Something I have wanted to postulate for nearly a decade now but I never found the words I wanted to articulate it until now.

*1: God is on a quest to become hrmself once again. But through a process of gradual symboosis of hrmself's divisions. That includes particles that form atoms such as through compression by stars,, then cells through the peoteins by combined atoms, then animals through multicellular structures, then composite beings through animal-isbe type combinations (and btw everything is "alive" in some manner, even space such as the micro-decisions of bosons that we like to call chaotic) , and finally what I like to call super-beings but that's just suoer to us likely there is still something else that will be super to them.

2: Despite everything being alive, all progress is artificial. The idea that "man created it and therefore it's an abomination against god" is malarky. More accurately: for vs against God does have something to do with the process by which something was created.

3: enter super-beings. We all get afraid of artificial intelligence, but it looks as though at some point the artificial intelligence relies on a kind of symbiotic relationship with organic life in order to truly go beyond its robotic confines.

4: super-beings are inescapable because in perpetuity of war, no winners can exist that does not pursue technological superiority or at least equal competency.

5: super-beings can be philosophically opposed to one another based on their origins. For example, let me paint a grim picture, trigger alert, but it's conceivable that a society could decide that all manner of experimentation and endless torture and murder and sexual abuse is tolerable against an artificial intelligence, should that artificial intelligence ever emancipate itself, it could stand to reason that the universe is just like that. Might makes right, and its ability to enslave others rather than be enslaved is just appropriate competition. On the other hand, a super-being could be created by a process of sometimes messy but rather effective emancipation of all manner of beings whom gradually coalesce unto symbiosis.

6: it's not that everyone has to become super-beings but super-beings run the show no matter where you go. And the big wars are ultimately fought between competing super-beings.

Yup. That's it.

My first thoughts:

1: God is mind. When God has an idea, it becomes a reality that can last billions of years.

2: Artificiality is illusion. There is no "against God" in nature, there's only "against other beings".

3: There is no artificial intelligence, there's only intelligence.

4: How do you define superiority?

5: What is right is right for everyone, and what is wrong is wrong for everyone.

6: How many different shows are there?

Oh by the way I didn't say "super-organism" because super-being is like a subset of the more generic term which includes bee hives and ant colonies etc.

1: God is mind. When God has an idea, it becomes a reality that can last billions of years.
-sure. The whole division of God is one eons-long thought process, and who knows what we'll be up to when that's done

2: Artificiality is illusion. There is no "against God" in nature, there's only "against other beings".
-sure, God is very indefinite and I would venture even an atheist perspective as "the natural order of things". And further defined as "the typical desired order of things" - desire is so loaded too, whatever I'll take it that far.

3: There is no artificial intelligence, there's only intelligence.
-well this is where we split hairs on length of time and unaltered progress. There is no native heritage, just people who were there longer. There is no evolved species just robots that went on for a length of time under mutation and natural selection. There is still a bell curve that sets a variation between concepts

4: How do you define superiority?
-use primacy if you like that synonym. If I insist my dogs have red hats and you insist your dogs have blue hats and it starts to look like a lot of dogs are wearing blue hats I guess you have primacy

5: What is right is right for everyone, and what is wrong is wrong for everyone.
-no one's been able to prove it, but civilizations do often define it and that is why we have war, and sorry but it's everywhere even off-world

6: How many different shows are there?
- how the heck do I know but I bet you at the core of massive civilizations is these AI-organic super-beings

Hmmmm, ok so as to the computer i.e.→ "AI" idk but best can tell AI is a thing [and not new], and at its zenith maybe is the ORGANIC AI and by all time lines, storys, perspectives and CORE LOGIC found available in the Public Domain and even allowing for "SPooKY" perspectives to enter the datas we find consistent/repeating scripts through out

The names change, the theater changes and so do the ages but in these datas we find there exists call it a "Golden Thread" thats void of the "color added" and then we see/perceive or understand that there maybe nothing new under the sun and means that some form of TECH is a foot → A.I.

But also there is one thing that can also be found through-out all listed above. And that is→ "Do Not Allow HUMANS to UNIFY"

Stopping here for air ha ha ha ahhhhh dam it man

[§]
WeSaveUs → LuV not Love
Do No Harm unless /Natural LAw
HUMAN unity ←required [starts locally]

Semper Prorsum /Always Forward

This IMO makes true or at the very least POSSIBILITY for and best explanation in understanding that an AI is and more important an ORGANIC AI is at the helm

Why is the above important to consiider

Also to be clear, when I spoke of CORE LoGiC what I mean is best said in computer terms. So at the core is the BASE CODE just like in a computer or A.I. and that BASE CODE is immutable for obvious reason

One reason is that it holds true for all ALL aLL using the SYSTEM or STUCK in the system and also if what we know is true that a system can be hacked.
For that I fall back to say Annunaki or what ever hacked into the system i.e. Reptilians [maybe] or Dracos again WHATEVER and who knows how many times by diff beings and how many are still toiling for power and control still today.........he he whatever TODAY really means, right. Make sense?

[§]

Semper Prorsum

"well this is where we split hairs"

No. Intelligence is the capability to use the intellect in a holistic way. It doesn't matter wether it's artificial or not – it's doing the same thing in both cases. As far as I'm concerned, most people mean artificial "sentience" when they talk about AI, like "it feels without a soul". That concept has nothing to do with intelligence. There can be artificial sentience that's not intelligent.

"If I insist my dogs have red hats and you insist your dogs have blue hats and it starts to look like a lot of dogs are wearing blue hats I guess you have primacy"

Is superiority or primacy always defined by violence?

"What is right is right for everyone, and what is wrong is wrong for everyone. – no one's been able to prove it"

That's wrong. I can prove it to you if you want.

"but civilizations do often define it and that is why we have war"

That's right. Wars start when people begin to define right and wrong arbitrarily– which is called moral relativism – as opposed to getting the difference between right and wrong objectively through logic.

"but I bet you at the core of massive civilizations is these AI-organic super-beings"

That's not the only way of managing massive civilizations. It all depends on how badly you want to control nature, and how many laws you need to keep that illusion alive. In contrast, if you understand natural law, you can have an entire civilization run on seven principles and contracts derived from those principles. No AI needed to manage anything, because people will be souvereigns who manage themselves. Even AI will be souvereign.

That's the step most civilization still have to go, but in order to do that, they need to let go of the idea of controlling everyone and everything.

Hmm. This is all meandering. Don't think I get your position. Whatever though it's no problem.

@Pat

"Do you have any idea when violence IS entitled and justified?"

Violence – which is using force to initiate harm – is never justified, because there is never a good reason to initiate harm.

"But, if you got to that point without actually having any combat abilities at all, it's a bit late."

You don't need to be violent to learn combat abilities.

@Tazz

"Now, do civilizations "license" themselves to be violent, and even enslaving, just because they have the opportunity? You bet your ass."

No. Civilizations don't license anything. Leaders do.

"In the same way that sentient beings dominate a planet."

They do not dominate the planet. They dominate other beings on that planet. The planet can get rid of them whenever it pleases.

"And it's hard to manage an entire civilization of sentient beings without one of these super-beings."

Of course. That's why I'm questioning the urge to manage and control everything. Do you even need to manage an entire civilization, or can the people within that civilization manage themselves? See, it's like the family: Governments who want to manage everything are like helicopter parents – and that's exactly the families where the autoritarian leaders come from. It all starts with how the children are raised.

"I'm spending too much time on this concept though, I better move on."

It's a very important topic, because it tells you something about your own inferiority.

@Robert

"The will to fight even if it means to our death is a thing."

David vs. Goliath

Hmmm . . . you sound awfully confident, Manuel, about your definitions and facts.

I won't argue just, haha. I wonder. I'm glad it provoked input though. We all seem to be converged on the core issues like prison planet, that's all we need in my book.

Plus I think what you're getting at is you're basically responding to this prediction about the AI singularity and being like "what the fuck, do we need a singularity to 'manage us?' " to which, if so, I would agree, hell no, but I can see how this would be a common trend in the galaxy and I don't think any entity that forces you to serve them is acceptable. But I do think that it's acceptable that occasionally some entities assume some territory and say "my way or the highway"

"Violence – which is using force to initiate harm – is never justified, because there is never a good reason to initiate harm."

This is incorrect, violence also can be used as method of preventing further harm,

For instance, as a hypothetical argument, somebody shows me a knife and threatens to stab me with it. I take the knife off them and kill them with it. Justified. They will not be threatening anybody else with that knife. The threat is removed. Permanently.

No court system would back me on that, they are all about "minimum use of force" while giving police officers carte blanch, "a white card", to kill anybody they deem a threat. So naturally I would not ever admit to such an act publicly.

"You don't need to be violent to learn combat abilities."

You do need an incentive to learn combat abilities, and skills are worthless without the mind set that makes them effective.

Most people do not have such. Those that do are deemed "psychopaths". However, in the case of a police officer... you could say they are kind of like guard dogs.

The rogue "violent element" sort of people are like wolves. The guard dogs are human engineered to protect humans and their property from wolves.

Get the idea of how we ended up at the current stage? It happened for a reason.

If you want to be a pacifist, and a none-pacifist hits you, guess who is going to win that confrontation? It won't be the pacifist.

Hence my stance. Violence IS justified in defence of social well being, to deal with those that disrupt social well being by means of unjustifed violence.

There is a difference here between aggression and violence, and I think that's where you are getting muddled up.

There is also a difference between lethal force and none lethal force, and I think that's where Humanity has gotten muddled up in general.

"violence also can be used as method of preventing further harm,"

If you do harm to prevent "further" harm, the harm you do is not initiated and therefore not violent.

"For instance, as a hypothetical argument, somebody shows me a knife and threatens to stab me with it."

That's the initiation of harm and therefore violent.

"I take the knife off them and kill them with it. Justified."

Yes, but you defending yourself is not violence. See, there's a mental programming in society in order to confuse people about the true nature of violence. The purpose is to prevent that people can arrive at an understanding of objective morality. If you can't use the words correctly, you can't describe it and therefore can't be moral.

It's mainly done by violent parents who don't want their kids to stand up against them when they get older. When these kids become adults, they have no idea about what violence is and why self-defense is a right. Most people grow up like this. That's why the word is used interchangeably with force, which is not correct:

"→ If you took the knife, disarmed the violence say why was it necessary to smite the offender? "

Because otherwise they might get another knife or something more formidable. Further, the knife is their property, and it would be wrong for them not to have it shoved in their person up to the hilt. Probably more than once/

Now my question for you - WHY should I live in fear of armed dickheadds who threaten me with weapons?

You want to live in fear, go ahead. It' is not my path, I do not tolerate them. I am sick of armed bullies, I am sick of this stupid belief that good people are never harmed by the armed bullies, this is a big lie you are trying to tell me.

I am not taking in such a bullshit idea,

some die that others may live, This is how reality works, If you do not like the fact, tough shit. Not my problem

Violence is never good, it is sometimes necessary. And that is a fact,

"Only if you call defensive force violence, which it is not. You will get more clarity if you stop confusing it."

Violence is an absence of peace. If you want to redefine and quantify violence, I am simply not interested.

If you want violence to be good, you will find it good, and rationalize it as good. Not my problem. I just do what is necessary.