Welcome to my first blog. As the title suggests, this is where I'd like to bring people together to attempt to define our consciousness, to eventually facilitate its isolation and manipulation, with the ultimate goal of human integration into the Singularity when the technology permits. Essentially, to figure out how to interface ourselves with silicon.
I would hope at this step in our evolution that incursions by the religious, superstitious, and delusional will be minimal if not entirely absent. Posts that try to reestablish the dark ages will be deleted.
My history has run the gamut of religious "faith", to outright hardcore atheism. When my best friend had an OBE/NDE (out of body experience/near death experience) several years ago on the operating table, I began to consider the body of evidence presented by that phenomenon. I keep an open mind regarding the possibility that we have a "soul" or "spirit" that survives outside our physiology but for the sake of this blog I would hope we can explore all scientific possibilities for the dynamics of our awareness or consciousness. If we are "spirit" based, then how exactly does that work? Transdimensional quantum energies? The closest thing we have to evidence are the stories of the NDE'ers and perhaps looking at how consciousness fails i.e. alzheimers or trauma victims.
I would also like to suggest the possibility that our consciousness is exclusively physical. Think about this for a moment. Really ask yourself if you could be nothing more than a collection of neurons. If this is the case, then integration into silicon will be nothing more than "becoming aware" of it after it's been interfaced to your brain. To wit, after "software" will be "aware". To challenge this, why do we not see consciousness developing in computers already? Mice have consciousnesses and our computers are as capable as mouse brains are they not? So then, is it a matter of programming? My computer doesn't have consciousness because nobody programmed it for such?
I can't help but be excited for the possibilities at this stage because although we don't have all the answers, we're asking the right questions to get us there.
Another provocative question I keep returning to: has the Singularity happened before? 5 billion years of history and we think the last 200 years are exclusively and universally unique? So then, what if it has? Could that explain the "intelligent design" theory? DNA? Are there any cheat codes? Could life on this planet have been caused by wandering fronds of seeding material erupted from some distant singularity?
ReplyDeleteRandom thought... The transition into silicon, I doubt it'll be a huge major deal when you do assimilate entirely. Full immersion VR (Virtual Reality) will be available and quite possibly rather commonplace and popular. If I'm in my 80's and stuck in some assisted living home somewhere, I know I'd love full immersion VR to escape reality. I imagine I would be quite adept at shifting my awareness from one platform (bio) to another (artificial). I believe the "buttons to push" to make the move in its entirety will be in VR. Almost a "try before you buy" approach. Nice, peaceful, predictable, familliar, and controllable.
ReplyDeleteTaken one step further, perhaps safeguards will have to be put in place to keep people from permanently transitioning unintentionally. Like people who want to keep their real bodies but who are avid VR'ers will have to protect against accidentally leaving their bio neural net and letting their bodies die while they're away!
I like the title: The singularity and isolating consciousness.
ReplyDeleteImagine trying to isolate energy, love, hatred etc. These are causes about which we have knowledge by experience of their varied effects.
I doubt if movement is in the direction of integrating human beings to silicon. It seems to be more of integrating silicon (via tools) to the lives of humans. Some tools may be able to prolong the span of human lives, just as some tools may one day enable children to go to Mars as part of a school trip.
The difference between humans and machines, is a difference of the order of species. Our intelligence and stupidity, our capacity to reason and be irrational, our capacity to love and to hate all demonstrate the effects of a reality that we can't isolate even though we experience: our transcendence.
Now to attempt to pass on this transcendence to machines does not seem likely to happen.
To illustrate, we may teach children and one day they become even greater than us in a specific field or in all fields. Recall Einstein's teachers. They were simply cultivating an intelligence that he already possessed as a person.
So far, human beings have not been able to teach certain orders of knowledge to animals or plants. Einstein's teachers, I dare say, would have met little success with the cleverest dolphin or mouse.
Yet even though this is so, humans live in a world where there are animals that can run faster or even plants that can survive colder weather.
Humans have narrowed the difference and surpassed other species by the application of knowledge in the development of tools. Thus we can move faster than cheetahs and create habitations to survive for years in the North pole.
Our capacity to create tools, sometimes extremely advanced tools, does not demonstrate the ability to pass on the capacity for knowledge and the application of knowledge. We can't do this to other species, much less machines. That capacity was not made by us. It's always given to us.
Every baby comes one day to the awareness of self and the powers that she possesses as a person. But no baby reasonably concluded with certainty that she gave those powers to herself. She may think so for a while, or even that her mummy did.
That's why when we put on capers as young children, and jumped we fell flat. But as adults we become a little wiser, and learn to jump with a parachute. There will most probably be a day, when we can maneuver even better than Superman ever did.
The capacity to make tools, incredibly powerful tools, does not indicate the capacity to pass on the enabling capacities that are required for the making of tools.
So far we simply pass on knowledge, to beings that are capable of knowledge. So far that remains human beings.
Thank you Patrick for a stimulating start.
Greetings Wrenj and thank you for such a thoughtful post. What was the name of the chimp, "Coco" was it? She learned to recognize word-shapes and could form thoughts and communicate with her handlers (researchers). I saw that as a wonderful insight on how other species think. As I recall, she could also communicate emotional states which, like a picture, communicates more than the sum of its parts. Given more processing power and memory, would Coco be human? However, chimps have evolved to tool use on their own (using stripped twigs for termite removal; food gathering) so drawing upon them in our context may not be fair. Also, chimps may all have the ability for symbol communication so we created nothing other than facilitating the emergence of an existing trait.
ReplyDeleteAlso, didn't Einstein's teachers nearly fail him? "Unteachable" comes to mind as something one of them said about him. Which is interesting to note as frequently genius comes from the ability to see things differently than the rest of the group. I doubt nonconformity was tolerated in the German schools he attended either -lol
ReplyDeleteI read in the TIME magazine blog re: the Singulaity where a gentleman said the human brain has the storage capacity for remembering about a one hour television show. Huh. Is this accurate? This knocks pretty hard on the soul/spirit concept. I'll look for a citation for this theory...
ReplyDelete...re: Einstein, perhaps his teachers cultivated him by not just providing a classic foundation but by driving his passion by challenging him with failure?
ReplyDeleteHello Patrick.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your appreciation. I enjoyed making a contribution. Permit me some more.
I remember coming across the example of the chimp you mention. I too have had similar experiences, not identical though, at a much simpler level. I have taught puppies from an early age things like how to give a “shake hand” (a fore-paw-shake really!). In later years, I think they’ve learnt to understand me in many ways and positively provoke feelings of guilt, with their forlorn looks, when I’ve overlooked some need of theirs. Also, it was a daily moment of joy, to come home to a raucous welcome.
The interesting bit is when an animal attacks people. The practice often is to kill the animal to prevent another attack. We have laws for this in some parts of the world. The practice continues in places where the laws haven’t been updated yet. Why is this? Again I suspect because animals are unable to reflect on the moral dimension of their actions. The best case here is that we have no evidence.
But is this so with humans? Not so. In our lives, we have abundant evidence of people doing things as little as apologizing for spilling the coffee (the moral dimension of which is about nil, unless it’s a deliberate attempt at causing a disruption). We have come across remarkable examples of criminals changing their ways (though not without the scars of the past).
Please excuse this example. I came across a news item of a court reducing the sentence of a rapist, because evidence had been presented to it of his reform. Part of this evidence was provided by the victim herself. It was a touching story, and for me another indicator of the differentiating factors between us humans and the rest of the physical reality.
The example you put forward also illustrates this I think. Einstein was able to overcome the damaging effects of the attitude of his teachers, because of an aspect of us humans, which often cannot be isolated in the physical sense of the term. Yet these aspects keep intruding into our daily experience.
Hundreds of years ago, Rene Descartes said more or less “I think, therefore I am” implying that his thought was the cause of his being. Centuries earlier, Augustine of Hippo more or less said “If I am mistaken, I am” implying that his mistake was, not the cause of his being, but the evidence of it.
We humans present evidence of a dimension which we are still unable to isolate in whole or in parts.
I think that the real Singularity has taken place already. When matter and something else came together, and the human being appeared on the face of the earth. What is often cited as evidence of a coming singularity, is the speeding up of the consequences of the first.
What caused the coming together? What is the something else? These questions have a very long history.
Zecharia Sitchin and his work on Sumer and the Annunaki come to mind.
ReplyDeleteTheory: consciousness is an overlay of our physiology. The two develop simultaneously and they are necessary for mutual development. Separate the two and the physiology dies and the "overlay" either also dies (or moves on if we have a spirit). A weak argument would be the proverbial ghost of an 8 year old girl who's haunted a mansion for the last 100 years... why is she still 8?
ReplyDeleteOkay, a more solid search for "where can we observe this in nature" would be Alzheimer's. If my overlay theory is correct, then at the onset of Alzheimer's, the patient's spirit leaves the body (or the consciousness overlay separates or dies). The physiology continues to mimic what it's learned in the absence of the animating overlay. It would be like cutting the engines on an airplane at cruising altitude and speed. You don't immediately turn into a smoking hole in the ground but you begin a steady glide slope to the ground.
Some believe that the soul leaves the body if it knows death is imminent (or that we can somehow "eject" ourselves before crashing). Argument: say this has happened to someone involved in a horrific accident but (the body) somehow manages to survive after suffering massive trauma. They aren't the same person people knew before the accident. Look at this instance in the light of the overlay theory. Makes perfect sense.
So, all this suggests that our consciousness is some transdimensional energy that can live outside our body. As Marklar would say, "Yes yes, that's nice", but where does that leave us in our search for being able to isolate it and contain it?
To attack this theory, let's assume that we're nothing more than physiology. Both instances above could be explained by neural deterioration / damage. To prove the "overlay theory", the person would need a spontaneous regeneration. We would need to see a, "Hey, I'm back, it's really me in here!" moment. So far however, I am not aware of any proof that someone's essence is preserved intact after the physiology has been degraded, with the exception of the OBE/NDE testimonials, and they have been "returned" to a damaged body intact. Is that our smoking gun to prove the overlay theory?
Wrenj, I got your post sent to my email but for whatever reason, it didn't make it to the blog. Could you please repost?
ReplyDeleteTo argue against the "ejection" idea, why don't we see a lot more mistaken ejections? Someone gets freaked out enough to believe they're going to die, check out, survive intact, come back to tell an amazing story. Unless you add some kind of qualifier that the organism just magically knows it's toast barring some miracle, then and only then does it eject. I'm not buying this one. So, scratch the ejection theory unless god exists and/or time isn't linear. I'll quietly put this one back on the shelf -lol
ReplyDeleteHello Patrick.
ReplyDeleteThis is another attempt to post.
You mention Zecharia Sitchin. He provides his own theory of some fundamental questions. Various streams of science aim to provide answers. Religions aim to provide answers. Philosophies aim to provide answers. The question is which is true? Which provides the most adequate explanations? The search continues.
Let’s return to the story of Einstein. What if Einstein had not overcome the damaging effect of his school teachers? I have had experience of such “school” teachers, and the other kind who prod and push you to aim for something higher. Yet, the puzzle is what if Einstein had chosen to accept as final, the remarks and statements of his school teachers?
Recall the example of criminals. Some feel remorse and translate that into a change in the direction of their lives. A good example is Michael Santos. His story is available at www.michaelsantos.net. He describes his reflections and decisions after entering into prison. He still has many years left. Why has he chosen one road, while other fellow prisoners, in for lesser or greater crimes choose otherwise?
Please excuse the personal reference. There are occasions when an apology was the right thing to do. Instead, I chose otherwise, despite a nagging feeling that I was wrong. Why did I decide this way? Why have I still not apologized?
I can recall examples of people in my life who have hurt me. They fall into two categories: those who have apologized, and those who have not (some of whom have the impertinence to demand that things continue as they were before.) Then there is my response to the apology. I seem to have the option of choosing to forgive and forget, or choosing not to.
Abraham Lincoln, I think, said that he intended to defeat his enemies thoroughly by making them his friends. I say “Whoa! What do we have here?
I once saw a picture of John Paul II meeting his attacker in prison. I read that there was a huge outcry against the meeting when it was announced. But I looked at that picture and I asked myself, “If I feel furious over a slight, then how would I respond to one who tried to kill me? Why is this man responding this way?”
What makes our singularity so unique is not just the fact that our knowledge was of another kind altogether. We seem to have another capacity altogether: to power to choose. This power was brought home in the book, Freakonomics, where an example is cited of two boys who school together, go to and finish in Harvard and go on to other things. One became the Unabomber and the other a Professor.
Physics, Chemistry and their derivatives can explain much of stones. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and their derivatives can explain much of plants and animals. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Economics, Sociology, Psychology and all their derivatives all attempt to explain the human being. Yet you and I are still asking basic and fundamental questions.
Once, a teacher said that theories in the social sciences (economics, sociology, psychology etc.) always get stumped by one thing: the human being’s power to choose. The theories of physics and biology seem to last unchallenged only a while longer.
Observing plants and animals, seems like an experience at the zoo. You see the animals, the cages and the zookeeper. Observing human beings feels like when I watched the “Superman the movie” before I grew older and read “The making of Superman the movie” (more or less).
It seems the singularity that happened long ago, gave rise to a being on earth capable of understanding the physical dimension and another capacity for things beyond the physical: the mysterious and the enigmatic. Does the “overlay” seem adequate to explain the transcendental dimension of human beings, which completely escapes isolation, yet is inescapable everyday?
I suspect that the true version of “The making of Human” is the grandest of all tales.
Very well put Wrenj. What about simple economics? Organisms behave based on economics of self advantage. Even altruism could be seen as an economic advantage by garnering the approval of the affected. We also have imaginations. Very complex ones, in that we can dream up all kinds of things. Some people actually believe such machinations as true even when there's no evidence to support the idea. Why? Economics. I don't want to die so I'll lend credibility to some idea in the hopes that my investment will gain me everlasting life. People are very good at such things. Prisoners behave in a way that will gain them economic advantage either with better status among their peers in prison, or on the outside upon their release. Not getting released? Then with god if they believe in such a thing. You seldom hear of someone behaving to the contrary. There's always some payoff, either immediate or long term. I write in this blog with the hopes that our collective writ will spark the eureka moment in someone someday that will then develop into allowing me to download myself into an artificial environment and thus achieve immortality.
ReplyDeleteAre we all that complex though? We have created some very complex ideas, especially surrounding the esoteric and ethereal but even these can be broken down into very basic concepts. Lisi's theory of unification is 248 objects dimensionally and mathematically linked in very complex ways but it's a very simple and elegant tool for explaining the more complex. Why can't we be the same? Can't we be incredibly simple? Take your most compelling idea that's been a benchmark for your personal illumination and hold it to this very simple scrutiny, "What's the economics of this thing". The rest is just intellectual fluff is it not? What concept is so out there that it transcends simple economics? God, in all its variants, is simple economics. Empathy too. "I am nice to x because it makes me feel good.". Does it have to be higher than that? You didn't forgive y because the hate feels better than the moral high ground of forgiveness. Perhaps the hate is the only way you can feel good in a particularly painful memory? There's an imbalance or defecit in your happiness account. Economics.
Morals. Hmmm, a unique transcendent trait shared only by humans or is it too behaviorial economics? We live with several cats in our home. I believe they have established a moral code when it comes to sharing assets like the food bowl or the catbox. They have learned to share without bickering. However, when one of them gets up on the counter to steal a tasty morsel of people food, they act as if they know they're misbehaving. When caught, they eat faster, tense up, and prepare to be picked up or move away at the last possible moment. Are these not morals? So then, we transcend because we can imagine more things? I've often wondered what my cats dream about when they twitch about while deep in REM sleep? I'm still leaning towards (and hoping for the sake of singularity integration) the simple economics model. That all organisms are basically and fundamentally the same, just different in complexity.
Prior singularity idea... Hmm. Perhaps Wrenj that our singularity was developing the mental capacity for behaviorial investment? Meaning, that we could grasp the economies of self and society. We however have really botched that notion as a species. Had it not been for the dark ages, we'd be having this blog 700 years ago. That should make your blood boil as it does mine. With transcendent awareness and manipulation for the sake of controlling others, we lost valuable time to progress. Even today there are throwbacks to such a time that I hope we're leaving behind finally. So yes, I do believe there was a past singularity or epoch defining moment that grew us as a species and very nearly cost us everything. I'm sure people will make the next one equally precarious in some form or other. But perhaps not, as those who have lived the history will still be alive and much harder to ignore or supress.
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest a simple experiment? I'm not sure if anyone's developed a neural interface yet but when they do, interface a living human brain to memory and processing power somehow. Forgive my simplicity here but this is more or less just conceptual at this point. What I would be curious to know, is if the person's awareness could make use of or at least explore the new artificial neurons? I believe this to be the next step. You get a heart transplant and the new heart begins to beat. So I know the brain can be interfaced to. Now I'm not suggesting a new visual cortex and stereo cameras for the blind...yet. I just want to know if our brains can meaningfully interface with artificial neurons? Really, how hard does this have to be?? A neuron is an electrochemical switch. A transistor is an electrochemical switch. Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteTo wit, what if our test subject has a better transcendent understanding of life, god, the universe and everything once interfaced to silicon? That would suggest the simple economic theory was correct in that such high thoughts were simply the result of a more intense imagination brought about by the means to imagine more complex things.
ReplyDeleteMichael Persinger's "god helmet", artificial transcendence? Would it work on lower forms of life? Could it spark a singularity in a lower species?
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with you that human beings think, speak and act for reasons. There is abundant evidence of motive, purpose, a progression towards a goal or end point. Economics is only one of such motives. Most of human decisions are coloured by the search for a benefit. The benefit may sometimes be for self and sometimes for others.
ReplyDeleteI still have a difficulty with others becoming the means for an individual’s benefit, economic or otherwise. Human history is riddled with such examples. It is still going on. I grew up in a world where the state, as economists would put it, ruled the commanding heights of the economy crushing out private institutions and private entrepreneurship. I lived through the effects of such misguided paternalism.
I do not feel that economics adequately covers all the bases. If economics was it, we’re all in big trouble. One only needs to read Nicholas Nassim Taleb, to get a sobering exposure to, among other things, economic history and its prospects.
Now do organisms of lower species act for economic motives. I do not think consciously so. Otherwise how would one explain the historical disappearance of some species. This is interesting for another reason; it’s we humans that have recognized the danger of extinction and are taking concrete steps to prevent the complete disappearance of endangered species. There is a corollary too.
It’s only humans that have engaged in deliberate acts that threaten the survival of some species. Again, we have purpose working both ways.
So again, from observation we may be inclined to conclude that consciousness is an “overlay” of our physiology. We may conclude that
Economics is the motive of activity. We’re not going completely off track. We’re simply discovering aspects of the mystery, the enigma that, being human is. Precisely because of this mystery (that sorrounds the transcendental dimension of human beings) several explanations can be put forward with evidence.
A poor analogy is a crime scene investigation. There may be explanations for individual bits of evidence, but only one that passes the test of adequacy. Plausability and probability while useful are insufficient. You and I want the whole truth.
What is certainly true, is that human beings act with a motive, a consciously chosen motive, a choice. I think that choice is made in the realm of intentions, in the means chosen, in atleast some of the ends achieved.
I think extinction of species is an example of economics, just like businesses that go defunct, are no longer competitive or able to support themselves for whatever reason. It could be a fine business but just not able to cope with environmental change fast enough (evolve) and goes under. Or even taken over (eaten) by a larger business that dominated all smaller businesses of like kind (species) and then itself died out. So two species became extinct from pure economics. Organisms able to evolve quickly to adapt to environmental change(s) are successful.
ReplyDeleteWhat nags at me is the "Why can't it really be this simple?" question. In my part of the world, there is no evidence for anything solidly transcendental. When I'm presented by a group of ideas, I ultimately ask, "Where's the magic?", and when unable to produce any, I turn my back and walk away, albeit frustrated. This is exactly why I lost my faith in a god or the idea of such a thing. Where's the magic? Where's the proof?
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that even remotely smells like proof is the OBE/NDE phenomenon mentioned before. Then again, last night I had a first in my life... I dream. I dream a lot, in color, and lucidly. It's a big part of my life and gives me plenty to ponder. Last night I dreamt that I was dreaming and then waking and explaining my dreams to those around me...all within a dream mind you. It was filled with all kinds of random things, almost like I've had a dream deficit and balanced myself out last night with overdoing it a bit. This could be the pinnacle of transcendentalism, to wander around in your dreams like you're really there, but I will still offer the simpler alternative of pure physiology. If dreaming is a sign of human transcendence then cats and dogs are right along with us, as they dream just as intensely as we do.
I agree with you about simplicity. We are not so complex to understand. Aristotle’s categories are even fewer (only ten) to explain the universe. Looking at them from the distance of time, one only marvels at their simplicity, universality and perennial application.
ReplyDeleteRecall Oliver Wendell Holmes saying “I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the far side of complexity”. Simplicity does not come easily. A quick summary of arriving at it is demonstrated by Eric Berlow in a TED talk. Edward De Bono has a whole book dedicated to the topic. Among other things, he says a deep familiarity with the subject matter is required to attain the goal of simplicity.
This brings us to another issue that begins to arise: the human being’s singular capacity to simplify things. That capacity is first found in the intellect. Toyota once had a slogan that said “good thinking, good product”. This is usually the case in the world of products as well as ideas. It may explain the greater appeal of products that particularly achieve the values of simplicity and ease of use. It may also explain the appeal of some ideas.
Simplicity is both a capacity as well as an accomplishment of the human mind, giving it that particular ability to distill the essentials in the face of the complex. This is among the reasons why I doubt assertions about the possible advancement of the capabilities of a human being, by the addition of clock cycles and RAM. It ignores significant aspects of the nature and workings of the human mind. It may be a useful model for the development of phones, PCs, power stations and even defense shields but it does not suffice as an event of the kind and magnitude that took place when the human being appeared on the planet.
That said, though the human mind is capable of simplifying things, there is always the danger of simplistic responses to a complex reality. The danger is that we end up completely mistaken. I have much to say about human mistakes, deliberate and unintended. As I have mentioned before, a mistaken view of things in a world chockful of consequences can be a harrowing experience.
So yes we human beings are complex yet simple to understand. This is not because humans are simple but because it is human beings, and not stones or dolphins, which are doing the understanding.
Yes. The extinction of species may be attributed to the immediate reasons you mention: environmental changes, predators etc. But are the ultimate reasons, as you say, simple economics, or is that these species are simply helpless beyond a certain circumscription?
ReplyDeleteAlong comes another species: the human being. This creature is capable of protecting other species (which is why those on the endangered list survive) or eliminating them. If a meteor of epic proportions is on collision course with the planet earth, only one creature will be even able to attempt to do anything about survival: composing a response in contrast to a reaction. And the human being would do it for a variety of motives, reasons and purposes including economics, altruism or (un)common sense.
The outer limits of lesser species are defined by domains where reason and free choices come into play. Stones can be described by physics and derived sciences, ants by both physics, biology and derived sciences. When you cross the chasm and start describing humans, physics, biology, anthropology, economics, sociology, psychology…and so many others enter into the picture again demonstrating the realms of reason and choice, and inevitable corollaries like truth and purpose.
Take Ants and Anthills. Both have been for thousands of years. Take humans and shelter. Then one begins to talk of architecture.
You have referred to the dark ages twice and how it should make our blood boil. Yes. It should. Mine does. It’s our instinctive aversion to manipulation. For a good part of my life, my blood has boiled. The dark ages was not just years ago. There were dark ages before then. There are dark ages now. There is a dark age, every time Truth is abandoned, because what follows is certainly manipulation. I have not experienced it otherwise. I would dare to say, the experience is universal.
ReplyDeleteRecall the dual possibilities for both reason and the power to choose. This is the setting for the most dramatic events in human history as well as the personal, individual histories that are you and I: an unending struggle between Truth and the manipulation of power, between light and the dark ages. This would sound like dramatic science fiction, if only we lived in a world devoid of consequences.
I have found your principle of pure economics particularly useful. Sadly I must confess that its application seems often valid in understanding evil. This is not to say that economics is the science of evil. Far from it. However, when we trace evil to its roots, more often than not there’s pure aggrandizement at play. It doesn’t end there. The aggrandizement is often in the service of power that ends up being used for manipulation of the darkest kinds. In human history there has been a no more effective response than Satyagraha.
Personal circumstances has led me to the concept of Satyagraha. It was a word used by, arguably, one of the greatest men to appear on the face of the earth. I have tried to understand the roots from which this word is derived, and the implications. Satya means Truth. Graha has many dimensions including desire, insistence and stubbornness. This word embodies the principles on which the largest, largely peaceful, non-violent struggle for independence was based. I feel that the principle embodied by the word has not lost its usefulness. This particularly in the context of the dark ages prevalent today in many lives, societies, nations and large areas of the planet.
There’s a test you could carry out. It’s not mine. “Where there is no Truth, look closely and often enough you’ll see manipulation.”
I wholeheartedly agree. I thought I would find Gandhi when I looked into Satyagraha :) In my life I have witnessed firsthand the greedy appetite of evil. The delicate ideas, plans, constructs, and lives of those who adhere to the pursuit of truth are too easily consumed by the evil and our only recourse is to wait it out, at least that's what's left to me. I've come up with two sayings that have offered some comfort, "Never confront evil directly, rather let evil destroy itself.", and "If your enemy has an unhealthy appetite, feed him.". When I had my interface with pure evil, I believed in the support of balance, that there would be some structure available to help wrest me from the jaws of that evil which was consuming me for its own benefit. When there was none, I realized that everything in my society was a lie. Even those structures that claimed were founded on the very principle of truth were lies, to the very core. It was surreal to see the world in such a light. Almost made me wonder if I was the only sentient being in some giant experiment designed to test how long it would take someone to realize everything around them was a lie. So, to apply simple economics to the world seems accurate when the world is apparently ruled by evil.
ReplyDeleteTaken a step further, maybe there is no good or evil, just economics. For those of us who try add conditions of behavior around the basic instruction set, the enlightened if you will, we just get consumed by the more efficient predation we must live with. Until everyone, or at least a majority, have evolved to really adhere to the advanced instruction set, the simple economics will not favor us. To the small fish, the bigger fish are evil. To the bigger fish, the smaller fish are just food. I was just economic fodder to be pillaged and pillaged I was. What could I do about it? Nothing. Nothing but wait. Is the world evil? No, I don't think so. It's just an evolutionary disparity. Perhaps a phenomenon or syndrome in our species… where individually we have evolved beyond our collective self. Meaning every one of us sees ourselves as having evolved beyond the collective self. Is the collective the least common denominator by design? This can be proven when someone truly morally depraved (evil) can manipulate the collective to victimize other individuals. Once the collective cannot be manipulated by evil, then parity will have been achieved between the collective and the individual. Part of this evolution will require abandoning ideas that are founded in lies and in my part of the world (and many others) that won't come easily. That too must be waited out. However such delusional thinking is in fact dying out in that the adherents are getting older and not being replaced by the younger. Delusional thinking is hard to instill in an informed society and thanks to the internet, I believe the world is on the verge of enlightenment and evolutionary advancement for that very reason.
Part of my desire for integration into silicon, and immortality, is that I feel my life has been mostly wasted. I spent three quarters of it believing in delusional thoughts that were based in lies. I made poor decisions based on that delusional thinking and I feel robbed. I would like the opportunity to have another chance. If reincarnation is real in the natural world, it's a shame we can't take the lessons learned in previous lives with us. In a digital immortality, we can. (People who have experienced OBE/NDE have suggested reincarnation is real). Perhaps reincarnation is real, and just waiting for the digital singularity to offer true immortality? The end of one cycle and the beginning of the next?
Ant colonies and bee, hornet, wasp nests are marvels of architectural engineering. Structural, thermal, ergonomic, they have evolved seemingly just shy of plumbing and electricity -lol
ReplyDeletePerhaps the spark of artificial life is as simple as asking it for division by zero?
ReplyDeleteHow can there be no good or evil? Your experience is multiplied in several hundred million lives in the 20th century alone.
ReplyDeleteA few hundred years ago, Marxism sold a dream about the collective. The consequences have not ended till today.
This is always a feature of visions about the collective...the pulverization of individuals.
Recall Stalin's "cultivated complacency": "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic".
Granted, poor choice of words on my part. I'm not trying to instill a communist subterfuge on our topic. By "collective" I was describing taking somewhere between the average and the least common denominator of humanity on the whole. I was pulling back far enough to lose the myopia of good and bad and just see what is. Sure there's evil in this world. But I'll bet a lot of the "evil" think they're "good". In my experience, the most evil have thought themselves the most holy. I was simply shifting the focus far enough back to lose the coloration of perspective and try to simplify behavior and thought.
ReplyDeleteI hope in our evolution that we never lose individuality, regardless of the social fabric we weave for ourselves.
I also hope we never forget the hard lessons we've learned, especially regarding those we've labelled as evil. I'm not suggesting we live as if evil doesn't exist, I'm simply asking what we may learn if we can pull beyond it and have a look around.
"Pulverization", great use of that word Wrenj :)
ReplyDeleteFreedom of information, ideas, and their exchange also gets pulverized in collective systems too.
ReplyDeleteThank you Patrick. The usage was not mine.
ReplyDeleteWhenever we go for an average in theory, practice ends up at the lowest common denominator.
History bears us out.
That's why individual liberty is made up of not only freedom FROM lies and manipulation but also freedom FOR Truth and excellence.
What is truth? Is is how you need to see things so that the world makes sense to you?
ReplyDeleteCan a lower animal not have "consciousness"? I think simple observation will proove that they do. Good and Evil are simply perceptions of how a man interacts with his fellow man. They are simply commentary on our behavior as defined by societal, and mainly, culturally biased expectations. Is my "evil" the same as yours? I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to consciousness(damn that's a long word)is a multifaceted thing and like so much in life has a mulit-part formulation. First is a physical environment(our body),second is a "spirit" or the essence of our mind, third is a spirit body or "soul" an undefinable etheric "body" which is the housing of our spirit and mind once we leave this manbody.---I'm not the world's best speller and this blog has no spellcheck so if you see some misspelt or made up words--just roll with it I mean no disrespect. I am a believer in life after death and the continuation of our "soul" via reincarnation as is observed by the work of Dr.Micheal Newton--he is a psychiatrist who started the TNI(the Newton institute) for the study of life between lives. Dr Newton over 40 years has regressed Thousands of individuals via hypnosis and has made into book form hundreds of accounts of our existence of the afterlife and what happens in the spiritual realms(which I believe is the "real"existence of our consciouness)
ReplyDeleteLike everything in nature our consciousness is governed by certain laws which are cast in stone. I also have to think eventually downloading our consciousness to some VI program and getting to live an existence inside of some disc drive is at best hpeful but highly un-natural and therefore not realistic. Un-natural because it is man's effort to violate the laws of birth and death of carbon based life forms.
Pat, if you really want to pin down consciousness then look at the other end of the scectrum and answer where it begins. At what point do we become conscious sentient beings?
Is it possible that our conscious awareness exists prior to our physical incarnation? If so,where is it "injected" into the baby? or is our conscience created allong with the new baby? And if so at what point and where does it abide?
Some food for thought....
What are the rules/laws of consciousness?
ReplyDelete-Consciousness is the ability to exercise willful controll of our bodies. This controll is influenced at the most basic levels by the universal instinct of all animals to not purposefully cause their own demise.
Secondly...
"What is truth?"...a profound question! The answer can shape lives, communities and civilizations in a world riddled with consequences.
ReplyDeleteThis is where I have the difficulty with reincarnation. As Patrick put it well, there's no way of taking the lessons of a previous life into the next one.
Somebody took a look at history and came to the conclusion that "those who do not learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat its mistakes."
I agree.
Forgive my absence gentlemen, I will have some time to comment soon. Thank you for your continued patronage of our topic!
ReplyDeleteA baby kicks and moves about in the womb. Is it sentient at this point? Is it sentient any earlier? ...the human fetus looks remarkably similar to other forms of life on this planet, as far removed as the eagle and the mouse, at early fetal stages. Not until the last few stages of development do we see differences. This is MAN versus a MOUSE. This suggests the simple theory is the one theory that bears proof... The only confound being the NDE/OBE sect of which Chris is an adherent/witness. At this point, I'm thinking the smoking gun is as Chris suggests; if we were to carve 1cm off ourselves, when would we find our "core" that would be the true "me". (...carve 1cm further and you would cease to exist...), where would this point be and when in our development was it created?
ReplyDeletePat when you refer to "singularity" how exactly are you defining it? In my mind singularity is the common starting point of this whole mess. IE the Higgs particle etc.
ReplyDeleteI can't even begin to think about the association of consciousness arising from "singularity" it works allot better if you have two seperate starting points one for consciousness and the spirtiual and one for the physical and then you would of course need to integrate them at some point.
As far as the human embryo becoming sentient; part of being sentient requires awareness of self does it not? So can an infant in fact be conscious? I think not. Human infants do not become self aware for several months after birth.
Now were getting somewhere--arn't we?
My understanding of how reincarnation works is this: We are an eternal conscious soul with the ability to incarnate into a man. This incarnation involves the meshing of the soul with a physical body. Your soul existance being your "real" self. It is the net collection of memories and experiences achieved over many "lifetimes" as men and possibly other species/ realms.(as yet to be researched)
ReplyDeleteEach time we incarnate as a man the lessons and experiences gained are stored and build toward a state of "completeness" or maturity of spirit.
There is an amnesia of sorts between the spirit dimention and the physical; that is why we don't remember the other lives without regressive hypnosis. I belief the use for this amnesia is for us to be able to learn our lessons with out the baises that former life memories would present. Man is a simple creature compared to an eternal soul. I think these former lives do influence how our personalities and prefrences are formed.
I'm not very up on the eventualities of reincarnation. For me it just works because it subscribes to laws of karmic affect and self judgement and responsibility. Of all the spiritual and religious views that I have studied over the years, this just makes total sense to me. I think that whatever "God" is(possibly the sum total of all collective consciousness), it only makes sense that he/it would run the spiritual via laws cast in a natural common sense way the same way mother nature works here in the physical plane.I think the physical is a reflection of the spiritual.
So in effect our consciousness has a duality: we are super conscious souls/spirit beings(our real lives), and our physical sentient and self aware existence as a man with limitations lacking full integration of our "actual" selves.
Singularity in the terms outlined by Kurtzweil et. al.
ReplyDeleteHow do we know an infant doesn't become self aware for several months? Can this be verified/defined by damaged individuals, ie in cases of retardation, illness or trauma, is the onset of awareness delayed or inhibited all together? Cognitive tests are limited in newborns by virtue of pure neural mechanics. How could we possibly test self awareness in this group? I do appreciate this angle however.
ReplyDeleteOr, the amnesia is simply because we only exist once, there is no spirit dimension, we are purely a collection of neurons, and these complex machinations and theories are an attempt for us to explain something extraordinary complex, or a complex consequence to a simple bundling of massive amounts of neurons and experience.
ReplyDeleteJust had to balance the equasion with its counterpoise. What potentially shreds the above however is still the OBE/NDE in regards to evidence and experiential definitions. Are we still inching closer?
The self recognition/cognition tests in infanfs actually measure the brain wave activity when shown various stimuli including a mirror immage of themselves. These tests suggest that self awareness comes into play around 6-9 months+/-.I can definately source my testing assertions if you would like to read. But that still doesn't solve "what is consciousness"
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that consciousness and gravity have this undefinable common point and that is due to their interdimentional natures and lack of any hard forms. You can make many observations about them but at the same time you can't proove either exists.
Until we can get a grip on multi-dimentional forms(past 3D) then we will struggle with these topics.
So very true Chris. I guess that's the crux of this whole blog, trying to find some small piece of evidence that can help us through the woods of conjecture and into the valley of some solid foundational science. Soon we will have the technology to do some serious godlike things with ourselves, immortality being the chief among them.
ReplyDeleteSo let's ask ourselves at this point, "Is there anything we know for certain?" regarding our consciousness, that by knowing we can help to hem in its esoteric qualities. Gather enough explanations and maybe we can paint a multidimensional image of this unknowable thing.
Lisi's theory; you should look into it Chris. It may be the unification theory everything's been waiting for.
Here's another angle on consciousness:
ReplyDeleteMaybe consciousness is simply the "survival instinct" mechanism or a part of it. Animals are conscious right? Does the drive to stay alive at all costs imply awareness of self? If they arn't dead strictly speaking they are conscious at a basic level. Animals and lower life forms all have this drive to survive. How far removed from animals can you find survival instinct. It is in plants,fish,and bacteria! Then there is the whole pineal gland issue debate.
Can we synthesize aspects of consciousness? I can write software giving a computer survival "instinct". On the other hand if we can make the computer self aware will it attempt this survival on it's own? Maybe breaking down awareness of self would be a good place to start synthesizing consciousness.
ReplyDeleteFolks, I'm back.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of terms being used here. There is the risk of confusion from ambiguity or misunderstanding.
What does Patrick mean by sentient?
What does Chris mean by consciousness?
Chris, check out a-i.com/ it's a group who's trying to design the literal first steps of artificial awareness by building a child's mind.
ReplyDeleteWrenj, welcome back! That's the defining question. What *do* we mean? I would love to define these terms for you -lol
I believe we should define sentience and consciousness and awareness in the most base terms. Let's get the spark sustained before fueling more complexity. My computer doesn't care if I shut it off yet the most basic organisms will struggle to stay alive because they "want" to. (?) The group @ a-i.com are trying to make a child. Children are pretty simple; they "want". Why does anything do anything? Because it wants something to happen either out of need or arbitrary desire. How would you make a computer not "want" to be shut off? (Not "want" to "die" in other words.)
Very simple organisms "think" this way all the time. Is our technology sufficient enough to build an artificial example of such an organism? What else would a computer "want"?
Maybe my computer really hates it when I shut it down and just doesn't know how to communicate this to me? Maybe it argues over my existence and sects have developed within its thoughts? I know this is fanciful conjecture but it merits contemplation nonetheless. If spontaneous awareness does erupt someday, such considerations will I'm sure be created.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "want". How would you code the software for classWANT?
ReplyDeleteImbalance. Your child is hungry and they feel an imbalance. Such imbalance produces stress as it reduces or eliminates happiness/contentment which is what, loss of an ideal idle state?
ReplyDeleteSo then, is the spark of life simply trying to achieve / preserve the ideal idle state?
ReplyDeleteI still think it's as simple as asking for division by zero.
ReplyDeleteHere is my updated definition of consciousness after much thought.
ReplyDeleteConsciousness: The ability for an object to respond to and proscess stimuli in a way that is advantagious for it's survival or position amongst it's peers.
The problem is that consciousness is an involuntary state of being and not tied to our physical bodies.
ReplyDeleteWhat if we were to take a very basic modern opamp and integrate a bacteria that can respond to stimuli as a control for the gain and act as the switch. Would we now have a "conscious" opamp?
ReplyDeleteAt this point You might be better of focusing on how we can modulate gravitr waves for inter/ittra planetary communications. It's way less of a mf.
ReplyDeleteHa! Well, gravity wave theory is fun but it won't help you live forever.
ReplyDeleteStill learning how to manage a blog... I created "Mar 24" under the March heading. Let's move our string there as this one is getting pretty long!
ReplyDeleteMove--That's scarry! I don't see a March 24 header.
ReplyDeleteI went to add a photo to my profile and I saved to my profile a cool math solution but it defaulted to the first photo out of my pic folder instead and now I can't get it to change!
ReplyDeleteNevermind--I figured it out.
ReplyDeleteAt the top of this page on the right, under "Followers" is "Blog Archive". Under 2011 is March. Click on March and there you'll see Mar 24. Click on that and there's the new thread header.
ReplyDeleteRecalls Bicentennial man.
ReplyDelete