Geoengineering is an Awesome Life Purpose

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, Miguel1 said:

If AI, robots, mechanical structures serves the purpose of natural nature and humankind better than they do, then it is just natural to be replaced.

Just like we replaced any living mechanisms that were dominated Earth before us.

It's also not true that AI serves the purpose of humans better than they do. (That's looking at humans from a very narrow perspective, as if jobs are our main purpose for existing.)  There are some things that AI wont be able to do. Deep intuition for one thing. Experiencing metaphysical love is another example. AI is limited to current set of knowledge it can work with. Conscious humans do have the potential to experience divine revelation. This is something in our divine DNA blueprint that you cant just put into a machine. Same principle applies to nature. 

 

Edited June 8 by Wilhelm44

[Wilhelm44]

The potential for delusions of grandeur are so obvious here. Yes, AI and all these other new technologies have an amazing ability to make things better in a lot of ways. 

And yes, we are one with God. But if I created a video game, it would be literally impossible for a group of characters in the video game, to somehow out create me in terms of quality etc. So even though I am God, it would be wise to also remember my place as a human being. Mother nature can become a very cruel bitch when messed with too much.

@Miguel1

Edited June 8 by Wilhelm44

[aurum]

@Wilhelm44 Try contemplating deeper.

You're still making naturalistic and human-centric errors. 

 

Edited June 9 by aurum

[Wilhelm44]

33 minutes ago, aurum said:

@Wilhelm44 Try contemplating deeper.

You're still making naturalistic and human-centric errors. 

 

Thats a very lazy answer. I would like to get clarity on one thing here, because I see you didn't disagree with Miguel's comment earlier. Are you seeing geo engineering projects as a way to help save humanity and nature. Or do you agree with Miguel's comment, ie to potentially replace nature with something artificial that supposedly does nature better than nature itself ?

Edited June 9 by Wilhelm44

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Are you seeing geo engineering projects as a way to help save humanity and nature. Or do you agree with Miguel's comment, ie to potentially replace nature with something artificial that supposedly does nature better than nature itself ?

Both are potentially true.

[Wilhelm44]

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

Both are potentially true.

So, once you have saved humanity and nature, why would you then still want to replace nature with something artificial ?

Edited June 9 by Wilhelm44

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

So, once you have saved humanity and nature, why would you want to replace nature with something artificial ?

Who decides what is "nature" and what is "artificial"? 

[Wilhelm44]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

Who decides what is "nature" and what is "artificial"? 

Can you try and answer my question first ?

[Wilhelm44]

Once you have saved humanity and nature, why the need to replace nature with something else ?

[aurum]

Just now, Wilhelm44 said:

Can you try and answer my question first ?

No, because you're not recognizing how arbitrary these categories you are creating are.

That has to be solved first.

[Wilhelm44]

Just now, aurum said:

No, because you're not recognizing how arbitrary these categories you are creating are.

That has to be solved first.

Okay, lets say these categories dont exist, lets say its all God. Still the question is there, once you have saved humanity and nature, why the need to somehow replace nature ?

[aurum]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Okay, lets say these categories dont exist, lets say its all God. Still the question is there, once you have saved humanity and nature, why the need to somehow replace nature ?

Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. We don't know exactly how things are going to play out. Most likely somethings will be replaced and others will not.

Ultimately though, everything must be replaced because everything must evolve. That's the essence of Infinity / God.

[Eskilon]

5 minutes ago, aurum said:

Ultimately though, everything must be replaced because everything must evolve. That's the essence of Infinity / God.

I think that's a limiting view. Not necessarily everything must evolve.

Why not infinite devolution? Or something in between? God can't be constrained by evolution.

It's more accurate to say that everything changes -- like buddhists says. But change doesn't mean evolution.

Edited June 9 by Eskilon

[Wilhelm44]

10 minutes ago, aurum said:

Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. We don't know exactly how things are going to play out. Most likely somethings will be replaced and others will not.

Ultimately though, everything must be replaced because everything must evolve. That's the essence of Infinity / God.

Nature knows how to evolve just fine.  You are saying maybe you would, maybe you would'nt. So lets say you would. Once you have saved humanity and nature, why would you still want to replace nature ? 

Edited June 9 by Wilhelm44

[aurum]

1 minute ago, Eskilon said:

Not necessarily everything must evolve.

Yes they must, because that's the only way you can finite things at all.

If a finite thing never evolved, it would be eternal and therefore infinite.

1 minute ago, Eskilon said:

Why not infinite devolution?

That'd still be evolution.

Evolution = change.

[aurum]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Nature knows how to evolve just fine.  You are saying maybe you would, maybe you would'nt. So lets say you would. Once you have saved humanity and nature, why would you still want to replace nature ? 

How do you know humans aren't part of evolution?

You're not grasping the depth of the category problem.

[Wilhelm44]

Just now, aurum said:

How do you know humans aren't part of evolution?

You're not grasping the depth of the category problem.

Of course we are part of evolution. That doesnt mean we should replace nature just because we can

[Eskilon]

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

Yes they must, because that's the only way you can finite things at all.

No, the whay you get finite things is by imagining them. And the source aka GOD never evolved, it`s just there.

 

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

That'd still be evolution.

Evolution = change.

I think you`re conflating things, but ok we can agree to disagree.

If you move your hand from right to left, your hands position changed. But I doubt you would say that your hand just evolved.

Edited June 9 by Eskilon

[aurum]

Just now, Wilhelm44 said:

Of course we are part of evolution. That doesnt mean we should replace nature just because we can

But you just said nature knows how to evolve just fine.

If humans are a part of evolution, how do you know that nature doesn't want us to replace nature? How do you know the next evolutionary move doesn't come through humans? 

[aurum]

7 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

No, the whay you get finite things is by imagining them. And the source aka GOD never evolved, it`s just there.

Technically you are imagining finite things evolving. 

7 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

If you move your hand from right to left, your hands position changed. But I doubt you would say that it evolved.

It's a type of evolution, just a rather trivial one.

Evolution is not limited to ideas like evolutionary biology.

Edited June 9 by aurum