Philosophy Discussion Forums

I was able to get a sample of the book from Amazon - Chapters 1 though 7 - and I shall read these chapters carefully. I shall need to. The writing is dense and replete with neologism and so it is difficult it follow. But I shall persevere because I find the subject inherently interesting.

Evolution, the mechanism by which ones ecology mediates living hosts, species, is an important tier of understanding for living beings to evolve to be able to comprehend within any viable ecosystem in this universe. However, although difficult to initially fathom, understanding species evolution is a distant runner-up to understanding the natural mechanism which mediates the mobility of one’s individuality that is ones position-of-view (POV). This is why the understanding offered by the LINE Hypothesis is the single most personally important idea that any living being will ever have the opportunity to consider, regardless of species or ecosystem in this or perhaps any universe.

Earths archeological and hard fossil record suggests that Earths ecology has produced no more than one species capable of assimilating and making use of this knowledge regarding the natural mechanism by which nature mediates individuality in this universe. This is not to suggest what untold secrets earth’s soft species history has produced, but of which no indelible imprints of its existence remain. Nonetheless, the importance of this knowledge is precisely because the intelligence and circumstances, indeed the opportunity necessary for any culture to gain the capability to assimilate and make use of this understanding is so rare. The evolved intelligence necessary for living individuals to comprehend their own natural implementation is one of the rarest and most pivotal evolutionary realizations in this universe for any ecosystem to develop, prove, and culturally accept. Mollusks can’t do it, ants can’t do it, only humankind currently has that incredibly rare and fleeting opportunity to comprehend, accept, and make use of this very real existence transcending knowledge. Further, the window of opportunity is not permanent and once gone, for humankind, it may be gone forever.

Currently, humankind is as are all other species in earth’s ecosystem, wild. We define wild-life as those host cultures that have not organized socially and culturally to reduce their dependence on the resources circumstantially provided by chance to some useful or perceived extent. However, this is a somewhat self-serving definition. In reality the true definition of wild-life is an ecosystems lack of a culture, consisting of any number of species, able to take deliberate control of individual instantiation into ones living circumstances. To continue, like all other species in its ecosystem to be arbitrarily reinstantiated by the probabilities of random chance which mediates when, where, and in what form one will live in your next instantiation, in your next life. Failure to have evolved sufficiently to reach this stage of development is the very definition of wild-life. Neither farming, nor art, or tool making or even genetic manipulation of living hosts alone moves an ecosystem across this life and existence altering threshold. Make no mistake; this achievement is indeed an ecosystem-altering feature. Ideally, once fully acted upon, the lines between species take on an entirely different significance as any individual may live and experience life in whatever available forms they please for as long as they please. It all begins by discovering the entanglement cell and molecule. Of course, the details of this local implementation depend on culture as some cultures may elect to permit the existence of only engineered rather than evolved host forms and may elect to control which individual QEF’s are instantiated to those select hosts. The ability to transfer between forms, independent of distance in this universe, once achieved will blur the line of distinction that now exists in the human mind regarding life, individuality, and space-time.

The importance of an idea like the LINE hypothesis stems from the fact that it marks the introduction to the understanding needed for living beings to escape the uncontrolled instantiation lottery of nature which confines living individuals within a particular ecosystem to untold lifetimes of arbitrary natural reinstantiations to randomly emerged host forms, (the true definition of wild-life). Such forms are incapable of assimilating and making use of such knowledge and therefore unable to assume deliberate control over the process that mediates the individuals living circumstances. In the nearly four billion years of earth-life, consider ones lifetimes as, and the existence of, a species such as humankind, despite all of its proud prior achievements, to be nothing more than a narrow window of opportunity within which instantiated individuals to this capable host form may understand, comprehend and act upon the true nature of life in this universe, to develop technology able to control when, where, and to what forms ones POV is instantiated, in essence to control your being. Further, consider what a tragedy it would be if a culture such as this forfeits this singular opportunity only to embrace the ignorance which defines the wild condition. Like every other endeavor into nature’s workings its ramifications and its morality and dangers will be clear and present, but may nonetheless be regarded as a necessary price to pay for this essential next step in the evolution of life on earth.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 7:34 am I was able to get a sample of the book from Amazon - Chapters 1 though 7 - and I shall read these chapters carefully. I shall need to. The writing is dense and replete with neologism and so it is difficult it follow. But I shall persevere because I find the subject inherently interesting.

Also, if you are so inclined, nowadays you don't necessarily have to read all of that text yourself. You can engage your best AI service (Claude 3, ChatGPT-4 etc.) to distill out the essential reasoning for you.

Good idea. It would be interesting to compare my own summary (of the parts I have read) with a summary made by ChatGPT-4. I'll try it.

OK, I did that and I asked the bot

What do you think of the LINE hypothesis. Is it believable? It's response to the LINE hypothesis is in line with my own. Here is what ChatGTP says:

The LINE hypothesis proposes a fascinating concept regarding the nature of life and individuality, suggesting that they are instantiated by natural entanglement. While this hypothesis may challenge conventional notions of life and individuality, its believability ultimately depends on several factors:

Scientific Plausibility: The hypothesis would need to align with established scientific principles and evidence. If it can be supported by empirical data and theoretical frameworks within relevant scientific fields such as physics, biology, and philosophy, it may gain credibility.
Testability: A key aspect of scientific hypotheses is their testability. Can the LINE hypothesis be subjected to empirical tests or observations that could either support or refute it? The ability to test and potentially validate the hypothesis would enhance its credibility.
Consistency with Existing Knowledge: The hypothesis should be compatible with existing knowledge and theories in related fields. If it can integrate well with established scientific understanding while offering new insights or explanatory power, it may be more believable.
Peer Review and Debate: Scientific hypotheses undergo scrutiny through peer review and critical evaluation within the scientific community. The reception of the LINE hypothesis among experts in relevant fields would influence its believability.
Philosophical and Conceptual Coherence: Beyond scientific considerations, the hypothesis should also demonstrate coherence with philosophical frameworks and conceptual clarity. It should address potential implications and philosophical implications raised by its propositions.
Without specific knowledge of the details and evidence supporting the LINE hypothesis, it's challenging to assess its believability definitively.

Sorry about the formatting. This is better:

What do you think of the LINE hypothesis. Is it believable?

ChatGPT's response is in line with my own assessment. Here is what it said:

The LINE hypothesis proposes a fascinating concept regarding the nature of life and individuality, suggesting that they are instantiated by natural entanglement. While this hypothesis may challenge conventional notions of life and individuality, its believability ultimately depends on several factors:

1. Scientific Plausibility: The hypothesis would need to align with established scientific principles and evidence. If it can be supported by empirical data and theoretical frameworks within relevant scientific fields such as physics, biology, and philosophy, it may gain credibility.

2. Testability: A key aspect of scientific hypotheses is their testability. Can the LINE hypothesis be subjected to empirical tests or observations that could either support or refute it? The ability to test and potentially validate the hypothesis would enhance its credibility.

3. Consistency with Existing Knowledge: The hypothesis should be compatible with existing knowledge and theories in related fields. If it can integrate well with established scientific understanding while offering new insights or explanatory power, it may be more believable.

4. Peer Review and Debate: Scientific hypotheses undergo scrutiny through peer review and critical evaluation within the scientific community. The reception of the LINE hypothesis among experts in relevant fields would influence its believability.

5. Philosophical and Conceptual Coherence: Beyond scientific considerations, the hypothesis should also demonstrate coherence with philosophical frameworks and conceptual clarity. It should address potential implications and philosophical implications raised by its propositions.

Without specific knowledge of the details and evidence supporting the LINE hypothesis, it's challenging to assess its believability definitively.

tonylang wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 7:57 am Evolution, the mechanism by which ones ecology mediates living hosts, species, is an important tier of understanding for living beings to evolve to be able to comprehend within any viable ecosystem in this universe. However, although difficult to initially fathom, understanding species evolution is a distant runner-up to understanding the natural mechanism which mediates the mobility of one’s individuality that is ones position-of-view (POV). This is why the understanding offered by the LINE Hypothesis is the single most personally important idea that any living being will ever have the opportunity to consider, regardless of species or ecosystem in this or perhaps any universe.

Earths archeological and hard fossil record suggests that Earths ecology has produced no more than one species capable of assimilating and making use of this knowledge regarding the natural mechanism by which nature mediates individuality in this universe. This is not to suggest what untold secrets earth’s soft species history has produced, but of which no indelible imprints of its existence remain. Nonetheless, the importance of this knowledge is precisely because the intelligence and circumstances, indeed the opportunity necessary for any culture to gain the capability to assimilate and make use of this understanding is so rare. The evolved intelligence necessary for living individuals to comprehend their own natural implementation is one of the rarest and most pivotal evolutionary realizations in this universe for any ecosystem to develop, prove, and culturally accept. Mollusks can’t do it, ants can’t do it, only humankind currently has that incredibly rare and fleeting opportunity to comprehend, accept, and make use of this very real existence transcending knowledge. Further, the window of opportunity is not permanent and once gone, for humankind, it may be gone forever.

Currently, humankind is as are all other species in earth’s ecosystem, wild. We define wild-life as those host cultures that have not organized socially and culturally to reduce their dependence on the resources circumstantially provided by chance to some useful or perceived extent. However, this is a somewhat self-serving definition. In reality the true definition of wild-life is an ecosystems lack of a culture, consisting of any number of species, able to take deliberate control of individual instantiation into ones living circumstances. To continue, like all other species in its ecosystem to be arbitrarily reinstantiated by the probabilities of random chance which mediates when, where, and in what form one will live in your next instantiation, in your next life. Failure to have evolved sufficiently to reach this stage of development is the very definition of wild-life. Neither farming, nor art, or tool making or even genetic manipulation of living hosts alone moves an ecosystem across this life and existence altering threshold. Make no mistake; this achievement is indeed an ecosystem-altering feature. Ideally, once fully acted upon, the lines between species take on an entirely different significance as any individual may live and experience life in whatever available forms they please for as long as they please. It all begins by discovering the entanglement cell and molecule. Of course, the details of this local implementation depend on culture as some cultures may elect to permit the existence of only engineered rather than evolved host forms and may elect to control which individual QEF’s are instantiated to those select hosts. The ability to transfer between forms, independent of distance in this universe, once achieved will blur the line of distinction that now exists in the human mind regarding life, individuality, and space-time.

The importance of an idea like the LINE hypothesis stems from the fact that it marks the introduction to the understanding needed for living beings to escape the uncontrolled instantiation lottery of nature which confines living individuals within a particular ecosystem to untold lifetimes of arbitrary natural reinstantiations to randomly emerged host forms, (the true definition of wild-life). Such forms are incapable of assimilating and making use of such knowledge and therefore unable to assume deliberate control over the process that mediates the individuals living circumstances. In the nearly four billion years of earth-life, consider ones lifetimes as, and the existence of, a species such as humankind, despite all of its proud prior achievements, to be nothing more than a narrow window of opportunity within which instantiated individuals to this capable host form may understand, comprehend and act upon the true nature of life in this universe, to develop technology able to control when, where, and to what forms ones POV is instantiated, in essence to control your being. Further, consider what a tragedy it would be if a culture such as this forfeits this singular opportunity only to embrace the ignorance which defines the wild condition. Like every other endeavor into nature’s workings its ramifications and its morality and dangers will be clear and present, but may nonetheless be regarded as a necessary price to pay for this essential next step in the evolution of life on earth.

THis is word salad.

I'm amazed at how good ChatGTP's response is. However, it is unable to access the specific content of the book and so cannot say whether there is any scientific foundation or the plausibility of the LINE hypothesis.

It said:

Without access to the specific content and arguments presented in the book, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment of its scientific foundation or the plausibility of the LINE hypothesis it proposes. However, I can offer some general considerations:

1. Author Credentials: Assess the credentials and expertise of the author(s) who developed the LINE hypothesis. Do they have relevant qualifications and experience in fields such as physics, biology, or philosophy? Expertise and credibility can lend weight to the scientific foundation of the hypothesis.

2. References and Citations: Look for references to scientific literature and research that support the arguments made in the book. The presence of robust citations to peer-reviewed studies and reputable sources can indicate a scientifically informed argument.

3. Clarity and Rigor: Evaluate the clarity and rigor of the book's arguments. Are the concepts and hypotheses presented in a clear and logically coherent manner? Do they withstand critical scrutiny, or do they rely on speculative or unfounded assertions?

4. Testability: Consider whether the LINE hypothesis proposes testable predictions or implications. Can these predictions be subjected to empirical testing or observational scrutiny? Testability is a key criterion for evaluating scientific hypotheses.

5. Reception in the Scientific Community: Investigate how the LINE hypothesis has been received within the scientific community. Have other researchers engaged with it positively or critically? Peer review and scholarly discourse can help gauge the scientific standing of the hypothesis.

6. Interdisciplinary Perspective: Given the interdisciplinary nature of the hypothesis, consider how it integrates insights from multiple fields such as physics, biology, and philosophy. A robust interdisciplinary approach can strengthen the scientific foundation of the hypothesis.

Ultimately, whether the book and the LINE hypothesis it presents have scientific substance and plausibility will depend on a careful evaluation of these factors. If the hypothesis offers compelling arguments supported by empirical evidence, it may be worth considering further exploration, but skepticism is warranted until such evidence is thoroughly assessed.

.........................................................

Very interesting. I think the considerations it points to are very relevant.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 3:09 pm OK, I did that and I asked the bot

What do you think of the LINE hypothesis. Is it believable? It's response to the LINE hypothesis is in line with my own. Here is what ChatGTP says:

The LINE hypothesis proposes a fascinating concept regarding the nature of life and individuality, suggesting that they are instantiated by natural entanglement. While this hypothesis may challenge conventional notions of life and individuality, its believability ultimately depends on several factors:

Scientific Plausibility: The hypothesis would need to align with established scientific principles and evidence. If it can be supported by empirical data and theoretical frameworks within relevant scientific fields such as physics, biology, and philosophy, it may gain credibility.
Testability: A key aspect of scientific hypotheses is their testability. Can the LINE hypothesis be subjected to empirical tests or observations that could either support or refute it? The ability to test and potentially validate the hypothesis would enhance its credibility.
Consistency with Existing Knowledge: The hypothesis should be compatible with existing knowledge and theories in related fields. If it can integrate well with established scientific understanding while offering new insights or explanatory power, it may be more believable.
Peer Review and Debate: Scientific hypotheses undergo scrutiny through peer review and critical evaluation within the scientific community. The reception of the LINE hypothesis among experts in relevant fields would influence its believability.
Philosophical and Conceptual Coherence: Beyond scientific considerations, the hypothesis should also demonstrate coherence with philosophical frameworks and conceptual clarity. It should address potential implications and philosophical implications raised by its propositions.
Without specific knowledge of the details and evidence supporting the LINE hypothesis, it's challenging to assess its believability definitively.

Did you present the LINE scenario first as the foundational principle followed by the hypothesis summary?

I asked ChatGTP for a summary of the book and an assessment of the plausibility of the hypothesis. It was unable to access the actual content of the book so could not give a summary or an appraisal of it's plausibility. I will continue reading the seven chapters I have accessed and then provide my own assessment based on those chapters.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 3:29 pm

tonylang wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 7:57 am Evolution, the mechanism by which ones ecology mediates living hosts, species, is an important tier of understanding for living beings to evolve to be able to comprehend within any viable ecosystem in this universe. However, although difficult to initially fathom, understanding species evolution is a distant runner-up to understanding the natural mechanism which mediates the mobility of one’s individuality that is ones position-of-view (POV). This is why the understanding offered by the LINE Hypothesis is the single most personally important idea that any living being will ever have the opportunity to consider, regardless of species or ecosystem in this or perhaps any universe.

Earths archeological and hard fossil record suggests that Earths ecology has produced no more than one species capable of assimilating and making use of this knowledge regarding the natural mechanism by which nature mediates individuality in this universe. This is not to suggest what untold secrets earth’s soft species history has produced, but of which no indelible imprints of its existence remain. Nonetheless, the importance of this knowledge is precisely because the intelligence and circumstances, indeed the opportunity necessary for any culture to gain the capability to assimilate and make use of this understanding is so rare. The evolved intelligence necessary for living individuals to comprehend their own natural implementation is one of the rarest and most pivotal evolutionary realizations in this universe for any ecosystem to develop, prove, and culturally accept. Mollusks can’t do it, ants can’t do it, only humankind currently has that incredibly rare and fleeting opportunity to comprehend, accept, and make use of this very real existence transcending knowledge. Further, the window of opportunity is not permanent and once gone, for humankind, it may be gone forever.

Currently, humankind is as are all other species in earth’s ecosystem, wild. We define wild-life as those host cultures that have not organized socially and culturally to reduce their dependence on the resources circumstantially provided by chance to some useful or perceived extent. However, this is a somewhat self-serving definition. In reality the true definition of wild-life is an ecosystems lack of a culture, consisting of any number of species, able to take deliberate control of individual instantiation into ones living circumstances. To continue, like all other species in its ecosystem to be arbitrarily reinstantiated by the probabilities of random chance which mediates when, where, and in what form one will live in your next instantiation, in your next life. Failure to have evolved sufficiently to reach this stage of development is the very definition of wild-life. Neither farming, nor art, or tool making or even genetic manipulation of living hosts alone moves an ecosystem across this life and existence altering threshold. Make no mistake; this achievement is indeed an ecosystem-altering feature. Ideally, once fully acted upon, the lines between species take on an entirely different significance as any individual may live and experience life in whatever available forms they please for as long as they please. It all begins by discovering the entanglement cell and molecule. Of course, the details of this local implementation depend on culture as some cultures may elect to permit the existence of only engineered rather than evolved host forms and may elect to control which individual QEF’s are instantiated to those select hosts. The ability to transfer between forms, independent of distance in this universe, once achieved will blur the line of distinction that now exists in the human mind regarding life, individuality, and space-time.

The importance of an idea like the LINE hypothesis stems from the fact that it marks the introduction to the understanding needed for living beings to escape the uncontrolled instantiation lottery of nature which confines living individuals within a particular ecosystem to untold lifetimes of arbitrary natural reinstantiations to randomly emerged host forms, (the true definition of wild-life). Such forms are incapable of assimilating and making use of such knowledge and therefore unable to assume deliberate control over the process that mediates the individuals living circumstances. In the nearly four billion years of earth-life, consider ones lifetimes as, and the existence of, a species such as humankind, despite all of its proud prior achievements, to be nothing more than a narrow window of opportunity within which instantiated individuals to this capable host form may understand, comprehend and act upon the true nature of life in this universe, to develop technology able to control when, where, and to what forms ones POV is instantiated, in essence to control your being. Further, consider what a tragedy it would be if a culture such as this forfeits this singular opportunity only to embrace the ignorance which defines the wild condition. Like every other endeavor into nature’s workings its ramifications and its morality and dangers will be clear and present, but may nonetheless be regarded as a necessary price to pay for this essential next step in the evolution of life on earth.

THis is word salad.

Well, I'm afraid it only gets more vegan from here.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 4:29 pm I asked ChatGTP for a summary of the book and an assessment of the plausibility of the hypothesis. It was unable to access the actual content of the book so could not give a summary or an appraisal of it's plausibility. I will continue reading the seven chapters I have accessed and then provide my own assessment based on those chapters.

Should anyone review a movie after watching only %20 of the movie?

tonylang wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 4:34 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 3:29 pm

tonylang wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 7:57 am Evolution, the mechanism by which ones ecology mediates living hosts, species, is an important tier of understanding for living beings to evolve to be able to comprehend within any viable ecosystem in this universe. However, although difficult to initially fathom, understanding species evolution is a distant runner-up to understanding the natural mechanism which mediates the mobility of one’s individuality that is ones position-of-view (POV). This is why the understanding offered by the LINE Hypothesis is the single most personally important idea that any living being will ever have the opportunity to consider, regardless of species or ecosystem in this or perhaps any universe.

Earths archeological and hard fossil record suggests that Earths ecology has produced no more than one species capable of assimilating and making use of this knowledge regarding the natural mechanism by which nature mediates individuality in this universe. This is not to suggest what untold secrets earth’s soft species history has produced, but of which no indelible imprints of its existence remain. Nonetheless, the importance of this knowledge is precisely because the intelligence and circumstances, indeed the opportunity necessary for any culture to gain the capability to assimilate and make use of this understanding is so rare. The evolved intelligence necessary for living individuals to comprehend their own natural implementation is one of the rarest and most pivotal evolutionary realizations in this universe for any ecosystem to develop, prove, and culturally accept. Mollusks can’t do it, ants can’t do it, only humankind currently has that incredibly rare and fleeting opportunity to comprehend, accept, and make use of this very real existence transcending knowledge. Further, the window of opportunity is not permanent and once gone, for humankind, it may be gone forever.

Currently, humankind is as are all other species in earth’s ecosystem, wild. We define wild-life as those host cultures that have not organized socially and culturally to reduce their dependence on the resources circumstantially provided by chance to some useful or perceived extent. However, this is a somewhat self-serving definition. In reality the true definition of wild-life is an ecosystems lack of a culture, consisting of any number of species, able to take deliberate control of individual instantiation into ones living circumstances. To continue, like all other species in its ecosystem to be arbitrarily reinstantiated by the probabilities of random chance which mediates when, where, and in what form one will live in your next instantiation, in your next life. Failure to have evolved sufficiently to reach this stage of development is the very definition of wild-life. Neither farming, nor art, or tool making or even genetic manipulation of living hosts alone moves an ecosystem across this life and existence altering threshold. Make no mistake; this achievement is indeed an ecosystem-altering feature. Ideally, once fully acted upon, the lines between species take on an entirely different significance as any individual may live and experience life in whatever available forms they please for as long as they please. It all begins by discovering the entanglement cell and molecule. Of course, the details of this local implementation depend on culture as some cultures may elect to permit the existence of only engineered rather than evolved host forms and may elect to control which individual QEF’s are instantiated to those select hosts. The ability to transfer between forms, independent of distance in this universe, once achieved will blur the line of distinction that now exists in the human mind regarding life, individuality, and space-time.

The importance of an idea like the LINE hypothesis stems from the fact that it marks the introduction to the understanding needed for living beings to escape the uncontrolled instantiation lottery of nature which confines living individuals within a particular ecosystem to untold lifetimes of arbitrary natural reinstantiations to randomly emerged host forms, (the true definition of wild-life). Such forms are incapable of assimilating and making use of such knowledge and therefore unable to assume deliberate control over the process that mediates the individuals living circumstances. In the nearly four billion years of earth-life, consider ones lifetimes as, and the existence of, a species such as humankind, despite all of its proud prior achievements, to be nothing more than a narrow window of opportunity within which instantiated individuals to this capable host form may understand, comprehend and act upon the true nature of life in this universe, to develop technology able to control when, where, and to what forms ones POV is instantiated, in essence to control your being. Further, consider what a tragedy it would be if a culture such as this forfeits this singular opportunity only to embrace the ignorance which defines the wild condition. Like every other endeavor into nature’s workings its ramifications and its morality and dangers will be clear and present, but may nonetheless be regarded as a necessary price to pay for this essential next step in the evolution of life on earth.

THis is word salad.

Well, I'm afraid it only gets more vegan from here.

I am startled by how a person can put so many words down on a page, without saying anything.

One should not have to read a book to get it. Others have made complex points on the forum with fewer words.

Tony, what do you see as the essence of your thoughts here?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 8:01 pm One should not have to read a book to get it. Others have made complex points on the forum with fewer words.

Tony, what do you see as the essence of your thoughts here?

The essence of my thoughts is conveyed by every word that i write no more or no
less is required.