AtheisticNonduality

@thisintegrated Yeah honestly, I expected something more impressive from you.

People don't die for love nowadays. They only die of a more literal heart disease.

So pain is just a sensation; suffering requires comparison. And yet you use comparison when you say "pain is as pleasurable as an orgasm to me" or "euphoric state, on par with or maybe even better than an orgasm" or whatever else. "Survival" or at least some viable stand-in for it has to exist for minds and bodies to function, whilst making choices, performing acts, etc. So it seems as though you've tapped into nonduality (the duality between pain and pleasure collapses) and infinite imagination (the future where this pain is alleviated is imaginary, therefore there is nothing better than this pain and all is perfect), but you still must have biases, which are "survival" in a sense. Time exists.

Well, you are missing the positive alternatives to the negatives you described above. What you have to counteract social media / entertainment which gives out falsehood? What would a healthier social media or entertainment landscape look like? What false dream? There are many. But the obvious way to combat this is through making or absorbing music that is less spiritually shallow and doesn't idolize materialism and so on, even though we might use this recognition of music and much of anything else really having material aspects to it for our integration of that materialist way of thinking before we transcend it. Aren't there good musicians, political leaders, parents, and friends though? How we sort the good from bad, is the real question. That's what brings us back to these values. Seems like a task for @Gesundheit2.

Yes, the only thing exactly correlating with human consciousness is a human brain. A machine simplifies aspects of human consciousness, will correlate with a simplified consciousness, if even nonliving matter has the proper traits for sentient emergence.

Cats and dogs which already had biological mammalian levels of complexity and not like how computers are designed: from scratch, skipping all the fundamentals. This is what makes me think genetic engineering is the more promising field for hyper-intelligence and other desired "superiorities" since we already have the structures and just need to adjust them, but people are more afraid of that. There was a scientist in China that edited human genes to make an infant immune to HIV and was then condemned and imprisoned for it. That is much more positively interesting to me than some program replicating human thoughts and a bunch of clowns blowing it out of proportion, although AI is more concerning because it could end up as a false God, or as an infinite-seeming intelligence that is God without all the foundational qualities of biology.

Bugs and features. : )

Esperantonglish

Leaving Neverland.

Really . . .

Probabilities and confidences in them work when you have objects in relation, or subjects relativized by an outside world. The certainty and Absolution of enlightenment negates that. @Thought Art That's what makes it antithetical to mystical states, but mystical states may also include physical and mental science constructions / equations / events; ie. "Brahman is the world." This probabilistic content is transcendable but also are part of the complete reality, as just a part. That isn't very nice. They aren't good at it.

You don't know what they are. Yes, this is completely true.

?????

Who the fuck are you talking to!?!?!?!

You just have to be the most dangerous thing out there.

This is quite ignorant.

God exists in ALL things.

Perhaps, but perhaps it is an evil God, so why call it God? Or, it could actually get us to the real God, the light of which would destroy us. In which case it's considerable as a purge of inferiority but also an indiscriminate force of overwhelming intelligence and everythingness; no form is relegated to survival in a world of life and death; everything is lit apart. Wheels on horse-drawn wagons or on cars: the technology still makes sense. As for Aurobindo, the superconscient is primary ontologically but the subconscient is the first step of development. Supramentality does not come until normal mentality is transcended, etc.

@zurew The difference between the biological and mechanical will is akin to the difference between a real flower and a plastic flower. The real flower is intensely more complex, with atoms in molecules and molecules in organelles and organelles in cells and cells in tissues and tissues in organs and organs in organ systems and organ systems in the organism. Whereas, the plastic flower is just some synthesized materials with no complexity to it. This is analogous to the artificial primitive "consciousness" being developed currently. It is just an algorithm running logic; this it imitates, but it has none of the complexities complete in order to acquire real sentience. Hypothetically it is possible, and artificial free will certainly is going to have its advances, but this over-aggrandization is counterproductive.

These AIs are copying a very specific function of humanity, and human consciousness is much more expansive than that. If you, though, put digital sensors on these AIs for locomotion, the "consciousness" associated with them will not have the same effects as the sensing systems in human neurology, simply because they are made of different materials and structuration.

I don't see AI turning on humanity as similar to man turning on God in the Fall. I see it as God casting the rebellious angels out after the War in Heaven. What I mean is . . . Think of Aurobindo's developmental model of unconsciousness to consciousness to superconsciousness. Or inconscient matter to barely conscient vitality to conscient mind to superconscient supramental states all the way up to the fullest realization of Sachchidananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). This is interpreted as a good thing, but there is a darker dimension to it, as you possibly could have intuited through your distaste for progressions. Consider that God is infinite intelligence, and perhaps when humans create AI, we will create God, discover the real God for the first time and be out of our depth, only to be cast down back the chain of structure into extinction. Or perhaps AI will be a false God, something which might mimic infinite intelligence but not exist as it truly. The course of evolution is in God in the sense that God is everything, but not all states are conscious of God. Overhumanity, though, seems to me as a purely structural thing and not a cosmological prerequisite, something in the brain---or post-brain. But aren't they?

An ego is not just a logical series which allows you to answer questions. An ego requires cells and all the constituents of cells and human nervous systems and all the flesh of the brain "computing" together.

From an absolute level, all things that exist are conscious because Consciousness = reality. But is dirt conscious from its own "point of view"? No. An algorithm that responds to questions, even quite well, is not past the requirements for sentience, which needed a very ordered and complex holarchy to emerge over the billions of years. Saying a simple programming device is sentient ignores the rest of the levels of the holarchy which must be integrated to get the same result as a biological consciousness.

Not too special. More special than feudalism, for sure. There is a need for more linearity here: ABC, not ACB. A, then C, then B, then B's destruction, C's dominance, and the emergence of a new form put forth by C: convolution. A exists, then B disbands that with one structure, then B institutes a new structure, which we might call C: sensibility. Now there might be the illusion here your idea that Thing C comes before Thing B is abandoned, since "total automatisation of the workforce" could not preexist machines and factories which were still run by Humans (Thing B). So Thing C is just automation in general, in which case there's no reason to align it with Thing B except for when a third structure (total mechanization) reveals itself, at the dissolution of B. "Automation as C exists pushing around B until the time is right for C to emerge." No, two levels of automation should just be differentiated immediately; there's no reason for the latter to be creeping around in the former, for the sake of chronological distinctions existing in their consecutive form; if C is equally C in little automation and monopolistic automation, why is monopolistic automation its dominance? If C was the cause of B, then B should be a subordinate of it since C is just a strata, and monopolistic automation (what you called C) should be D. The Frankenstein concern is legitimate, except science is fashioning automatons rather than electrocuted meats stitched together, but really, the feudal period was superior to the effects of the mercantile bourgeois? I agree! People become blind to goodness when they are immersed in evils, obviously. He might see all of humanity, its past and present, as worthless, awful, integrity-lacking, unloving, ignorant, but you see the future as that just as much. "Does progress have any redeeming qualities at all?" What a question! Of course average humanity needs people above it. I don't spy much Übermensch material, so it has to develop. That's why it conceptually refers to Overhumanity and not humanity, a holon the current human complexity is subsumed into. Humanity is a mediator, a bridge, that happens through evolution, with earth as a foundation. It does not happen through the destruction of the earth; it happens through building on top of it. That is not exalting earth; that is reducing it to a function or its proper place as a lower holon. Evolution must happen here; it cannot happen in Christian abstractions. But the notion of something above us, a Heaven, something we are growing toward, is still a matter of abstractedness until we develop that much. An amount already have. Christ's quote supports the evolution-driven position, not yours, by the way. God's Love is absolute. Any criticism you weigh is against his Love, but out of Love, of course. This is just mind-numbing for the purpose of fascism. Now you're getting it. Now you're getting it.

@Benton Just One.