Originally posted by Mindship
Dolos, in your opinion, is existence rooted in matter or consciousness? What is the fundamental reality from which everything else arises?
The meaning I have chosen to uphold is that as consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and capacity accelerate ad infinitum, we unravel God's consciousness, in a never ending cycle.
What about you? What is your perception of this existence?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not only did you not answer his question, but you also spouted more gibberish.
I exhort that such things as interpretation, philosophy, and ideology are not defined empirically; but rather, these things reflect our perceptions of the world around us.
Science is the practical and exigent method to understanding how the world around us works, it cannot be used to give sentimental values or meanings to the conscious mind.
Originally posted by DolosSounds like you choose 'consciousness', then.
The meaning I have chosen to uphold is that as consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and capacity accelerate ad infinitum, we unravel God's consciousness, in a never ending cycle.
My only criticism is how you explain all this. IMHO, you use too many multi-syllabic words. Einstein would advise you to word things as if you're explaining it to your grandmother (though again, I can appreciate a fondness for big, techno words).
Originally posted by DolosI'm a meditator. I prefer to think that 'consciousness' is the fundamental reality. Simply put, my favorite metaphor for 'God' is Dreamer/Dream.
What about you? What is your perception of this existence?
On the other hand, when I write scifi, I like the idea of meditative consciousness being developed through technology. I'm just not convinced such a short-cut would actually work (for reasons mentioned above).
Originally posted by Mindship
Sounds like you choose 'consciousness', then.
Overall (and this is not a criticism), your philosophy sounds like a mix of thetraditionally mysticalnontraditionally practical and the singularity/transhumanism. Like, technology can get us where meditation can, but faster and with engineered precision. I don't necessarily agree with that, because reality and awareness, I suspect, are much more multi-faceted than we imagine (ie, an attempt would raise 'more questions than answers', as scientists are fond of saying). On the other hand, it is a cool speculation.My only criticism is how you explain all this. IMHO, you use too many multi-syllabic words. Einstein would advise you to word things as if you're explaining it to your grandmother (though again, I can appreciate a fondness for big, techno words).
I'm a meditator. I prefer to think that 'consciousness' is the fundamental reality. Simply put, my favorite metaphor for 'God' is Dreamer/Dream.
On the other hand, when I write scifi, I like the idea of meditative consciousness being developed through technology. I'm just not convinced such a short-cut would actually work (for reasons mentioned above).
This seems backward to me. Your reasoning should take you to the opposite conclusion: my conclusion.
What I mean is, a nerd can imagine himself as a stud, however he will not look like a stud or lift weights like a stud until he hits the gym and physically changes. Your consciousness makes you aware, it's up to you to actually use the physical world and the physical sciences to transform physically. One must live in the world of the real, to really be God-like.
You can tell your body not to age all you want, it won't make you 21 again, it can't make something that isn't there to fulfill your most outlandish desires. One cannot just fly or become immortal, not without creating the technology to alter his/herself.
The potentialities of the quantum world are manipulated only by that which can interact with it, that which is on its level of existence (a level 4 parallel universe is one such vantage point, a superposition if you will), and thus the closer one gets physically to the smallest energy scale there could ever be (it goes on forever so there is no smallest scale), the closer one gets to that unattainable ultimate level, the more ones perception influences physics, and therefore the closer one gets to omnipotence.
Information that isn't compressed enough to perceive on quantum levels, can't do these things for the same reason that a person can't just make himself immortal by believing he's immortal.
Unlike with your meditative belief in universal consciousness, the limits of information technology/conscious super-compressed states aren't necessarily scientifically erroneous, not yet at least, not as far as we know.
But we know there are things the human cannot do without his tools. Like flight or advanced calculations or impossible feats of information processing or whatever. Whereas technology could allow for telepathy, humans can't just meditate and communicate on telepathic levels.
Therefore in my heart of hearts I'm an atheists, the only thing I buy are sci fi uncertainties because it's SCIENCE, I would never buy uncertainties like religion on a sub-conscious level. No reason, it's just my perception. 👆
Originally posted by Mindship
Einstein would advise you to word things as if you're explaining it to your grandmother (though again, I can appreciate a fondness for big, techno words).
I believe that was Feynman. He once stated, hyperbolically one hopes, that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it to a six year old and your grandmother.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosMy googling effort ("Einstein" "quotes" "grandmother"😉 suggests that Einstein did say it; Feynman said something similar...
I believe that was Feynman. He once stated, hyperbolically one hopes, that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it to a six year old and your grandmother.
Richard Feynman, the late Nobel Laureate in physics, was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin one-half particles obey Fermi Dirac statistics. Rising to the challenge, he said, "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But a few days later he told the faculty member, "You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it."
From wikipedia.
Another version. "You never really know a subject unless you can prepare a freshman lecture on it."
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RichardFeynman
In any event, apparently they both valued simplicity of expression.
Originally posted by Mindship
My googling effort ("Einstein" "quotes" "grandmother"😉 suggests that Einstein did say it; Feynman said something similar...Richard Feynman, the late Nobel Laureate in physics, was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin one-half particles obey Fermi Dirac statistics. Rising to the challenge, he said, "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But a few days later he told the faculty member, "You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it."
From wikipedia.
Another version. "You never really know a subject unless you can prepare a freshman lecture on it."
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RichardFeynmanIn any event, apparently they both valued simplicity of expression.
Originally posted by Omega VisionWell, he certainly wasn't gonna get any hairstyles named after him.
Dirac? I've heard of him. He has a building named after him in FSU.
But generally, he is credited with predicting the existence of the positively charged electron (later called the positron) and won a Nobel Prize for other high-falootin' stuff.
Originally posted by Bentley
Is the entire thesis of this argument to say "animals cannot be intelligent"? Because it surely sounds like it.
No, it appears to be designed to say that without the benefit of the inevitable psychodevelopment of the Hegelian Dialectic even humanity is not intelligent. If that sounds like stupid gibberish its mainly because Hegel believed stupid gibberish.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it appears to be designed to say that without the benefit of the inevitable psychodevelopment of the Hegelian Dialectic even humanity is not intelligent. If that sounds like stupid gibberish its mainly because Hegel believed stupid gibberish.
I was pushing my argument towards the "changing human psychodeveloppement is essentially wanting them to lose the things they have in common with animals, so humans need to stop being animals to be intelligent". Again, I was jumping into that conclusion only because some arguments are pretty trigger happy when it comes to controlling the ecosystem being intelligent.
Well intelligence is relative.
Therefore if there's a limit, one could make the claim we might as well not be intelligent, because there's a level of sophistication we cannot reach.
Humans and animals are both the intelligence I refer to, and not the intelligence I refer to.
A human cannot survive as their brain cells are slowly replaced by their femtorobotic augments - which take on a more sophisticated form of life in and of themselves - but their consciousness will be transformed in the process non-the-less, and it will transform eternal. Consciousness in this sense is a thermodynamic miracle, it is Yahweh for all intents and purposes, and capable of any eventuality it desires to create for itself over time. It has free-ish will power, and it will continue to evolve into more and more compact states of information, and take on more and more control over this world until it's reached the quantum state and has the ability to manipulate matter and energy via it's superposition. Beyond that I lack the understanding to speculate.
My point is, if there are levels of intelligence one cannot reach, it can be argued that that intelligence does not exist.
Originally posted by 753
so dolos, if you believe we will eventually become god, do you believe other civilizations havent done so already? in which case, why are physics around the universe so constant? why arent they warping it to their whims?
Now the answer to that would be an incredibly inane and irrelevant speculation.
You don't know what's going on out there. You think a few telescopes would give you an idea of that? We don't even know how far galaxies stretch out in space. There may be close to a googol plex clusters beyond our view.
Your argument implies that humanity, no, you have any sort of grasp of cosmic events from such a small spec as earth.
However, either way it's irrelevant, unless you're saying certain levels of intelligence just don't and can never exist from a self-philosophical belief system, liken to we were destined to destroy ourselves, or rule in a perpetually dystopian state of being.
even if our sample is small, it is consistant. besides we have ways of extrapolating measures of the cosmos from the observable portion. but really, if ascending to godhood is a way out of fermi's paradox, doesnt it just regenerate the paradox as: if god(s) is (are) common? then why isnt(arent) he(they) obvious?
Originally posted by 753
even if our sample is small, it is consistant. besides we have ways of extrapolating measures of the cosmos from the observable portion. but really, if ascending to godhood is a way out of fermi's paradox, doesnt it just regenerate the paradox as: if god(s) is (are) common? then why isnt(arent) he(they) obvious?
That's irrelevant to the topic.
This is an inner belief, it has nothing to do with logic.
Emotionally I'm inclined to believes humans are only capable of shit. Rancid piles of filth, I ****ing hate the human species and the society that they's shit out of their asses, I mean dystopia. My apologies.
This shit is a dystopia.
I live day by day in hell. Too busy with the pursuit of the $ to even talk to the beautiful women my age. I've missed so many years, I don't feel alive. Because the system was too complicated for me to work around, because I have social issue, I was raised very emotionally unintelligent. I'll never get those years back, at the same time I understand nothing is owed to me just because I've been miserable. That's even more unfair.