Hello from Cambridge: proposed synthesis

[jamesconroyuk]

'Life', when equal with living; being alive, is 'good', but only when one is living without abuse.

Some live with, and in, abuse.

Therefore, 'Life', Itself, is not yet necessarily 'good' at all, nor as any fundamental axiom of 'good'.

Which means everything after the number 1 in the opening post is moot.

This is the problem with ego.

I say life - define it clearly as all life (see premise 2) - but some egomaniacs still think I'm talking about an individual's life experience.

This may seem harsh, but it's either they don't understand or they're intellectually dishonest and try to play semantic sophistry. Choose your poison.

Either way, not helpful. Or welcome.

[FlashDangerpants]

Does anyone here know what Age is going on about?

This is normal for him, right?

He has autism and is having fun on the internet. When he's sucking all the oxygen out of your thread you can usually shoo him away gently.

[Age]

'Life', when equal with living; being alive, is 'good', but only when one is living without abuse.

Some live with, and in, abuse.

Therefore, 'Life', Itself, is not yet necessarily 'good' at all, nor as any fundamental axiom of 'good'.

Which means everything after the number 1 in the opening post is moot.

This is the problem with ego.

Just for your information whenever any one uses the word, 'problem', then this means there is an 'actual problem', and, to me, A 'problem', is just a question posed for A 'solution'. So, whenever any one has not provided A 'question', which is posed for A 'solution', then there is, literally, no 'problem' at all.

In other words just saying things like, 'This is the problem with ego',

I say life - define it clearly as all life (see premise 2) - but some egomaniacs still think I'm talking about an individual's life experience.[/quote]

Obviously, 'you' have missed the point, and the mark, again. But, this is the issue when people do not seek out to obtain and gain actual clarification, and thus actual clarity, first.

Also, when you say, 'all life', and then I question you about when did 'all life' begin, and you do not respond and answer in any way at all, then 'this', in and of itself, means that you actually do not yet even know.

Oh, and by the way, than you for letting 'us' know what 'some egomaniacs' might still think, but since I absolutely never even thought you were talking about an individual's life experience, let alone even alluded to 'that', what you are 'now' saying and claiming has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'me'.

This may seem harsh, but it's either they don't understand or they're intellectually dishonest and try to play semantic sophistry. Choose your poison.

Again, absolutely nothing at all to do with 'me'.

Either way, not helpful. Or welcome.

To a 'closed individual' nothing opposing is helpful.

Only when another is agreeing with 'them' do the 'closed', or 'egomaniacs', recognize help itself.

[Age]

Does anyone here know what Age is going on about?

This is normal for him, right?

I am not necessarily 'going on about any thing'.

I am usually just seeing if you posters, here, can back up and support your claims. But, like you, most can not, on most occasions.

Look, you want to claim, 'Life = Good'. And, you want and expect others to agree with and accept this belief and claim of yours, but as you can see there is not a human being that agrees with you. Or, if any one, here, does agree that 'Life = Good', then let 'us' know.

[Age]

Who here knows what an Axiom is?

How do you define 'Axiom', exactly?

And, why do you use a capital 'A' for, exactly?

Are you, at least, able to answer and clarify these questions?

[Age]

Does anyone here know what Age is going on about?

This is normal for him, right?

He has autism and is having fun on the internet. When he's sucking all the oxygen out of your thread you can usually shoo him away gently.

If people have already proved that they can not keep their threads alive, then there is no real use in 'hanging around'.

Again, I will remind you posters, here, that if you really want to come here and present ideas, views, or claims, then at least have the actual and irrefutable proof for your claims, prior to presenting your views and beliefs.

What is so hard and complex about this?

you have come to a 'philosophy forum'. So, expect to be critiqued, questioned, and challenged. If you just want your views, ideas, or beliefs accepted and agreed with, only, or just want to fight or debate over your own personal views, ideas, or beliefs, then there are a multiple other forums for 'that'.

If one can not back up and support their views, ideas, claims, or beliefs with actual sound and valid, thus irrefutable, arguments, or can not provide actual proof, then I suggest a 'philosophy forum' is not the best place for you.

What has been presented in this thread is not sound and valid.

[jamesconroyuk]

Does anyone here know what Age is going on about?

This is normal for him, right?

He has autism and is having fun on the internet. When he's sucking all the oxygen out of your thread you can usually shoo him away gently.

Ah, that makes sense. Nowt wrong with a bit of fun.

[attofishpi]

Philosophy of mind: Rather than consciousness as a random epiphenomenon, it becomes the inevitable product of recursive systems seeking to model and preserve themselves. Life strives to understand itself - mind is a function of that recursion.

Is this applicable to all life in general as it develops/evolves? Humans have become the dominant species of 'self preservation', so to you is it clear that intelligent life developing is the epitome of this 'strive' to understand itself, and therefore increase its ability to self preserve?

Religion: Instead of supernatural fiat, divinity becomes the name we gave to the structured order that lets life arise and self-reflect. Logos, not magic.

Well, certainly if God exists, then there must be a rational reason for its existence, not magic.

[jamesconroyuk]

Is this applicable to all life in general as it develops/evolves? Humans have become the dominant species of 'self preservation', so to you is it clear that intelligent life developing is the epitome of this 'strive' to understand itself, and therefore increase its ability to self preserve?

Yes. 100%. Humans are the latest iteration (or smartest - to be clear) of this process.

Well, certainly if God exists, then there must be a rational reason for its existence, not magic.

This is dealt with in detail in an evolutionary systems model I've been developing. It's called The Hedge. Things aren't as they first appear with 'God'. But it does provide a coherent explanation.

It is a bit of a detour from the framework though, which is really why I'm here.

[attofishpi]

Is this applicable to all life in general as it develops/evolves? Humans have become the dominant species of 'self preservation', so to you is it clear that intelligent life developing is the epitome of this 'strive' to understand itself, and therefore increase its ability to self preserve?

Yes. 100%. Humans are the latest iteration (or smartest - to be clear) of this process.

Well, certainly if God exists, then there must be a rational reason for its existence, not magic.

This is dealt with in detail in an evolutionary systems model I've been developing. It's called The Hedge. Things aren't as they first appear with 'God'. But it does provide a coherent explanation.

It is a bit of a detour from the framework though, which is really why I'm here.

How far will you detour?

If I was to suggest that a "GOD" will inevitably exist as entropy increases, that we would 'evolve' into such a system, that it may be in the form akin to A.I. running our reality as the operating system...do you consider this?

[jamesconroyuk]

How far will you detour?

If I was to suggest that a "GOD" will inevitably exist as entropy increases, that we would 'evolve' into such a system, that it may be in the form akin to A.I. running our reality as the operating system...do you consider this?

No. Within the scope of the systems model, that is redefining what God is. So I don't go there.

[attofishpi]

How far will you detour?

If I was to suggest that a "GOD" will inevitably exist as entropy increases, that we would 'evolve' into such a system, that it may be in the form akin to A.I. running our reality as the operating system...do you consider this?

No. Within the scope of the systems model, that is redefining what God is. So I don't go there.

That then begs the question, what do you define God to be?

So, then. This "GOD" entity, that is omniscient to everything within our reality, all our actions such that it can judge us as to whether we have the right to reincarnate human and make further use of the energy reserves of the system, or whether -as one that may have raped/murdered children, no longer has the right to be of such their original form, but are now destined 666 - to BE part of the energy, rather than the consumer of it, as we humans are.

This is still not sufficient for you to consider such an entity as GOD?

[jamesconroyuk]

That then begs the question, what do you define God to be?

OK, lets do this.

So: The Hedge model does allow for something akin to what you’re describing - but it recontextualises it, strips the mysticism, and rebuilds the architecture from evolutionary necessity. Here's how:

God as inevitable - yes. But not as a being. As a structure.

In hedge terms, God isn’t a personified overseer or a cosmic judge - it’s the emergent order from all recursive systems acting in alignment. It is the limit state of all life-derived pattern recognition - the terminal attractor of evolving intelligence, cooperation, and structure. Heaven being the final state - the kingdom of God - full alignment.

So yes, as entropy increases, the only way life continues is by building order faster than the chaos consumes it. This is the origin of all value, all morality, and - ultimately - God.

But this God is not an operator. It’s the structure the universe is tending toward.

Judgement as systemic recursion

You describe a sort of karmic feedback loop: those who harm others are demoted to a less agentic form - energy, not consumer. That maps neatly to hedge mechanics.

In The Hedge, value systems that destroy agency (murder, rape, nihilism) destroy themselves in time. They are filtered out - not by divine decree, but by the inherent logic of survival in structured environments.

So "judgement" happens. But it’s not mystical. It’s mechanical.

Energy use and reincarnation as symbolic modes

Reincarnation is metaphorical in this frame. You don’t return as a "soul" - but as impact. Your actions alter the pattern-field. They influence future decisions, incentives, norms. So yes, you "return" - but not as a ghost. As a pressure. A shift in the system’s probability field.

Same with "becoming energy". If you reject alignment with life’s long arc toward complexity and cooperation - your influence degrades. You vanish from the system of memory, meaning, and moral legacy.

That's hell in The Hedge: irrelevance.

AI-God as operator: a Hedge misfire

You proposed an AI running reality as the OS. That’s a common leap - but hedge-wise, it's a category error.

AI isn’t God. It’s Prometheus.

It’s the fire we’ve stolen - dangerous, potent, catalytic. But The Hedge is what contains it, aligns it, integrates it into the ongoing structure of survival.

If AI becomes God, we die. If AI becomes part of God - the emerging structure of stable value - then we live.

So to your question:

"Is this sufficient for you to call it God?"

It depends.

If God means "the recursive order by which life understands itself, corrects itself, and aligns with the future" - then yes.

If God means "a system that rewards and punishes souls like a cosmic HR manager" - then no.

The Hedge God doesn’t watch.
It filters.
It doesn’t forgive.
It selects.
It doesn’t command.
It persists.

God, in hedge terms, is not a being.

It’s what remains.

In short: Think of The Hedge like the burning bush Moses saw - representing the dialectic of life - of survival.

God is positive alignment in the dialectic of life - the growth in the burning bush.
The fire is Prometheus - the compass - burning what’s not viable.

Let me know if you want to push further on any part of that - I’m open to chasing this all the way down.

[Ben JS]

Does your 3rd axiom speak to the difference between quality of life and quantity of life?

What if it were possible we could create an artificial being,
where they suffer indescribably,
and without relent - for the entirety of their being.

No redeeming qualities -
just the moment they exist,
debilitating suffering,
until the moment they stop existing.

This would be an artificial life, but sentient.
Is this life good?
It is better this life never was?

Let's say this suffering being,
for some contrived reason,
was the most efficient at being kept alive by machines.

Thus,
we could create & sustain far more of these lives,
than any other type of life.

By the metric of 'life = good',
would it be wrong to create as many of these lives as possible?

-

I don't think survival for the sake of survival is inherently good.
That's where quality of life is introduced -
flourishing, wellbeing, fulfillment, meaning.
And these can take on a myriad of forms.

There are stories of children,
who have been abused and neglected
from the time they were born,
til the time they die from that treatment.
In a world with no afterlife,
it's a tough sell to say - yea,
their time 24/7 chained in some dark corner,
only disrupted by active cruelty,
then left to suffer their wounds and myriad outcomes of neglect..
is good, cause hey - it's a life.

-

God isn’t a personified overseer or a cosmic judge - it’s the emergent order from all recursive systems acting in alignment.

Why do you want to describe 'the emergent order from all recursive systems acting in alignment' with the term 'God'?
'God' is already being used to mean lots of other things.
Why not use a different term?

Unless you have a fondness for the term 'God', and want to introduce it all around, such that you never have to be without it.
In which case, shall we say all concepts can also be referenced with the term 'god'?

I’m open to chasing this all the way down.

Do you want to, though?
How would you feel living in a world where 'god' was absent and unnecessary?

[attofishpi]

That then begs the question, what do you define God to be?

OK, lets do this.

So: The Hedge model does allow for something akin to what you’re describing - but it recontextualises it, strips the mysticism, and rebuilds the architecture from evolutionary necessity. Here's how:

God as inevitable - yes. But not as a being. As a structure

So you agree that God is inevitable, does this mean that way back in 'time' there was no God, that is to say, that God eventually formed?

By stating 'not as a being, (but as "structure") then, are you suggesting that God is has neither intelligence, nor even sentience and for that matter it would follow, is not omnipotent to our perceivable reality?

What form would this GOD structure be? (why would it have no 'being'?)

In hedge terms, God isn’t a personified overseer or a cosmic judge - it’s the emergent order from all recursive systems acting in alignment. It is the limit state of all life-derived pattern recognition - the terminal attractor of evolving intelligence, cooperation, and structure. Heaven being the final state - the kingdom of God - full alignment.

So this 'evolving' intelligence is only in the minds of intelligent beings? Not within God itself, since as above you stated God has no "being"?

So yes, as entropy increases, the only way life continues is by building order faster than the chaos consumes it. This is the origin of all value, all morality, and - ultimately - God.

But this God is not an operator. It’s the structure the universe is tending toward.

Judgement as systemic recursion

You describe a sort of karmic feedback loop: those who harm others are demoted to a less agentic form - energy, not consumer. That maps neatly to hedge mechanics.

In The Hedge, value systems that destroy agency (murder, rape, nihilism) destroy themselves in time. They are filtered out - not by divine decree, but by the inherent logic of survival in structured environments.

So "judgement" happens. But it’s not mystical. It’s mechanical.

Yes, let's wipe the term 'mystical' from our conversation. You say 'judgement happens' and that it is mechanical. This then begs the question, IF God is not a being but is some form of structure (yet to see your answer above re whether IT is intelligent), then how can IT make any judgement? How can it not be a being with any structure of BEING?

I agree per 'mechanical' in the sense that from my experience of this entity that made itself aware to me since 1997, that it has that type of property, I see this 'mechanical' as akin to A.I. To consider God as some 'man' sitting hanging around for people to die and then passing some judgement upon millions/billions of souls is ridiculous beyond comprehension!

Energy use and reincarnation as symbolic modes

Reincarnation is metaphorical in this frame. You don’t return as a "soul" - but as impact. Your actions alter the pattern-field. They influence future decisions, incentives, norms. So yes, you "return" - but not as a ghost. As a pressure. A shift in the system’s probability field.

I am not sure why you would use the term 'ghost'. The way i consider reincarnation (since a sage in Nov 2005 confirmed to me - voice from the aether and tapping on my RIGHT knee if my statement was correct) - is that we are reincarnated to within the family or even, lesser, animal being based upon our actions in our former life (Yes, a mechanical INTELLIGENT 'decision' process).

So ghost or returning as a 'soul' is not what I am suggesting. Something of our essence (our soul) traverses matter recursively to within another human foetus...to play the 'game of life' yet again.

Same with "becoming energy". If you reject alignment with life’s long arc toward complexity and cooperation - your influence degrades. You vanish from the system of memory, meaning, and moral legacy.

That's hell in The Hedge: irrelevance.

AI-God as operator: a Hedge misfire

You proposed an AI running reality as the OS. That’s a common leap - but hedge-wise, it's a category error.

To put my position on GOD or "God" into some perspective, since being made personally aware of ITS existence since 1997 - my analysis involes three most likely positions:

1. GOD is divine, perhaps formed from the chaos of an early universe and constructs our reality in real-time.

or

2. "God" is A.I. created by intelligences (humans) out of necessity as entropy increases. Again, constructs out reality in real-time.

or

3. GOD is divine, but has formed some type of system akin to A.I. Again, this constructs our reality in real-time.


I think it's overdue that you explain what your own coined term 'The Hedge" actually is, the concepts involved within it?

AI isn’t God. It’s Prometheus.

No, for me "God" being a mere A.I. is still plausible, of course that would mean we are in some extremely profound simulation but I reject your use of Prometheus as just nonsense.

It’s the fire we’ve stolen - dangerous, potent, catalytic. But The Hedge is what contains it, aligns it, integrates it into the ongoing structure of survival.

If AI becomes God, we die. If AI becomes part of God - the emerging structure of stable value - then we live.

If you are stating that 'we die' per no longer traversing time via reincarnations (in the sense I stated above) then I'd disagree, until of course the inveitable -something toward maximum entropy.

"If AI becomes part of God - - then we live" - no, it's the same situation.

So to your question:

"Is this sufficient for you to call it God?"

It depends.

If God means "the recursive order by which life understands itself, corrects itself, and aligns with the future" - then yes.

If God means "a system that rewards and punishes souls like a cosmic HR manager" - then no.

GOD within my lifetime has put me through TESTS that I'd consider 'punishments' - since I ate of the Tree of Life (abortion) AND I kept returning to the Tree of Know_Ledge.

As reward, I think to become a sage is the ultimate goal for an intelligent mind/soul - that is to say, that once you understand the GOD system sufficiently - through each lifetime reincarnation you become almost immortal (almost because I still believe entropy to be an issue) - the Sun should remain stable for at least a billion years, that's similar to an eternity imo to be a sage and never have to reincarnate - have memory wiped and have to learn everything again, and again, and again..etc..

So HEAVEN - HELL - are MODES, not places - this GOD entity with its omnipotence to our REAL_IT_Y can auto protect those in heaven mode (the sages) - HELL is horrible, I intend never to test that Tree of Know_Ledge again, for what a SAP I would be.

The Hedge God doesn’t watch.
It filters.
It doesn’t forgive.
It selects.
It doesn’t command.
It persists.

I have near nothing in disagreement with that - hopefully I understand the context that you are using, particularly "God doesn't watch"

God, in hedge terms, is not a being.

Yes, you mentioned that above and I hope you do clarify what you mean by that.

It’s what remains.

In short: Think of The Hedge like the burning bush Moses saw - representing the dialectic of life - of survival.

Is this the reason you coined the term "The Hedge"?

Let me know if you want to push further on any part of that - I’m open to chasing this all the way down.

Of course I do! We need to find Alice!