Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Theoretical physicist, huh? Man, who exists in the imaginary world of concepts about world, created by scientists minds.
Let me quote the High Priest of the all, Mr Einstein. Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. -Einstein
But anyhow.
I'll listen to any theoretical physicist or any other scientist who, beyond any doubt, will be able to determine PHYSICAL characteristics of human MIND, measure them, quantify them, qualify them, classify them, reproduce them and then prove that MIND is a derivative of the physical. Only THEN can such person claim anything about mind, it's existence, and what happens to it after this or that.
I'll listen to any theoretical physicist or any other scientist who, beyond any doubt, will be able to determine PHYSICAL characteristics of human MIND, measure them, quantify them, qualify them, classify them, reproduce them and then prove that MIND is a derivative of the physical. Only THEN can such person claim anything about mind, it's existence, and what happens to it after this or that.
That person would be Geoffrey Hinton, a British-Canadian computer scientist and cognitive psychologist. But only indirectly by backing his way into it. His development of the basic "deep learning" algorithms have led to an iterative process that by trial and error now approximates the human mind. All sorts of things have just fallen out of that, that weren't even expected, such as imagination ("write a story about [some topic] in the style of Ernest Hemingway", "write a story about [some person with stated characteristics] and how they feel when [some thing] happens to them". Improperly configured AIs even exhibit mental instability and/or incoherence or even hallucinate very much like how humans do.
All they had to do was fiddle with parameters until the behavior became reliably human-like.
While AIs apparently lack self awareness (yet), that so many human characteristics come along for the ride for free suggests that it's only a matter of time and resources before that becomes a reality, too.
The main difference that is still inherent is that AIs are not, like us, embodied consciousnesses, that is, their awareness is not mediated or influenced by the sensations and emotions of a physical body. But I'm not sure it matters, because they already know what it feels like to be human, courtesy of digesting the entire Internet and all the digitized publications that humans have ever produced. At some point the sheer amount of data will be equivalent or superior to the feedback loop of a physical body. After all, an infant learns to be a human by imitating (a small number of) humans; how is what an AI does any different except that it can imitate all humans at once?
I was skimming through previous posts here and, suddenly, had that thought in my mind....
So the thread title is - Here is why life after death is impossible
All right.
Let's assume that, life and, not just life but, even more so intelligent life and, even more so, a self-conscious life appeared, as the result of continuous, statistically impossible coincidences. I'm a reasonable man, I'll accept that as discussable, though improbable, theory.
But let me ask you this. If it worked that way and dead matter, death, gave birth to intelligent, conscious life - why can't be it that that consciousness does not have to rely on the dead matter anymore?
I mean, I accepted your ridiculous theory as, at least, talking point.
Will you be brave enough to accept mine? They are both equally impossible to prove or disprove. No one has ever proven that life can begin in dead matter. Yes, yes, I know about Oparin experiments and similar. They never created life and there's more hype than real results, just like Piltdown man skull, that turned out to be a hoax after being announced as major event in science.
Same way, no one ever proved that consciousness stops with death. As, again, no one ever clearly determined, in terms physical, what it is. Hence, to make any physical based claims about it is, well, unscientific.
back at you.
I'll listen to any theoretical physicist or any other scientist who, beyond any doubt, will be able to determine PHYSICAL characteristics of human MIND, measure them, quantify them, qualify them, classify them, reproduce them and then prove that MIND is a derivative of the physical. Only THEN can such person claim anything about mind, it's existence, and what happens to it after this or that.
No, you will not listen, because you do not want to hear the overwhelming evidence that the mind is a set of processes created by the brain. Your 'beyond any doubt' is just hypocrisy, because you do not hold your beliefs to beyond any doubt. You even admit it is faith, but only for your beliefs, you do not accept other beliefs on faith, or that you may be wrong.
Naturally it would be a simulacrum, but just because it is not a human would not mean it is not intelligent, just as a dog is not a human but is intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
Wake me up, when someone creates intelligence. Fantasy. Creativity. Beauty. Love. Wisdom. Passion. Conscience.
You mean a system that can recognize faces? Done.
A system that can discover cancers? Done.
A system that can predict what what you are probably going to buy? Done.
A system that can recognize corrupted images? Done.
A system that can smell things? Done.
I was skimming through previous posts here and, suddenly, had that thought in my mind....
So the thread title is - Here is why life after death is impossible
All right.
Let's assume that, life and, not just life but, even more so intelligent life and, even more so, a self-conscious life appeared, as the result of continuous, statistically impossible coincidences.
No, let us talk about reality, not your poison well straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
I'm a reasonable man, I'll accept that as discussable, though improbable, theory.
Except the stages required for abiogenesis are all based on verified science. It is true we do not know the precise details of the process, but your evidence that life is something other than an exergonic chemical reaction needs to be stronger than what we have.
We could explain all of this in the science forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
But let me ask you this. If it worked that way and dead matter, death, gave birth to intelligent, conscious life - why can't be it that that consciousness does not have to rely on the dead matter anymore?
I mean, I accepted your ridiculous theory as, at least, talking point.
Because you have provided no evidence or mechanism for your ridiculous theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
Will you be brave enough to accept mine?
Without evidence, no. I will accept it is a very small possibility, along with any other assertion, but accept it on faith alone, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
They are both equally impossible to prove or disprove. No one has ever proven that life can begin in dead matter. Yes, yes, I know about Oparin experiments and similar. They never created life and there's more hype than real results, just like Piltdown man skull, that turned out to be a hoax after being announced as major event in science.
Ah, the poor manufactured ghost of Piltdown man resurrected to ignore and misrepresent valid science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
Same way, no one ever proved that consciousness stops with death. As, again, no one ever clearly determined, in terms physical, what it is. Hence, to make any physical based claims about it is, well, unscientific.
back at you.
No, we have scientific evidence consciousness is a product of the brain, that is your problem. It is you who does not have the evidence consciousness continues after death other than dubious and conflicting anecdotes, some of which are invented.
The main difference that is still inherent is that AIs are not, like us, embodied consciousnesses, that is, their awareness is not mediated or influenced by the sensations and emotions of a physical body.
Possibly because the relevant AI systems are usually trained to do just on thing, are about 1 billion times smaller than the human brain, have fewer 'synaptic' connections pro 'neuron', have just a small number of subsystems, and will run more slowly when the system is large because they process information serially.
Presuming we could create a complex intelligence that could learn for itself, this raises questions about would it also create the idea of an afterlife, would it create it's own religion, and one for the philosophy forum, what about it's rights?
No. I am equating it to the transmissions of a broadcast TV show which contains the "consciousness" that we experience as a "taped playback" through the transceiver ("TV set") of our brain. The content of the broadcast TV shows continues to exist and so does the content of our "consciousness show."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, let us talk about reality, not your poison well straw man.
<snip>
No, we have scientific evidence consciousness is a product of the brain, that is your problem. It is you who does not have the evidence consciousness continues after death other than dubious and conflicting anecdotes, some of which are invented.
YOU do not have the evidence consciousness DOES NOT continue after death. All your evidence requires the brain to communicate its existence and content which misleads you to think it is gone when there is no brain to communicate it to you. The brain is a transceiver. Once it creates the "resonant composite consciousness" at the quanta level it is "broadcast" like light only as unmeasurable "dark energy." Our only contact with it at the macro level is "delayed" through the traces "recorded" in the brain.
Our lives are permanent episodes of "The Sting" enacted at this macro level. Our Real consciousness is at the quanta level. You have no evidence that the "disconnection" of communication ("death") eliminates its continued existence at that level. The measurable light and other radiation at that level (Cosmic rays, etc.) show no signs of "death." They continue within the observable universe for countless years. The universe's expansion by dark energy suggests the unmeasurable quanta do the same, IMO.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-07-2024 at 09:56 AM..
ETERNAL LIFE IS BORING
The end goal for sequential linear time bound, partially furred, variously garbed, electrically powered, food cooking, water filled, gas processing meat bags inhabited by sentient nondimensional beings is to ride them until they break, and get in line to ride another.
- - - Sri Om Hip Shoowapdoowah, 19th Buddha Doodha Diddy Diddy Doo
Living in a sacred manner, helping the most people, easing suffering, improving the human condition, considering the needs of the seventh generation yet to come, and insuring more abundant life is a worthy vocation. Try to be the kind of person you’d prefer to spend eternity with, otherwise you’re hell to be around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
