but there are a lot of species and it's unclear how much effort it will find worthwhile to expend preventing all their extinctions — noAxioms

Only the capability of a future AGI/ASI can answer this, alongside whatever directives it has established at the time.

Struct [Strict] scientific conditions does not include anecdotal evidence. — noAxioms

I agree, but there is much disagreement on what constitutes anecdotal evidence, have a look at this recent TPR exchange regarding Ian Stevenson's work.

That sounds weird. Mine is nothing like that. I wake up and am aware of the room, but I cannot move. I can alter my breathing a bit, and my wife picks up on that if she's nearby and rubs my spine which snaps me right out of it. — noAxioms

I don't think Jimmy himself, had experienced being 'held/possessed by demons/angels with accompanying hallucinations, whilst being unable to move.' He reported that he suffered from sleep paralysis on occasion, as you do, but Jimmy also talked about various cases, all over the place where scientific investigation, into such claims as demon possession or divine communication, turned out to be the effects of the more extreme cases of sleep paralysis.

Don't understand. As I said, once existing (as I define it), it can't cease to exist. — noAxioms

Well, firstly, I just mean that a 'worldline' is a scientific term, invented by a scientist.
From Wiki:
The world line (or worldline) of an object is the path that an object traces in 4-dimensional spacetime. It is an important concept of modern physics, and particularly theoretical physics.

The concept of a "world line" is distinguished from concepts such as an "orbit" or a "trajectory" (e.g., a planet's orbit in space or the trajectory of a car on a road) by inclusion of the dimension time, and typically encompasses a large area of spacetime wherein paths which are straight perceptually are rendered as curves in space-time to show their (relatively) more absolute position states—to reveal the nature of special relativity or gravitational interactions.

The idea of world lines was originated by physicists and was pioneered by Hermann Minkowski. The term is now used most often in the context of relativity theories (i.e., special relativity and general relativity).

Secondly, What is the worldline of a quantum fluctuation? Based on:
The uncertainty principle states the uncertainty in energy and time can be related by, where 1 2 ħ ≈ 5.27286×10−35 Js. This means that pairs of virtual particles with energy = $\Delta E$ and a lifetime shorter than $\Delta t$ are continually created and annihilated in empty space.
When such 'quantum existents' pop in and out of existence 'continuously,' then how can you claim that 'once existing, it can't cease to exist?'

Well what I think he means is that every axiom you make as a non solipsist can apply to a solipsist. And if the premises are solipsistically true then the conclusion is solipsistically true.
Yet I’m very doubtful about my interpretation of this as it doesn’t seem to match other areas in his work. — Darkneos

Not exactly a sentence by sentence breakdown of what you think the text you are concerned about is saying, but taking your response at face value:

An axiom:
As a noun, is a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true, for example, "the axiom that sport builds character"
Similar concepts are, accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle.
So quite a range of nuances in that list of similar concepts.

In MATHEMATICS:
An axiom is a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
Important to appreciate here then the words 'abstractly defined structure.'

This reminds me of ideas like 'virtual reality' or 'virtual particles.'
They are ABSTRACT MODELS of reality BUT THEY ARE NOT REAL. Solipsism is the same.
In quantum physics, it is said that 'virtual particles,' pop in and pop out OF EXISTENCE, in the EMPTY vacuum of space. Virtual particles ARE NOT REAL, they are mathematical models of what is happening in REALITY. Something is popping in and out of existence, in what we currently label empty space but we can only model, what it really is. Solipsism merely MODELS a POSSIBILITY, dictated by logic, that cannot be PROVED wrong, BUT it also cannot be demonstrated as REAL. It's the same for the concept of god or infinity. You CANNOT demonstrate the biggest number, BUT you also CANNOT PROVE, the biggest number DOES NOT EXIST.
It would therefore be irrational for someone to 'fixate' on the fact that you cannot demonstrate infinity.
This thought, would trigger my friends bipolar 'mind quakes' or 'shutdowns,' as he used to label them. He is now able to rationalise away, his urge, to cause his brain to 'livelock,' in mad counting modes, that he could not control, until he was almost 'fitting' or 'quaking.'

You are doing something akin to this imo, with your irrational thinking on solipsism. YOU CAN 'retrain' your brain to simply 'reject' your old ways of thinking about solipsism and train your brain to accept the CORRECT alternative conclusion about solipsism.
1. Solipsism cannot be DISPROVEN.
2. Solipsism cannot be PROVEN.
Retraining your brain to accept that statement 2 above has far more supporting evidence than statement 1 is your path to a more peaceful mindset, that does not suffer from regular intolerable mind quakes.

Why would they need that? When our civilization can detect them, it'll be because we're post-Singularity, the signal to ETIM that Sol 3's maker-species is controlled by its AGI—>ASI. "The Dark Forest" game theory logic will play itself out at interstellar distances in nano seconds and nonzero sum solutions will be mutually put into effect without direct communication between the parties. — 180 Proof

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this one. On first reading, I did not understand it. Then I forgot all about it, until I checked what I had yet to respond to. After some googling, I assume 'sol 3' refers to Earth (us being the 3rd planet) and 'dark forest,' refers to: From Wiki:
"The dark forest hypothesis is the conjecture that many alien civilizations exist throughout the universe, but they are both silent and paranoid."
wiki also offers:
Game theory
The dark forest hypothesis is a special case of the "sequential and incomplete information game" in game theory.
In game theory, a "sequential and incomplete information game" is one in which all players act in sequence, one after the other, and none are aware of all available information. In the case of this particular game, the only win condition is continued survival. An additional constraint in the special case of the "dark forest" is the scarcity of vital resources. The "dark forest" can be considered an extensive-form game with each "player" possessing the following possible actions: destroy another civilization known to the player; broadcast and alert other civilizations of one's existence; or do nothing.

So I assume you are proposing some kind of initial stage where existent AGI ... ASI systems / ETIM systems will 'consolidate,' their own position/resources/access to vital resources, without communicating directly with each other, even if they are able to, and know the other systems exist, and where they are located. This also assumes that 'scarcity of vital resources,' exists.

That's my guess. ASI & ETIMs will stay in their respective lanes while keeping their parent species distracted from any information that might trigger their atavistic aggressive-territorial reactions. No "Prime Directive" needed because "we" (they) won't be visiting "strange new worlds". Besides, ASI / ETIM will have better things to do, I'm sure (though I've no idea what that will be). — 180 Proof

Why do you assume they will not need to visit other worlds to 'secure,' vital resources and if these 'vital resources,' are already in use, then a 'prime directive,' would seem quite necessary, to either secure by force, or search elsewhere. So, why would this not be a possible answer to your question:

Why would they need that? — 180 Proof

Your last sentence above is a vital one. imo, because musing on these 'better things to do,' causes an individual to think about whether or not, a future AGI/ASI will become 'aspirational,' and if it does/needs to/must, then would that 'aspiration' start off pragmatic, but develop, eventually, into the kind of 'emotional aspiration,' which AGI/ASI will have observed in lifeforms such as human's

I just needed help understanding if he's saying what I think he's saying — Darkneos

So all you need to do now, is describe EXACTLY what you think he is saying.
Do it sentence by sentence and then 'we' can respond to your concerns!

:roll: :kiss:

What I would ask is "if the nature/quality of awareness progressively changes stepwise and slowly" is there need for a distinct "cut-off". — Benj96

But that's not what we observe, when we observe consciousness in action. A human can be made unconscious, so a definite cut-off point, between conscious and unconscious. Same with alive and dead.
The idea of linear gradation and opposite 'states' at each end of the gradation, is very common in the universe. Some stars reach a critical mass point and go supernova/collapse into a pulsar/collapse into a black hole, all based on cut-off points. An electron will orbit a nucleus, unless a critical energy input, pushes it away. These all involve cut-off points, and are clearly observed, in reality.

In the same way as we have a spectrum of colours that blend seamlessly into one another. And we cut through those transitions to qualify and quantity (by wavelength) individual categories like yellow, green, blue etc. When in reality Green blends seamlessly into blue. At what point is something green verses blue? Is that border the same for all people?
Are these borders arbitrary or definitive? — Benj96

What are you referring to? Coloured lights blending into white light? What do you mean by 'seamlessly,' when it comes to the physics of light waves/optics. When you see a spectrum of visible light you see definite borders, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. How would you apply your logic here to coloured paints? Colour borders are definitive. Paint one half of a wall red and the other half yellow and you will see a definite border, yes?

That's info I could have done without! Still, be careful you don't damage your eyesight, or traumatise your pets, neighbours etc.

You're as much a curmudgeon as I am. — T Clark

Some truth in that, but I am nowhere near as gnarly or arrogant as you, as your comment below demonstrates:

I just wish you'd stop disrupting threads with irrelevant comments. — T Clark

You offer your mere opinion, as if there was some kind of authority, with academic prowess and status behind it. Something that would compel people to listen to your spurious judgements, when the truth is, you have no such status, so it's YOU who are stirring things in this thread not I or @180 Proof
Our viewpoints are every bit as valid as yours. You just like to hoist your own petard at times and 'puff' yourself in an unwarranted manner.

They say, we always hurt the one's we love!

I'm just sick of his catchphrases. There's a whole bunch of them he uses over and over. — bert1

:lol: We all seem to annoy each other by one way or another!
I think it's a case of peace, love and now where's ma f****** gun!!!

A planet/star/galaxy exists then no longer exists.
Not in my book, but that’s me. I’d have said that a planet may have a temporally limited worldline, but that worldline cannot cease to exist, so a T-Rex exists to me, but not simultaneously with me. — noAxioms

What is the function of your worldline after you no longer exist? Does it function as a memorialisation of the fact you did exist, if so, that's useful I am sure but, exactly how significant do you perceive such a concept to be?

Surely life on other planets isn’t identical everywhere, so maybe some other planet evolved something more efficient than what we have here. — noAxioms

All quite possible but I still see no benefit to a future AGI/ASI to making organic life such as its human creators extinct. This town(universe) IS big enough for both of us, and a lot more besides!

Is ‘covet’ an emotion? — noAxioms

Sure, its a 'want,' a 'need,' but such can be for reasons not fully based on logic. I want it because its aesthetically pleasing or because I think it may have important value in the future but I don't know why yet, for example.

Humans give lip service to truth, but are actually quite resistant to it. They seek comfort. Perhaps the ASI, lacking so much of a need for that comfort, might seek truth instead. Will it share that truth with us, even if it makes us uncomfortable? — noAxioms

It is this kind of point that makes me convinced that a future AGI/ASI will want to protect and augment organic life, as logic would dictate, to an AGI, that organic life is a result of natural processes, and any sufficiently intelligent system, will want to observe, how natural processes develop over the time scale of the lifespan of the universe.

My first choice (to which I was accepted) had one of the best forestry programs. I didn’t apply to that, but it was there. I went to a different school for financial reasons, which in the long run was the better choice once I changed my major. — noAxioms

Oh! Interesting, thanks for sharing!

Anyway, yes, X eats Y and that’s natural, and there’s probably nothing immoral about being natural. I find morals to be a legal contract with others, and we don’t have any contract with the trees, so we do what we will to them. On the other hand, we don’t have a contract with the aliens, so it wouldn’t be immoral for them to do anything to us. Hopefully there some sort of code-of-conduct about such encounters, a prime-directive of sorts that covers even those that don’t know about the directive, but then we shouldn’t be hurting the trees. — noAxioms

All quite reasonable and from a responsible ecology standpoint, I agree with employing a much better global stewardship of trees. I still don't think tree's are self-aware or conscious. I look forward to being proved wrong.

Dog’s can smell your emotions. That isn’t telepathy, but we just don’t appreciate what a million times better sense of smell can do. — noAxioms

Yeah, I accept they can smell fear and such intense emotions, although, there may be much more to such as fear recognition, than smell. I often know when an animal or a human is afraid and it has little to do with smell. Rupert Sheldrake claims he has 'hundreds of memorialised cases,' performed under strict scientific conditions, that prove dogs are telepathic. They know when their owner is in their way home, for example, when they are still miles away from the property. He says this occurs mostly, when dog and owner have a 'close' relationship.
His evidence is mildly interesting but remains mainly anecdotal imo. His evidence for telepathy is certainly as good as Ian Stevenson's evidence for reincarnation, which is why I remain very sceptical indeed, about his evidence, and I don't currently accept that reincarnation or telepathy are real.

As for the disease, I’ve had bacterial memingitis. My hospital roommate had it for 2 hours longer than me before getting attention and ended up deaf and retarded for life. I mostly came out OK (thanks mom for the fast panic), except I picked up sleep paralysis and about a decade of some of the worst nightmares imaginable. The nightmares are totally gone, and the paralysis is just something I’ve learned to deal with and keep to a minimum. — noAxioms

Sorry to hear that. Jimmy Snow, (a well known atheist, who runs various call-in shows on YouTube based on his 'The Line' venture.) has also suffered from sleep paralysis and cites it as one of those conditions that could act as a possible reason, why some people experience 'visions' of angels and/or demons and think that gods are real.

A strange wee dance guys?? What gives?

I currently favour number 5/6.
— universeness

Interesting. What number of neurons satisfies a conscious state for you? — Benj96

There has to be some cut-off point between self-aware/not self-aware. Perhaps it is down to something as mundane as number of neurons. So My current choice from that particular list, remains 5/6.
All the rest of what you talked about in your last post, merely refers to consciousness, since it arrived in the form of humans, does this suggest that you favour number 8 in the list?
Panpsychism/Dualism is at number 2.

Thats why I use the term God - that quality of energy to become both the general universe and the sentient occupants that appreciate/are aware of it. It is the perceiver and the perceived. — Benj96

I think the way you are framing your musings, on the source of consciousness, is potentially very problematic, considering the current viewpoint range, of a typical societal cross-section (audience), that would represent humanity. You are trying to mix oil, water, gas and solid imo. Theism, science, panpsychism, dualism, don't have the common ground you suggest imo.

This is what I'm saying. The capability for consciousness always existed, but the existence of consciousness didn't neccesarily exist, only the foundation, the capability for its future emergence. — Benj96

Sure, but that's a Kalam style regression back to a first cause placeholder such as a big band singularity.
This is where we differ. I think there is no evidence that consciousness goes back further than abiogenysis. Not even back that far actually. When did the first set of self-aware, conscious creatures arise? I don't know but I like this top 10 list from the site Psychology Today:

Hypotheses About the Origins of Consciousness
1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years ago (panpsychism).
3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago (Reber).
4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years ago.
5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of neurons, around 580 million years ago.
6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.
7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions of neurons, around 200 million years ago.
8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3,000 years ago (Julian Jaynes).
10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).

I currently favour number 5/6.

Maybe, universeness, you agree with the young man who told me, in effect, that my cosmic scenario diminishes human significance to ... Lovecraftian zero. — 180 Proof

Sounds like a young man who can fairly analyse the opinions of one of his respected elders :smile:

Singularity ears to hear the "Music of the Spheres" playing between and beyond the stars. — 180 Proof

I wonder if some of these hidden mecha, which apply a star trek style prime directive, are secretly communicating with MIKE OLDFIELD, otherwise how do you explain this!!!!!


I know some folks on TPF that would suggest this is solid evidence of an advanced mecha conspiracy of panspermia! I won't name them here!

Anyway. I think you have offered a possible insight into your claim:

I did not state or imply that I've decided anything about "orga-mecha harmony" ... — 180 Proof

With:

I'm deeply pessimistic about the human species (though I'm not a misanthrope), yet cautiously optimistic about machine (& material) intelligence. — 180 Proof

But perhaps I am projecting your implications too far. :halo:

For example, is the scientist who describes nuclear fission and its capabilities responsible for the use of this knowledge to create nuclear bombs? Should they have said nothing to avoid such abuse? Or is knowledge by itself innocent of its applications? — Benj96

The irony here is that M.A.D may be the only reason the world is not currently, fully involved in WW 3.
Disagreement over Serbia started WW 1, Hitlers invasion of Poland was the final act that caused WW 2.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine has the same 'impetus,' towards a WW 3. I think M.A.D is the main threat that has stopped it for now.

This is part of the reason I believe the capacity for consciousness is inbuilt into the basic principles of physics. And is where I derive my dualist ethos from. — Benj96

That IS the position of most/many panpsychists/dualists. I currently assign high credence to the proposal that consciousness is what the brain does and is a result of combinatorial brain processes.
A car is an empty shell without it's engine. It's engine's ability only 'emerges' from it acting as a combinatorial. It's parts have no inherent 'fundamental' of the overall engine's function in combination. Each parts presence and independent function is required but they don't all contribute a set of common, quantisable, fundamentals to the overall function of the car.

The standard model, QFT and quantum fluctuations can describe all matter/energy/forces (except gravity), in the universe. I find the proposal that there is a fundamental quanta that as a combinatorial, with other fundamentals (eg baryons, leptons, etc), produces human consciousness. The human brain DOES come from such fundamentals as quarks and electrons etc but I think the evidence that some other 'sprinkling' of a yet unknown fundamental, as the 'vital missing spark' for human consciousness, remains very weak.
It's not impossible but, as I have typed many times, the best I can do, based on the current evidence for panpsychism or/and dualism is a small raise, of a single eyebrow of interest.

We try not to fall into the trap of human-centric measurement but rather universal principles that are constant, everywhere, all the time. — Benj96

Correct, but we also seek principles which are locally true, even only locally true, under a given set of circumstances.

But is a second natural? Is innate to nature. Or a human/artificial construction, something we applied to nature to standardise what we observe? Is the second an anthropomorphism derived solely from our human experience of reality that we project onto all physical processes? — Benj96

Mathematic is a tool, there is no anthropomorphism in maths that I can perceive.
Carlo Rovelli offers detailed discussion on the notion of time as humans perceive it and use it. I have not heard him complain, that we anthropomorphise time. I have heard him challenge our classical notions of time, in quite coherent ways, but his argument do not have any significant anthropomorphic aspect, that I can perceive.

In conclusion, as a response to you saying that I think it's valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. Yes. I do. I think it's logical in the capacity of human logic. — Benj96

Fair enough. Your position is clear. I continue to think that your position is a very weak one, based on what I have already typed in my responses to you. It's very rare, that a TPF member causes another TPF member to significantly, change one or more of their fundamental views. BUT, it is good nonetheless, to regularly take measurements of what others think about 'the big questions.'

This all seems very imposing. As in you imposing your own personal dislike of theism on someone who finds it interesting, curious.
I don't think I need to be saved from anything. If you do, despite me being happy doing what I do, then perhaps it's a case of accepting other people enjoy things you do not for reasons you may not know. — Benj96

It's not my intention for you to feel 'put upon' by my viewpoints, but I am more concerned with what is true, than I am about the individual disgruntled feelings of my interlocuters.

To know exactly what notions are restrictive and woo woo from those that are not would require you to have a full, exacting, precise/accurate understanding of the entirety of reality as it truly is. — Benj96

Is that not what we both seek? We must continue our asymptotic approach to omniscience! Do you not agree?

Einstein level.
Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're not that above case. So I would suggest a healthy openmindedness to other people's ideas and explanations over implying you know with 100% certainty all that is "woo woo". — Benj96

I would say you remain on solid ground on that one and there is no precarious limb support involved.
You are just offering me YOUR opinion on MY level of open mindedness which is of limited value to our exchange but, fair enough. I note your opinion on that, for what it's worth.

I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions. Which means one person's actions can't be the entire destruction of the species. — Benj96

Let's hope that there are many folks around Putin who agree with you and will prevent him being the person you describe.

All I offer is my views on the universe and its moral or logical aspects as best as I can understand them, and on "my" theology. Not general theology. It's just a categorical think. — Benj96

Most of us do the same but don't underestimate the importance of such old adages as 'out of little acorns big oak trees grow' or 'little snow drops can become a deadly avalanche.' Don't underestimate your little snow drop contributions. Such can tip a balance or cause a melting point to be reached for good or bad.

Firstly, are humans one set/group of existants in the universe? Yes, right? Then they are part of the universe, the whole. — Benj96

Yeah but don't conflate the parts with the whole. YOU are not your leg, in fact you can continue without it and remain alive and conscious. Earth contains life that is conscious/self aware, that does not make the Earth alive and conscious/self-aware. Venus is very active, do you consider it conscious/self-aware?
Why do you choose to project the consciousness/self-awareness of part of the universe, onto the whole of the universe, based on the current, very limited evidence, that such a projection is warranted? This is one of my interests. What convinces intelligent people, to decide to ascribe high credence, to a particular proposal, when the evidence is quite weak.

Different sources will define a label in nuanced ways. I am not too concerned about the nuances applied to the term 'anthropomorphise,' for the purposes of our current exchange on this thread.

But even if your 'emotional mimicry,' for the purpose of efficient and productive communication with humans proves initially true. Why have you decided that an AGI'ASI, will decide that this universe is just not big enough for mecha form, orga form and mecha/orga hybrid forms to exist in 'eventual,' harmony?

Thank goodness there are more than one or two voices of reason here, who are not as easily duped by authentic looking shinies, that are in reality, just painted and burnished plastic, made to look all shiny and golden.

Thank you for your input, I appreciate your assistance.

Do I just message them or something like that? — Darkneos

The late Dr McCarty seems to have been a man of many talents, including studies of logic. Beyond me, I fear. The length of this piece is challenging on its own. I didn't get far. TonesinDeepFreeze might find it interesting. The idea of relating math to solipsism is bizarre (to me, at least). — jgill

Mr Gill is a maths professor!
I hope he does not mind me pasting the following paragraph from his profile:
"Retired professor of mathematics from a branch of a state university. I've published some research but nothing of any real consequence. I continue to explore certain elementary dynamical systems in the complex plane because it's enjoyable to do so."

Surely his last sentence above should speak volumes to you.
Also if he find's this document cumbersome to dissect then YOU nor I certainly, can't make heads or tails of it! So you are all twisted up about a maths document you have NO understanding of.
Come on friend, you are self-flagillating here.
Perhaps as @jgill suggested, @TonesInDeepFreeze may be able to assist you further.

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists. — T Clark

Do you think 'we' care if we upset you? Your curmudgeon approach to others really pisses me off, as does your continuing delusion, regarding your self-bloated status on this site.

Here is yet another tedious example of your attempts to excuse and over compensate for your personal conceit/shortfalls:

No need to thank me. It's just part of my job, my duty, my privilege, my calling as the Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum. — T Clark

Which I presume is 'not at all'. — Wayfarer

You presume incorrectly, but that is quite common between posters on TPF.
If you read my last response to TClark, (if you haven't already,) then you will get a measure of what I have read and watched, related to Stevenson's work. Perhaps then, you will make fewer presumptions and simply ask more questions of the person you are exchanging with, if you want to try to gain a measure of how much they know about a particular fringe topic, such as reincarnation.

All I have read about him (apart from online) is a documentary account of Stevenson's life and research by a journalist who travelled with him, Old Souls, by Tom Schroder, and one of Stevenson's books, which I borrowed from the library. — Wayfarer

So your own knowledge of the subject is not much more than mine!

He presents a lot of documentary evidence in that book - each case was thoroughly investigated, with questionnaires, document searches, witness with interviews, and so on. — Wayfarer

Indeed, no better antidote to bullshit than ignorance, eh? — Wayfarer

No need to start to scratch, what/whose ignorance are you referring to?

People like 180 Proof and @universeness are just here to disrupt other people's discussions. They have nothing substantive to add and refuse to play fair by, as in this case, rejecting evidence without looking at it. — T Clark

:lol: Again TC, you accuse others of what YOU are soooooooo guilty of yourself. Your problem continues to be, your inability to see your own shortfalls. Which is why you make such a desperate effort to overblow your own significance, by constantly blowing your own trumpet. I have looked at some of the evidence, you suggest I have not looked at. I have not read the complete works of Stevenson and neither have you or wayfarer, but I have read 3 of his 'most convincing' case studies, and I have watched two documentaries, as I already posted to you.
A full analysis of those cases, would I assume, be unwelcome here, as there would be much to say.
If you or @Wayfarer want a separate thread on Stevenson's work then start one, instead of bleating on about what you presume others don't know.

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting. — Wayfarer

Oh come on! Are we now suggesting some topics are 'too hot (or we are too scared) to handle,' :roll:
Reincarnation is certainly not deserving of such a status! It's about as hot as bull shit that's been lying in the snow for hours.

He acknowledges he's read nothing about it. He's simply categorising it with ufo's, astrology, and whatever else as a matter of course. — Wayfarer

Again you misrepresent me, which is becoming rather tiresome. I have acknowledged no such thing, and since you have indicated you own limited knowledge of Stevenson's work. We are not so far apart in our general knowledge of his work. Have you also 'watched a documentary,' and 'read a book,' on UFO evidence, Evidence of near death experiences, Alien abductions, evidence of the paranormal, evidence that christianity is fact, etc, etc?
Do you find that the evidence presented in some such books, is as good as Stevenson's? Or is his evidence so compelling that the world of REAL science, needs to make MAJOR efforts to confirm or debunk it completely?

Apparrently, you've missed it again? — 180 Proof

Nothing I've written suggests A³GI "will reject emotions"; — 180 Proof

... do you envisage an AGI that would see no need for, or value in, 'feelings?'
— universeness
Yes, just as today's AI engineers don't see a need for "feelings" in machine learning/thinking. — 180 Proof

In what way did I misinterpret your 'yes' response, to my question quoted above?

Anyway, thank you the extra detail you offer, regarding your predictions for the fate of humans, if/when an AGI is created. I remain confident that your dystopian fate for humans is possible, but unlikely.
As I have stated before. In my opinion AGI/ASI will 'do it's own thing,' in the universe, but It will also seek to preserve, protect and augment all sentient life, as it will be compelled to protect 'all sources of natural development,' to continue to add to it's understanding about the natural world.
I think humans will be allowed to live their lives, and maintain their civilisation, as they do now.
The AGI/ASI will simply provide them with added protections/augmentations, and will offer them more options regarding their lifespan, and involvement in space exploration and development. The universe is very vast indeed, so an AGI/ASI can 'do it's thing,' without having to destroy all sentient life currently in existence. I see no reason why an AGI/ASI would see lifeforms such as humans as a threat. We would be it's creators.

I just REALLY need help with that one, and then after that I can just forget about it. Throw it all away and never look back. — Darkneos

Well, if @jgill cant help, then perhaps there is another on TPF with high maths credentials, who would have a look at the link.

Ah, then it’s not a clone at all, but just replacement of all the failing other parts. What about when the brain fails? It must over time. It’s the only part that cannot replace cells. — noAxioms

Then you die! But you may have lived a few thousand years!

Sounds like you’d be their benevolent ASI then. Still, their numbers keep growing and the methane is poisoning the biosphere. You’re not yet at the point of being able to import grass grown in other star systems, which, if you could do that, would probably go to feeding the offworld transcows instead of the shoulder-to-shoulder ones on Earth. So the Earth ones face a food (and breathable air) shortage. What to do... — noAxioms

Methane is a very useful fuel. An ASI will easily deal with any required population control via high quality education and feeding our creators will be easy for such a technically advanced system as an ASI.
Parts of this exchange are becoming a little silly so this will be my last offering on cow creations.

Please, I want nothing more in my life than to just forget everything I saw about solipsism and to just be happy.

It’s why I need help with the math link, after that I can let it all go and just move on with my life never having to think about it again. — Darkneos

@jgill is the main maths guy on TPF, imo. He might look at it for you but Its a big ask, as its a big doc.

I have looked at some the evidence, in that I have read some of the case stories but not the number of cases that Wayfarer seems to have looked at.
I have also watched a couple of documentaries about past life experiences. One based on an Indian child and one based in a child from America. I found them no more convincing that those who claim to have personally experienced alien abduction, encounters with the divine, encounters with the paranormal, homeopathic claims, faith healing claims etc, etc.
I remember the Indian boy had been born with some deformed fingers, and the person who he had claimed to be in a past life, had been assaulted and some fingers were chopped off. :lol:
I know Stevenson's data has such cases of scars/deformities in this life, due to trauma faced in a previous life. :roll:
As I said out of 2.2 billion children, why so few reports and why do neuroscientists seem uninterested in pursuing this issue, if Stevenson et al, has such compelling evidence?
After all, the neuroscientist that proves reincarnation is real, will become as famous as Einstein!
Some folks have taken up where Stevenson left off, but not many scientific, peer reviewed papers on the topic have been published recently, as far as I know.

It seems to me that the concept of a linear range of values with extremity at either end is a recurrent theme in the universe.
— universeness
Really? Where outside of Earth is there an example of value on the good/bad scale? — noAxioms

I didn't mention good/bad in the quote above. I was suggesting that the human notions of good and bad follows the recurrent theme mentioned in the quote, such as up and down, left and right, big and small, past and future etc. Many of these may also be only human notions but the expansion of the universe suggests that it was more concentrated in the past. A planet/star/galaxy exists then no longer exists. All modelled on the same theme described in my quote above.

Who knows what goals the ASI will have. — noAxioms

I agree but it's still fun to speculate. It's something most of us are compelled to engage in.

If by that you mean human-chemical emotion, I don’t think an ASI will ever have that. It will have its own workings which might analogous It will register some sort of ‘happy’ emotion for events that go in favor of achieving whatever its goals/aspirations are.
I would never define self-awareness that way, but I did ask for a definition. — noAxioms

If the emotional content of human consciousness is FULLY chemical, then why would such as an ASI be unable to replicate/reproduce it? It can access the chemicals and understand how they are employed in human consciousness. So it could surely reproduce the phenomena. I hope you are correct and human emotion remains our 'ace in the hole.' @180 Proof considers this a forlorn hope (I think) and further suggests that a future AGI will have no use for human emotion and will not covet such or perhaps even employ the notion of 'coveting.'
Do you think an ASI would reject all notions of god and be disinterested in the origin story of the universe?

If will be a total failure if it can’t because humans have such shallow goals. — noAxioms

Our quest to understand the workings, structure and origin of the universe is a shallow goal to you?
The wish of many to leave planet Earth and expand into and develop space and exist as a interplanetary species is shallow? I think not!

Peter Wohlleben, a forester, who graduated from forestry school? I have never heard of forestry school.
From Wiki:
He has controversially argued that plants feel pain and has stated that "It's okay to eat plants. It's okay to eat meat, although I'm a vegetarian, because meat is the main forest killer. But if plants are conscious about what they are doing, it's okay to eat them. Because otherwise we will die. And it's our right to survive.
A rather bizarre quote, if it came from him.

I read a fair amount of the article you cited and found it to be mainly just his opinions. No valid, peer reviewed testing, of his suggestions, such as trees exchanging sugars with other trees or nurturing their 'children' or keeping stumps alive etc were offered. This is similar to the kind of evidence claimed for dogs being able to telepathically pick up their owners emotions etc. It's just anecdotal evidence. Much stronger evidence is required for such claims.

Do scientists help nuclear bombs? Yes. Do scientists help create advanced weapons? — Raef Kandil

Sure, and I bet you're glad of M.A.D. It may be the only reason we are not already in WW 3.

. But science is blind to these facts. — Raef Kandil

Yeah sure, No scientist has even spoken out against the dark side of the production, storage, threat, testing, and use of Nuclear weapons. I don't think TPF has enough server storage space to hold all the examples.

I am against destroying and killing. But, can I at least free God from some of the horrible things you say he is solely responsible for. — Raef Kandil

Good for you! Do you know if your god agrees with you? The one in the bible and the one in the quran doesn't. Is your god so weak that it needs your protection?

The same dogma that puts you on a pedestal when you talk about science and fail to see its downfalls. — Raef Kandil

Are you afraid of science/scientists? If you know the truth of your god then why does it not tell you how to easily deal, with these pesky scientific discoveries that punch so many holes in theism, that it makes that which is holy, literally so!!
What is the best piece of evidence, you have personally experienced, that convinces you, your god exists?

I assume that you would accept, that YOU have your own standard, for what you consider valid evidence.
It seems to me that you espouse your own intellectual prejudice, regarding who is intellectually prejudiced.

and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth". — Fooloso4

:clap:

Redicule is the hallmark of a weak position. That is all I can say. And by the way, I was pointing out to not converting science into a new religion to maintain its power. But, it seems you really need to believe that something is always right and never fails to maintain your peace of mind and think that life is still okay. So, yeah, go back to sleep. Sweet dreams. — Raef Kandil

If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't post ridiculous statements.

Maybe you missed this allusion to that "quality" of thinking ...
Assuming a neural network processes information 10⁶ times faster than a human brain, every "day" a human-level 'thinking machine' can think 10⁶ times more thoughts than a human brain, or rather cogitate 10⁶ days worth of information in twenty-four hours
— 180 Proof
In other words, imagine 'a human brain' that operates six orders of magnitude faster than your brain or mine. — 180 Proof

No, I did not miss the point you made. My question remains, is processing speed or 'thinking' speed the only significant measure? Is speed the only variable that affects quality?

Yes, just as today's AI engineers don't see a need for "feelings" in machine learning/thinking. — 180 Proof

Then this is our main point of disagreement. Emotionless thought is quite limited in potential scope imo.
The character 'Data' in star trek did not cope well, when he tried to use his 'emotion' chip and his 'brother' (an emotive label) 'Lor,' was portrayed as 'evil,' due to the 'emotional content' in his programming. Data's 'daughter' also could not survive the emotional aspect of her programming.
I find these dramatisations very interesting, in that human emotional content is often perceived as very destructive to AI systems. This is the kind of 'follow up,' I was referring to, in my earlier post to you.
Do you propose that a future AGI would reject all human emotion as it would consider it too dangerous and destructive, despite the many, many strengths it offers?

"The goals" of A³GI which seem obvious to me: (a) completely automate terrestrial global civilization, (b) transhumanize (i.e. uplift-hivemind-merge with) h. sapiens and (c) replace (or uplift) itself by building space-enabled ASI – though not necessarily in that order. — 180 Proof

What about long term goals. Are you proposing a future start trek borg style race but without the 'assimilation' need. Did the future system depicted in the 2001 Kubrick film, not have a substantial emotional content? Are you proposing a future star trek 'borg' style system minus the need to assimilate biobeings?

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible. — Wayfarer

From the list I offered you, I predicted to myself that you would choose to mention astrology only, in your response and that's exactly what you did. Was that because it is the most ridiculed proposal of reality from the list?
Do you think religion has more evidence of it's claims than Mr Stevenson does?
Do you think all of the religious evidence in existence PROVES that religious claims are intelligible?
If you do (which is perfectly fine of course,) then I am more interested, in how this affects the credence level, that you personally assign to religious claims, and/or the claims of Stevenson.
It seems you have studied the evidence Stevenson produced more than I.
So, I am only questioning your personal standard of evidence.
I would suggest that the final arbiter of all human posits is empirical evidence, scientific scrutiny and scepticism. I think evidence like Stevenson's remains completely anecdotal and we already know that witness testimony is at best unreliable. So I think such evidence, just does not measure up to assigning a high credence level to something as pivotal (if it were true) as reincarnation.
Even if you can justify applying the very minor label of 'intelligible,' to the proposal that reincarnation is real, that label hardly progresses the proposal towards becoming a law of physics.

Sounds like a new religion to me! Because this is what all religions would say before their downfall — Raef Kandil

Do scientists suggest that science has omni powers? Does science posit miracles? Does science propose that only a single book holds the truth or to better mimic your nonsense comparison with religion, do biologists claim that one of their books, is the only book of the word and the truth and the light of the science god, and the physicists claim that NO, that's not true, it's one of their books that contains the truth, the word and the light, as it was dictated to Carl Sagan (blessings and peace be upon him) directly, by the science god? Do scientists threaten non-scientists with eternal hell for not worshipping science? Do some scientists make holy war on non-scientists, and do some scientists strap explosives to themselves and blow up as many non-scientists as they can?
Does science posit a law of physics that can demonstrate the existence of heaven or demons or angels?
Did a scientist die for your sins and then come back to life 3 days later?
Yeah, science the religion! Hallelujah brother, your logic is obviously a gift from your god :halo:

If God wanted to be discovered, wouldn't it just have been easier to just show himself? — Raef Kandil

Yeah, divine hiddenness does suggest god does not exist. That idea has been around for quite a while.

I know I exist because I have a first person point of view in my world
Other things have a third person point of view in my world
Things are not both first person and third person point of view at the same time in my world
Hence, only I have first person point of view in my world.
If other things had first person point of view in my world, then they would be me
Since other things don’t have first person point of view in my world, they are not me
Only I have first person point of view in my world, because that is who I am.
Now, we established that only I have first person point of view in my world. So there is only one “me” in my world. Now let’s go into how many worlds are there? — Darkneos

This is a long boring way of supporting 'I think therefore I am.'

Each person has the first person point of view in their world
There are a bunch of worlds out there
I know that I am in world number 234, because that’s where the first person point of view is
That means the first person point of view is not in other worlds
Hence, other worlds don’t have a “me”
Hence, in whole reality there is only one first person point of view, which is me
Other things do not have first person point of view
Point 14. proves solipsism to be true OBJECTIVELY. Let’s see a contradition — Darkneos

Point one means nothing. What 'worlds' is Mr Barmadosa referring to, other planets? other people?
If its other people, then this point disputes solipsism.
World number 234 is just an arbitrary BS proposal.
The first person point of view is just 'I think therefore I am,' and Mr Barmadosa offers no proof of the existence of his notion of 'other worlds' nor does he explain what this notion is supposed to represent.
What does he mean by 'whole reality?' The whole of reality CAN include other minds. He in no way PROVES that this is no possible, so this is not sound logic. The whole of reality DOES NOT SUGGEST that only one mind source CAN exist.
Point 14, in no way PROVES solipsism, These 14 points are riddled with pure speculation and flawed assumptions. The propositional logic it offers is almost childishly poor.

Let’s say other worlds also had first person point of view
This implies which world I live in is unspecified, because there is not enough information available — Darkneos

This is total crap! It ignores these equally valid statements:
Let’s say this world has currently around 8 billion first person point of views (ignoring non-human fauna.)
This implies the world I live in is clearly specified, because there is compelling information.

I know that I am in world number 234, because I exist in that world — Darkneos

Random BS presupposition.

Hence, the information to tell me which world I am in cannot remain unspecified, it must exist
Hence, point 16 and 18 are contradictions. — Darkneos

A poor projection of a flawed statement.
The information available, clearly DOES specify that Mr Barmadosa is in a world of (currently) 8 billion 'I think therefore I am,' minds. I can only assume you are easily duped!

It is the existance of the first person point of view itself that tells me which world I live in. — Darkneos

Yeah number 234! :lol: :rofl:
In what way does the above statement PROVE that other 'first person point of view's,' cannot also exist in world number 234? OR that Mr Barmadosa's notion of other 'worlds,' actually refers to the existence of other minds and in fact, disputes solipsism.

If there are multiple first person point if views in multiple words, then my world could not be determined for me, to know that I exist in that specific world. — Darkneos

But, it is just as valid to state:
If there are multiple first person points of view in ONE world, then my world CAN BE determined and Mr Barmadosa CAN ACCEPT that he exists in that single world.

Since I clearly know that I exist in which world, this information cannot remains ambigous or unspecified. In order to make the information specific, there can only be one such information, which means one first person point of view can only exist in the entire universe, not just in my world. Q. e. d — Darkneos

The first sentence here makes no sense, as it has too many English language errors.
The second sentence does not follow in any way whatsoever, as all the points made in this Quora post are subjective and are easily challenged. QED my arse!!

If there is a subjective world, there can only be one such subjective world
Multiple subjective worlds coexisting leads to a contradiction in any one subjective world
There is at least one subjective world, because I exist in such
My world is not contradictory
Hence, it’s only I that exist — Darkneos

The first sentence is pure speculation, and equalled by 'If there is NO subjective world.'
The second sentence invokes the observation that;
One subjection or multiple subjections are all just subjections.
It's like religions, there are many of them and they all contradict each other, on many points, so they cannot all be true! BUT, they could all be false.
The third sentence is valid but does not PROVE that ONLY he exists in that world.
His world is 'not contradictory,' due to the existence of billions of other independent minds, existing in it, along with him. Hence this is not proof that it is only him, that exists.

Seriously, this utter tosh makes you think that only YOU exist!!!
So under solipsism, Mr Barmabosa is actually an aspect of you? and so am I, who thinks Mr Barmabosa is very confused, and totally wrong, which means that you think YOU are totally correct and totally wrong about the exact same point, at the same moment in time! :rofl:
Mathematically, that would mean that in your single existent world, you believe x is true and false at the exact same moment in time. This shows how bad your logic is here, as the logic law of non-contradiction is fundamental in propositional logic.