consciousness

[komodo]

(following on from 'spaceships' thread tributary!)

i agree with you dude, when you suggest that biological systems quite different in terms of creative-self-input. if this input is actually an illusion and everything is in fact programmatic and just going through the motions... we're back at: what created the program?

the idea that human life forms are just machines asserts both absolute fatalism (nothing you 'do' can change anything) and theism (there is a god-person who designed the machine). if there is a god-person that has qualities (such as wanting to create a universe simulation and watch it go through its motions) those qualities must also be definable as not-the-opposite qualities, ie. isnt a god that doesnt want to make a universe simulation, which means it isn't an all-encompassing god. this is a problem as you then have a limited (defined) god without an environment in which it's qualitative and quantitative parameters can be defined.

as it is impossible to absolutely predict the outcome of any living beings action/decision, it is clear there is a random element involved. i've come to recognise this chaos seed as the basis of the dynamic impulse, carried as a spark/core/channel within living biological entities. in the human being it is situated in or nearby the locus of the pineal gland, or at least thats what i've seen. the chaotic impulse of this life core is channeled through the matrix of the mind/body into x-dimensional actions, causes which then have ripple effects. this explains for me the role of cause and effect mechanics, as an outcome of channeled chaos into the xD pattern, not as a monotheistic program but as an interactive network of parallel god-actions by a very large or infinite number of life forms.

[XipeTotec]

(following on from 'spaceships' thread tributary!)

as it is impossible to absolutely predict the outcome of any living beings action/decision, it is clear there is a random element involved. i've come to recognise this chaos seed as the basis of the dynamic impulse,

if you have seen derran brown in action, you would know that it is very possible to predict the outcome of living being, particularly humans. the chain of human thought is quite predictable, allowing hypnotists and alike to do their thing. I think you place to much emphasis on chaos, and random acts. Also, from our previous encounter, I think you overlook cause and effect. But, you are free to believe what you wish ofcourse.

[komodo]

hey i didnt overlook cause and effect in that last post and i wasn't trying to emphasise chaos over pattern, just affirm that it exists, all is not order. if it were, why isn't the universe static/immobile/unchanging? its hard to overemphasise something as primal as absolute choas!

if you have seen derran brown in action, you would know that it is very possible to predict the outcome of living being, particularly humans. the chain of human thought is quite predictable, allowing hypnotists and alike to do their thing.

( i had a quick google on that guy and seems when dezza, on tv, asked a bunch of boxers to lift a girl after telling them they couldnt, one of them actually did... so not much of a prediction there, just a failed attempt at NLP )

you seem to be pointing out that it is possible to influence people, to run a program on their wetware so to speak, and thereby influence what they may do, like media monopolies attempt to influence voters etc. obviously i agree with you there. however, predicting what a living being will do with absolute certainty is totally different to influencing them or making a decent guess based on knowing the kind of things they like/dislike etc.

if everything is absolutely predictable then life is an illusion, all phenomena including your consciousness and ability to act or change anything are actually just frames in an animation, powerless and artificial. this version of reality needs a god-individual too, who gets a kick out of watching itself in xD.

Edited January 25, 2007 by komodo

[XipeTotec]

however, predicting what a living being will do with absolute certainty[

the fact that you can't predict it, doesn't make it random, We can't predict weather with absolute certainty, but it still follows laws of physics, and could likely be predicted with enough information.

. if everything is absolutely predictable then life is an illusion,

I cant see how predictability equates to an illusion.

all phenomena including your consciousness and ability to act or change anything is actually just an empty series of predestined events.

We are conscious beings of free will, able to interact with our surroundings. Though, our decisions, thoughts and actions are likely based on previous experience, which is the way that we learn. So therefore, it would suggest that it is not just random thought and action, but thought and action which has been shaped by previous experience, thought and action. Even if it is predestined (which some believe it is) it doesn't make it necessarily make it an empty experience.

Edited January 25, 2007 by shroomytoonos

[phloom]

Interesting..... .

........ive been thinking about the issue of "free will" lately and strangely right on time an article came to my attention in new scientist (13 january, pg48). Its about whether our mental processes follow essentially deterministic pathways or whether there are quantum inderdeterminacies involved.

When you break it all down we've created the 'problems' maybe just so we can solve them! do 'we' forget so we can remember??

I suppose its all semantics really.....but you know what i think is really cool????

the mere fact that there are semantics

[No_One]

I read a good piece of literature the other day about this stuff, here's the link - Consciousness - The author provides a good walk through of both the sub-systems of consciousness and consciousness as a whole.

I lean toward the views of Perennial Philosophy, it basically states that we are free to direct our will as we please but there are some ultimate truths that cannot be disproven or avoided.

When you break it all down we've created the 'problems' maybe just so we can solve them! do 'we' forget so we can remember??

This resonates with the concepts of Maya, Samsara, The Matrix, etc - most people don't question the validity their mental schemata in regards to their perception of reality and hence their existance becomes the management of the problems that make up the reality they have created, it's all they know how to do.

TRANSCEND PEOPLE TRANSCEND!

[komodo]

We are conscious beings of free will, able to interact with our surroundings.

shroomy you seem a bit conflicting on this! but i'll take what you say there to mean you believe free will exists and is exercised by conscious beings not bits of dead wood. this means that entitys choose one option or another of their own free will, which means there is not a predetermined outcome, as i was saying earlier. there may be a likely outcome, but it is a matter of probability not certainty. this means the universe is not purely mechanical and the future is not determined, ie. there is an element of real chaos involved. does that sound right yet?

also, i wasn't saying things that are predictable are illusory, i was saying that life without free will is an illusion, because life seems to act, and in a deterministic universe there is no real action, only the illusion of action, as all things are just going through predetermined motions. if we are just puppets with no control over our actions, then experience really is 'empty' in the sense of us not growing into some greater wisdom of decision making or value making but just plowing along our predestined furrow.

i think the reason we can't predict weather with absolute certainty is because butterflies flap their wings, etc. life forms initiating unpredictable chaos means unknown variables means certainty impossible, only statistical probability can be forecast, as in mathematical 'chaos theory'. the idea that life inputs real chaos into systems goes a long way in explaining the problems we have forecasting complex systems precisely.

shiva, thanks for the article link. had a read and it is a clear setting out of how 'we' experience discrete psychological states (like sometime you only remember certain experiences/configurations when you are in that certain/same neurochemical state). however i think consciousness is a higher order phenomenon than mind-matrices, and those DSoC filter/mediate or are constructs of information between the senses and the consciousness.

and hi phloom, i guess semantics can be a good thing, as the exchange of information objects, but do you mean its connotation of empty talk too? i'll bet future articles along those lines back the quantum indeterminacy PoV

Edited January 26, 2007 by komodo

[No_One]

i think consciousness is a higher order phenomenon than mind-matrices

I agree, the higher order phenomenon is chaotic and the mental schematas of a dSOC are how we give it order.

The Way of the Wizard - Deepak Chopra

[Hagakure]

"the idea that human life forms are just machines asserts both absolute fatalism (nothing you 'do' can change anything) and theism (there is a god-person who designed the machine)."

i disagree

nothing about humans acting as machines on a very complicated program doesnt mean we arent doing anything. we are doing what we have learnt to do.

there is also no theism required.

i think the future of AI will involve program environments being setup that allow neural networks to form and change randomly within certain rules. each neural network would then be selected based on its profeciency to perform a task.

the most competent setups are chosen and used as parents for subsequent networks. these networks are selected for again to get the most competent.

then you start introducing new requirements for the ai.

okay you can display messages on the screen now but can you type "hello"

you can then test millions of networks to get the one most capable, after all a program can be designed to wait for networks that can spell hello on a screen.

just keep on doing this and add new requirements. let it work out how to respond to words being typed into the computer.

then try to get certain actions to correspond to certain stimulus. then introduce camera lenses, introduce sensory apparatus, make it aware of the internet and understand and learn from it.

pretty soon you will be talking to a machine that is thinking.

emotions could be added by making it place imortance on some things over others.

now you will be able to select it in any way you want.

if you want it to bee as human as possible you will be able to do that by rewarding certain actions that correspond to us.

now did we design this AI? well we did but we designed it in an environmental manner. we didnt design the code behind it. we made a simple lot of rules. the way the mind's environment interacted with it, shaped it.

[The Dude]

"the idea that human life forms are just machines asserts both absolute fatalism (nothing you 'do' can change anything) and theism (there is a god-person who designed the machine)."

i disagree

nothing about humans acting as machines on a very complicated program doesnt mean we arent doing anything. we are doing what we have learnt to do.

there is also no theism required.

i think the future of AI will involve program environments being setup that allow neural networks to form and change randomly within certain rules. each neural network would then be selected based on its profeciency to perform a task.

the most competent setups are chosen and used as parents for subsequent networks. these networks are selected for again to get the most competent.

then you start introducing new requirements for the ai.

okay you can display messages on the screen now but can you type "hello"

you can then test millions of networks to get the one most capable, after all a program can be designed to wait for networks that can spell hello on a screen.

just keep on doing this and add new requirements. let it work out how to respond to words being typed into the computer.

then try to get certain actions to correspond to certain stimulus. then introduce camera lenses, introduce sensory apparatus, make it aware of the internet and understand and learn from it.

pretty soon you will be talking to a machine that is thinking.

emotions could be added by making it place imortance on some things over others.

now you will be able to select it in any way you want.

if you want it to bee as human as possible you will be able to do that by rewarding certain actions that correspond to us.

now did we design this AI? well we did but we designed it in an environmental manner. we didnt design the code behind it. we made a simple lot of rules. the way the mind's environment interacted with it, shaped it.

It seems though that every new thing must be learned by our creative input. It needs to have its own creative input to be a truely sentient being otherwsie its just good at copying i suppose, at adapting to its environment, like us machines do i guess, but what gives us our creative inputs? god i suppose. Hmm I'm tired, cant think now.

[Hagakure]

creative input?

we are not creating the AI. we are simulating environmental pressures.

in the example of the AI i have talked about our actions are the equivalent of high levels of nutrients in one area, and low nutrients in another, rewarding those that can move with life and the ability to breed.

now you could set up some ai that responds to the environment but it would need to be more hardware based. it would need to interact with the environment. as this would mean create a bunch of machines, randomise and select for most efficient, then this is going to be very difficult in terms of creating thousands of unique pieces of hardware.

develop the mind purely on software and then move on to harware.

i guess you could set up some high powered robot that you want the AI to inhabit and constantly select fo those that have greatest ability to interface with what they have available to them.

but im getting sidetracked. we arent being creative so much as playing the role of envionmental pressures.

[komodo]

"the idea that human life forms are just machines asserts both absolute fatalism (nothing you 'do' can change anything) and theism (there is a god-person who designed the machine)."

i disagree

nothing about humans acting as machines on a very complicated program doesnt mean we arent doing anything. we are doing what we have learnt to do.

there is also no theism required.

please make more of an effort to follow what i'm saying.

to 'do' something or not 'do' something is a choice. you cannot make a choice if you are a program, a programs actions are predetermined, thats what "program" means.

secondly, in order for there to be a universe that started at a certain point, you need an explanation of what made it start. if 'god' didnt start the absolute cause & effect program you are stating the universe is, then what did?

in the example of the AI i have talked about...change randomly...randomise and select for most efficient...

as i mentioned earlier, and you didnt address, your example is predicated on a currently totally impossible, wholly theoretical and unlikely concept; that a computer can manifest random data. i find it totally unconvincing, why are you so convinced this will happen?

AI will involve program environments being setup that allow neural networks to form and change randomly within certain rules.

ok so your AI concept is based on a kernel code, which dictates certain learning behaviour. the system is artificial and the creation of human techne, like any other machine tool. interesting things may occur when large networks of powerful processors are linked up together, but this has been going on for some time and there is no signs of progress. where AI has progressed is in soft areas like pattern recognition and fuzzy logic, this kind of AI seems interesting and useful, as well as real. the philosophical kind remains hypothetical.

the basic point id like to come back to is that biology = life. it seems to me hard AI is a philosophical yearning from people who love technological gadgets, against the evidence and the odds. a bit like faith?

i see no reason we cant physically or virtually replicate a brain at hi resolution someday. what the AI field misses (being materialistic) is that there is more to life than the organ of the brain. the mind cannot be replicated, as it is defined not only by its composition and state, but also by its x-dimensional location. if simulated, the mind cannot act, having being divorced of not only of an integrated space/time continuity/identity but also its impulsive chaotic energy as manifest through the biological energy complex that is a 'being'... and if we build a new intelligence based on a kernel code and non-random iteration, won't it just be a bunch of subroutines with fancy stimulus/response behaviour?

personally, and for these kinds of reasons, i think theres a lot more to life than automatic response.

Edited February 3, 2007 by komodo

[komodo]

came across this thread, toward the end a couple of materialists are struggling with the problem of mind

http://machineslikeus.com/phpBB2/viewtopic...15216f4eb0c78c7

excerpt:

Turing engines should allow us to make any possible mind that can exist in any computable physics, so if we did have to resort to any alternative physics it would really have to be because quantum computation was needed to get enough efficiency to overcome NP-hardness - and I see no evidence that the brain does this - or because physics is non-computable. This last idea is proposed by Roger Penrose and he says he has proved that it is the case. I disagree intensely with his proof, but I admit the possibility of non-computable physics.

[Hagakure]

dude thats a really good forum you posted.

got a lot on my plate right now and its gonna take me a while to digest it all but cheers.

[komodo]

yeah i really like that vague phrase non-computable physics it seems like the right direction to me, and would mean intelligence will require different technique to explore further, rather than just more grunt.

Edited February 14, 2007 by komodo

[Hagakure]

more grunt isnt the big issue. more complex networks is the key.

our brain was not created, it evolved. so too can programs. the only limitation in terms of programing an artificial mind is flexibility within the program.

if you are allowing random changes and selection you can evolve more complex programs than you could design.

apply the right stimulus and retrieve an artificial intelligence that unlike you is not limited in processing power and memory.

it could also skip some biological constraints on humans, eg we respond to hormones.

artificial brains will do the whole natural selection thing much quicker and more efficiently than natural biology.

[The Dude]

more grunt isnt the big issue. more complex networks is the key.

our brain was not created, it evolved. so too can programs. the only limitation in terms of programing an artificial mind is flexibility within the program.

if you are allowing random changes and selection you can evolve more complex programs than you could design.

apply the right stimulus and retrieve an artificial intelligence that unlike you is not limited in processing power and memory.

it could also skip some biological constraints on humans, eg we respond to hormones.

artificial brains will do the whole natural selection thing much quicker and more efficiently than natural biology.

I'd say our limitations in processing power are an illusion and our potential is infinite... a piece of hardware has finite potential always. unless it can do the transcendant do-flicky thing.

Edited February 15, 2007 by El Duderino

[Hagakure]

okay lets say our conciousness is somehow superior to any artificially constructed conciousness.

our conciousness was born out of evolution.

we can see the development from small single cell organisms to multicellular, concious, abstract thinking primates.

what extracapability do we creatures of the flesh have?

if both conciousnesses are born out of a process of natural selection what feature of a biological model is superior?

what limitation or benefit due to physical existance gives birth to this infinate potential?

[komodo]

what extracapability do we creatures of the flesh have?

life/chaos

if both conciousnesses are born out of a process of natural selection what feature of a biological model is superior?

the manifestation of free will and therefore of meaningful consciousness. but incidentally artifical intelligence can't be born out of natural selection, or it wouldnt be artificial. i think you mean born from a human-designed kernel and then exposed to natural stimulus.

edit: i'm not sure i think of it as superiority of the same qualities, more like a fundamental difference.

what limitation or benefit due to physical existance gives birth to this infinate potential?

being a part of a continuous process of evolution, coeval with the earths natural systems, rather than an abstraction created by human artifice. computer 'life' has its roots in unliving circuits, not living earth, and spreads its leaves in virtual space, not the real sky. it is in this way disconnected from the cosmos, is only an image of itself in a non-reality, and through this divorce no longer has access to the infinity seed that living beings carry.

thats my going theory anyway.

whats the do-flicky thing??

Edited February 19, 2007 by komodo

[Hagakure]

lets focus on free will for 2 seconds. when did we evolve this capability?

does an ape have free will? does a dog have free will? does a fish have free will? does an insect have free will? do bacteria have free will?

Edited February 20, 2007 by Hagakure

[The Dude]

lets focus on free will for 2 seconds. when did we evolve this capability?

does an ape have free will? does a dog have free will? does a fish have free will? does an insect have free will? do bacteria have free will?

I was thinking about destiny and such.. sure we are machines more or less, responding to the mechanics of the universe and our behaviours can be predicted.. I thought of it this way, destiny exists for those who refuse to take action.. things will happen in their own way, but we do have the choice to act and create our destiny, not just be witness to it.

Transcendental do-flicky = the ability to reconnect with the universal mind, god consciousness. Direct access to god. I think of computers as artificial constructs that are by Definition departed from nature and therefore cannot connect to the consciousness of nature... that being the universe, life, and all the studies of ontology that go along with it.

I'd think that perhaps hagakure is onto something that evolution can be pre-programmed into an artificial machine, it could perhaps adapt to environmental pressures within some set predefined parameters, but it will not itself be able to changet these paramaters, it evolves in its own restricted ways. IF reality IS deterministic and we, like computers have been pre-programed to evolve in accordance to some arbitrary set of laws imposed by some god being, then there'd be no difference because we too would be an artificial intelligence, the TRUTH of the matter is we carry within us the seeds of chaos and novelty and can shift the very nature of reality (reality of nature) as we continue our dance with it.. with ourselves: a self observing self.

We are the godhead coordinating reality... in a state of schizophrenia, the self dissolved into fragmented egos, but perhaps in that most elevated of altered states when we smile to our godself that guides us all this time, loves us, has our best interests in mind... we see the more we connect the friendlier we are to ourselves.. because, we love ourselves, it is only ignorance and fear that creates discomfort and [an apparent] disconnection between our lives that are connected whether we see it or not.

Maybe it depends on the computers networking ability, and in this microcosmic consciousness there too will be a similar scenario happening but it would always be disconnected from our consciounsess.

One possibility i can think of is some kind of human/mech hybridisation which will create some kind of connection... Really it all depends if an artificial mind can connect to this 'novelty wave' which allows spontaneous creation, no way to tell.

...so there's my rant.

Edited February 25, 2007 by El Duderino

[komodo]

when did we evolve this capability?

when protobionts gave rise to prokaryotes.

does an ape have free will? does a dog have free will? does a fish have free will? does an insect have free will? do bacteria have free will?

yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. all living entities have discrete agency.

dude said:

One possibility i can think of is some kind of human/mech hybridisation which will create some kind of connection...

i recall about 8 years ago an article on a japanese wetware/hardware interface...i'm sure there has been a lot of development since. also the bioart movement is conducting borderline ethical experiments here, with cells and machinery. in terms of AI however, what you're describing is actually just a natural living intelligence with a mechanical apparatus around it -- a driver in the machine not a ghost in the machine.

Edited February 26, 2007 by komodo

[Hagakure]

you seriously think prokaryotes have free will?

they have very pure cause and effect systems.

after growing this amount, split in 2.

if concentration of nutrients is increasing keep moving in that direction, if concentration is decreasing, do a random spin.

there is no complex network of ideas.

simply, when this happens, do this.

we can tweak these orders by altering their dna.

knock a gene out and suddenly they wont move towards high levels of nutrients decreasing their fitness level dramatically.

now there are many projects out there involving the programming of constructs that are just as complex as prokaryotes.

its just you carbon chauvinists dismiss silicon based lifeforms in the same way some jazz fans dismissed the rise of electronic instruments :D

now lets consider the mech/human hybrid

i wire up my brain to join with a machine. i know have access to much higher processor speeds. i can solve incredibly complex mathematical equations instantly. i can constuct the most complex risk assessments in a flash. my decisions revolve around meeting certain goals. my processing power can now determine the most benefiial decisions i need to make to meet those goals.

now if i am making decisions i would not have made without increased abilities, am i really a driver in the seat of a car?

how much of the brain could we replace with technology yet still remain human?

i personally think its better to create AIs from scratch and not flavour them with the evolutionary hangovers we humans have. gotta come up with AIs so the decisions made dont involve pride, jelousy, greed etc

[komodo]

ok i see where youre coming from, but not quite convinced to change my carbon chauvinist ways just yet

do a random spin.

random, yes... this is free will.

the key difference between our perspectives is that you're tying free will to complexity (is that right?), whereas i'm claiming free will is a distinguishing characteristic between living and nonliving things. what this means from my perspective is that an assemblage of wooden balls and channels (which theoretically can be formed to be a von neumann machine of any complexity, although the quantity of balls and channels might get a bit ridiculous in practise) is qualitatively different to a living being.

this is why death is final. once the quality of life has thoroughly departed, the apparatus, however complex, however capable of performing its life-vessel tasks, cannot reanimate. life is more than a behaviour exhibited by a very large number of balls and channels, it is a self contained phenomenon. the bridge from organic chemistry to life has not been demonstrated, this is because it is not a simple systemic outcome, it is something more mysterious which we have yet to imagine, let alone build.

[Hagakure]

hmmm i think we are using the word "random" differently. what if i say the bacteria rotates all of its flagellar in a clockwise direction.

these are orders selected for by external pressures.

as it happens, in the example i mentioned.....

'if concentration of nutrients decreases, "rotate flagellar in clockwise direction". if increases, keep on rotating in a anti-clockwise direction and go forwards.'

...happens to be a successfull series of commands.

coding an environment that neural networks can grow in is the key

here are some basic examples

http://www.krumsiek.com/index.php?go=ai

variation and then selection of those that complete tasks successfully will reveal complex behaviours

Edited March 6, 2007 by Hagakure