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.
I don't think materialist consciousness out of business. Not even close. I guess all comes down to how we use the word "matter", really, I would use the word "energy" or "fields" in its definition. I mean does a philosopher consider a "photon" matter? Do they consider the fabric of space "nothing"?
Yes, matter, fields, energy, as base I think they are the same stuff, just as (essentially) a bolt of lightning is the same stuff as my lunch. And we are all made of stars.
That may seem an obvious and unhelpful position, because that given of course there arer very obvious differences between the way things are, just at there are two very different lines of evolution - sea -arthropods - insects and worms, fish, mammals, but they are not different and one something woo and god - given and the other not; just differently evolved. Just as consciousness (suposing physicalism to be right) is different from bananas, but are all made of atomic stuff.
It keeps our heads attached to reality while at the same time we contemplate just how the sensation of experience works and just what it is.
I might observe that I don't have any problem with Mystic's 'Fields' term. Though a physicist might. There are clouds or waves of stuff taking different forms, some which we regard as solid and some which are massless energy. I only disagree with regarding it as having thinking abilities comparable with and in fact beyond ours. And if it doesn't and just reacts like a stone when you kick it, I see no reason to call it 'God'.
The real question is whether or not people can create consciousness... and I would say that they probably could.
We are clearly getting close, as there are two alarmist books out now on the perceived dangers of AI (not that they're entirely without merit, but, as soon as the Chicken Littles come out of the woodwork you know you've arrived).
For those who want to look into them:
Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era by James Barrat, Thomas Dunne Books
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers and Strategies by Nick Bostrum, Oxford University Press
The first is a more popular / layperson's treatment, the latter more technical / theoretical and detailed, though still pretty accessible and readable IMO. I'm just getting into them to see how the other half lives ;-)
Yes, matter, fields, energy, as base I think they are the same stuff, just as (essentially) a bolt of lightning is the same stuff as my lunch. And we are all made of stars.
That may seem an obvious and unhelpful position, because that given of course there arer very obvious differences between the way things are, just at there are two very different lines of evolution - sea -arthropods - insects and worms, fish, mammals, but they are not different and one something woo and god - given and the other not; just differently evolved. Just as consciousness (suposing physicalism to be right) is different from bananas, but are all made of atomic stuff.
It keeps our heads attached to reality while at the same time we contemplate just how the sensation of experience works and just what it is.
I might observe that I don't have any problem with Mystic's 'Fields' term. Though a physicist might. There are clouds or waves of stuff taking different forms, some which we regard as solid and some which are massless energy. I only disagree with regarding it as having thinking abilities comparable with and in fact beyond ours. And if it doesn't and just reacts like a stone when you kick it, I see no reason to call it 'God'.
you touched on a lot of stuff.
Yes, his field is a very valid stance. The only question is does it guide us or are we just a product of a 'living field". In fact, the only people I see in "strong opposition" to his (and actually mine from 19 ' ought 87) do so for some other agenda. It seems you and I are only interested in "plausible" or "improbable" based on what we know.
It gets down to defining what defines a "thing". For me it is "fields" and the interactions of those field (s) with its surroundings. assuming a few things, "THE ALMIGHTY FIELD GOD" would probably have thinking ability beyond ours. Using just hadrons it has 10^70 particles to use. And that doesn't even include quantum states.
For me, I see A bolt of lighting as a group of leptons and your lunch is a group of hadrons and leptons. The subsets of those are electrons and, protons, and neutrons. The particles exchanged in the "formation" of these events can be broken down to any level that we want. (or go "higher") But I am ok with stopping at atoms for the sake of discussion. Why did I say all that BS, because a lunch and a lightning bolt are essentially not the same thing if we stop at atoms. But they use the same rules. If we go "lower" they are excitations of "fields" (not field) that forms them. Then I port forth we would see "density" changes or "gradients" that identify a given "object" in those fields. But no boundaries
I can shrink that notion down to just earth. The earth as a life form and "we all" our it's brains. wow that's scary. We can shrink it even further and think about adding another 1/2'" of brain matter to the outer layer of our brains. That life form would out think us. I actually think we are going to make that life form, but that's another story for another day.
There is no logical reason to hold to the idea that "humans" are a chosen life form. I mean some personality types need that "string" for their mind to be stable, but it is not an overall requirement. I mean sure, it an evolutionary advantage in that "I am better than "you cow" so I can "feel not-bad" about eating you from the inside out. But that's crazy me.
WOW!!!!! that's a lot of mental masturbation, but hey, some guys like doing yard work and I like science.
We are clearly getting close, as there are two alarmist books out now on the perceived dangers of AI...
It seems that any technology with the power to do something useful has the power to cause harm. That seems like pretty much a given, and, personally, I'm way more excited about the possibilities for good than the potentials bad. I will say, however, that I don't expect humans to survive in our current form. I'd be willing to bet big bucks (assuming I had any big bucks to bet) that some sort of "transhumanism" will become reality. We won't simply invent AI and then go about our business as usual. AI (along with related technologies like AI-assisted genetic engineering) will eventually transform humanity into something we can barely imagine at the moment. One way or another I suspect that "old fashioned human organisms" will become extinct. I'm not overly worried about this transhumanization process, although I have admit there are plenty of ways in which the transformation could go horridly wrong.
One thing that deeply fascinates me is the potential for "types" of consciousness that are utterly unimaginable to us today, and the types of social structures that could emerge. I strongly suspect that our current human brains are extremely limited compared what minds, in a more general sense, are capable of experiencing.
It seems that any technology with the power to do something useful has the power to cause harm. That seems like pretty much a given, and, personally, I'm way more excited about the possibilities for good than the potentials bad. I will say, however, that I don't expect humans to survive in our current form. I'd be willing to bet big bucks (assuming I had any big bucks to bet) that some sort of "transhumanism" will become reality. We won't simply invent AI and then go about our business as usual. AI (along with related technologies like AI-assisted genetic engineering) will eventually transform humanity into something we can barely imagine at the moment. One way or another I suspect that "old fashioned human organisms" will become extinct. I'm not overly worried about this transhumanization process, although I have admit there are plenty of ways in which the transformation could go horridly wrong.
One thing that deeply fascinates me is the potential for "types" of consciousness that are utterly unimaginable to us today, and the types of social structures that could emerge. I strongly suspect that our current human brains are extremely limited compared what minds, in a more general sense, are capable of experiencing.
I agree. We never "survive in our current form", we are always evolving in our thinking and social constructs. AI and transhumanism and other aspects of the information age and scientific endeavor, are unique only in that they are increasingly putting humanity in control of its own evolution. I tend to think that this is a Good Thing in the long run, as evolution, to the extent it "cares" about anything, cares not a whit about quality of life -- only about survival. Humanity has been "merely" surviving for long enough. We are so used to the so-called human condition that we are inured to it. I believe that the things we've done to improve that condition, great as they are, barely scratch the surface of what is possible.
Both opportunities and dangers abound, of course, and that's why I'm reading these books; I'd like to avoid pitfalls where possible.
As to different consciousness types, to an extent they already exist. One of the basic lessons one learns in life is that Most Other People are not approximately like you. Many people's thought processes are so alien to me that they might as well be called different "ways" or "types" of being. And society's increasing egalitarianism and tolerance of diversity is producing more and more people experimenting with alternate lifestyles and ways of framing reality for themselves. I also think that rising overall levels of prosperity and technological sophistication make such alternate ways of being more feasible.
If a child can have a thousand FaceBook friends and cultivate a "virtual Rolodex" of business contacts via LinkedIn, and market his "personal brand" via Twitter and blogging, when that child is done with higher education and making his or her own way in the world, it becomes far easier to be more mobile, to live anywhere in the country or indeed the world, and it makes his relationships -- even family ties -- far more likely to be regarded as disposable. This in turn influences a thousand factors relating to selfish / selfless behavior, effort one is willing to extend socially, loyalty to employers, spouses, lovers, what have you.
Soon people could also decide that some Virtual Reality (VR) environment is more appealing that the Real World (RW) and choose to interact from that VR rather than directly. Every aspect of one's sensory inputs could be augmented or altered, in theory.
I don't know, in all honesty, how society will regulate and titrate all these changes, whether they will be entirely orderly and whether they will be, on balance, positive. There is some potential for them to be maladaptive on a large scale, although that doesn't necessarily frighten me. We already have this thing called "character" which is really a sort of socially acceptable madness, a personal armor against the bare-metal reality of the human condition and of existence itself. It seems reasonable that humanity will not necessarily face its mortality head-on just because of technological advances; its first impulse will be to reinforce its immortality and omnipotence projects via technology, just as it has done so via religion in the past.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, assuming I live long enough.
Why human consciousness are not understandable as CPU?
Human brain functionality is same like a PC, cos i make human brain.
Human feeling is a theory from science of other (read my homepage)
<> Dont judge me is a human because you dont even know who is your language creator, i mean all human language in this world.
Dont laugh cos your laughter have a secret, Dont judge me could not be a god if you could not accept it but believe one existed.
WHY? All i post as reference are understandable as facts of your life in science of other. Dont judge what you could understand with what you believe cos it mean your believe of god are a form of denial.
Last edited by Devil in disguise; 09-09-2014 at 11:56 AM..
we are the first animal that can control evolution to a degree. If we don't kill ourselves first. But as long as o2 is present the DNA would have a chance to do "us" again before the planet goes away.
I would really like us to be shooting "lead canned poop" out into space. Before you say "gross" think engineering. Just in case there isn't life out there. And if we do evolve then we (they) will pass our poop anyway so it doesn't matter.
Also, I think if we do engineer the next life form then it may "contain us" to help us survive or even just leave because we are just irrelevant to them. Although I would like to think they would have some emotional connection to the "life form" that made them. but that is just an axiety releasing hope. It doesn't have to be real.
I used to tell people in the late 80's early 90's I think in less than 500 years. With the internet being connected to so many computers today I think less than 1/2 of that now.
As for emotions, I believe that a good argument can be made for the idea that emotions (at least of some rudimentary sort relating to motivation/goal-seeking) are not separable from cognition. In other words, I'll bet that emotions are not "add-on" but rather, intrinsic to the emergence of consciousness/cognitive abilities.
not so sure that has to be. If the mechanism for information transfer is totally separate there doesn't have to be emotion. But that may be impossible. Also learning tends to use emotion to "burn it in". Plasticity issues, which should be designed in, can make use of emotion for that. If emotion can be built in it won't have to be intrinsic. also bla bla bla
Last edited by Arach Angle; 09-09-2014 at 04:42 PM..
As to different consciousness types, to an extent they already exist. One of the basic lessons one learns in life is that Most Other People are not approximately like you. Many people's thought processes are so alien to me that they might as well be called different "ways" or "types" of being. And society's increasing egalitarianism and tolerance of diversity is producing more and more people experimenting with alternate lifestyles and ways of framing reality for themselves. I also think that rising overall levels of prosperity and technological sophistication make such alternate ways of being more feasible.
If a child can have a thousand FaceBook friends and cultivate a "virtual Rolodex" of business contacts via LinkedIn, and market his "personal brand" via Twitter and blogging, when that child is done with higher education and making his or her own way in the world, it becomes far easier to be more mobile, to live anywhere in the country or indeed the world, and it makes his relationships -- even family ties -- far more likely to be regarded as disposable. This in turn influences a thousand factors relating to selfish / selfless behavior, effort one is willing to extend socially, loyalty to employers, spouses, lovers, what have you.
Soon people could also decide that some Virtual Reality (VR) environment is more appealing that the Real World (RW) and choose to interact from that VR rather than directly. Every aspect of one's sensory inputs could be augmented or altered, in theory.
I don't know, in all honesty, how society will regulate and titrate all these changes, whether they will be entirely orderly and whether they will be, on balance, positive. There is some potential for them to be maladaptive on a large scale, although that doesn't necessarily frighten me. We already have this thing called "character" which is really a sort of socially acceptable madness, a personal armor against the bare-metal reality of the human condition and of existence itself. It seems reasonable that humanity will not necessarily face its mortality head-on just because of technological advances; its first impulse will be to reinforce its immortality and omnipotence projects via technology, just as it has done so via religion in the past.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, assuming I live long enough.
true.
We can, as I said earlier, just look at a child going through the stages of life also to see different "intelligences" right in front of us. Also, as stated before, I am hoping for a "good BORG" to be made by us here on earth for a "control"..
Last edited by Arach Angle; 09-09-2014 at 05:20 PM..
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.
wow that's scary. We can shrink it even further and think about adding another 1/2'" of brain matter to the outer layer of our brains. That life form would out think us. I actually think we are going to make that life form, but 
that's another story for another day. 
