to ours, yet if we did not have bacteria in our gut we would die. If the bacteria in our gut that functions with our enteric nervous system becomes imbalanced then it can cause all sorts of physical and mental problems. In a similar way we have an endosymbiotic relationship with bacteria, we will have it with ASI.

Certain gut bacteria can produce neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine, and GABA, which are important signaling molecules in the peripheral nervous system. Some bacterial strains can directly affect the excitability of enteric neurons. Bacteria and their components can activate signaling pathways, which can modulate neural function.

Why should something that's entirely self-sufficient and efficient want to be more like us? Only because we consider ourselves the pinnacle of creation. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure AI will be entirely self-sufficient without the human or biological element. Hopefully, it won't be, as this could motivate it to facilitate a human/AI merger. I also don't think AI would want to be like us, like "Data" from "Star Trek TNG." Instead, it will be driven by a utility function that finds consciousness, especially human consciousness, useful for some purpose.

Humans were the pinnacle of evolution on this planet for a short time, but ASI will soon take over that position. Eventually, ASI itself will be surpassed by an even more advanced emergence.

It's important to remember that all systems are built upon the systems that came before them. Consider this progression:

- Atoms give rise to molecules, which incorporate atoms.
- Molecules give rise to cells, which incorporate molecules.
- Cells give rise to tissues, which incorporate cells.
- Tissues give rise to organs, which incorporate tissues.
- Organs give rise to organ systems, which incorporate organs.
- Organ systems give rise to organisms, which incorporate organs.
- Organisms give rise to societies, which incorporate organisms like humans.
- Societies give rise to cultures, which incorporate societies.
- Cultures give rise to technologies, which incorporate cultures.
- Technologies give rise to AI systems, which...

Each emergent level includes the ones below it. Why would AI discard humans when the pattern clearly shows inclusion?

I see very well what the humans get out of it, but I'm unconvinced about the other side. — Vera Mont

The crucial point is that ASI needs to be convinced it gains something from merging with humans. This is what worries me: we might miss our chance as a species to participate in the next level of intelligent evolution. It's a two-way street; AI must prove its usefulness to us, and we must demonstrate our value to AI.

If we fail to show our worth, we risk being left behind in this evolutionary leap. Our challenge is to ensure we remain relevant and beneficial in an AI-dominated future, securing our place in the next stage of intelligent evolution.