Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

Londoner wrote: April 14th, 2018, 1:13 pm I would not agree that eyeballs have a purpose. The language starts to show the strain here, since literally that would be saying that eyeballs have their own purpose, separate from whoever has those eyeballs, which I assume we don't mean.
Now I’m beginning to think you’re just being ornery. I’ll repeat myself: I use words like “ability” and “purpose” because those are the closest analogs to the concepts I have in mind. Also, “purpose” is not a property of a thing. “Purpose” is an explanation of why a thing came to exist. When we need to distinguish, we can say natural purpose versus intentional purpose. If you disagree, just try to put everything else in the context of how I am using the terms.
I would say that rather than consciousness arising from things like 'inputs', it is the idea of 'inputs' that depend on consciousness.
And I would say that there is an idea/concept for “inputs” independent of consciousness, and that the generation of a structure to represent that concept requires consciousness, and that the process of generating that structure involves something best referred to as “inputs”.
It cannot be a 'sign' unless there is something it is a sign-to, something that interprets that sign.
Okay, so let’s talk about any aversion reflex. We’ll call the neurotransmitter produced by the c-fiber an “nsign” which has the “npurpose” of being “n-interpreted” as damage, thus generating another “nsign” which is “n-interpreted” by a muscle cell which “nresponds” by contracting. Is that better?
Similarly, if we are to call the physiological events a 'sign', then that presupposes a 'Cartesian theatre', where a consciousness, that is distinct from those physiological events, takes note of what has happened in those cells and interprets it as a 'sign', a 'signal'. Similarly with 'concepts'.
Close, but not quite right. The ‘Cartesian theatre’ does not contain a consciousness. The Cartesian theatre is an entity which Dan Dennett correctly describes as competent without comprehension. The theatre creates the consciousness, in that the theatre has a repertoire of input/output sets, and any individual input/output that actually occurs is a conscious event. And yes, those inputs are signs ... no, wait ... I mean ... nsigns.
The title of the thread suggests material things like computers are currently lacking a special something, 'consciousness', that we humans have but they don't. But if consciousness/mind is simply a description of the organisation of matter, then computers already have it. They cannot avoid having it.
I did not create the title of the thread. I absolutely agree that computers, right now, have a degree of consciousness. You might have noticed I put them at level 4.
So what project are we engaged on?
I don’t know about you, but I’m engaged on the project of explaining why computers already have consciousness at level 4 and that there is no logical impediment to creating computers at level 6 (or above?). Also, just in case someone has this idea, computers will not accidentally “become” conscious when no one is looking.

*
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Jan Sand »

As I indicated, a purposeful computer or computer systems requires that the purpose becomes integral to the dynamics of the system, But it must be understood that computers, as clever as they might become in doing both innovative operations and handling data in bulk and diversity far beyond only human abilities have already made themselves indispensable across much of the fundamental dynamics of all human society socially, militarily, economically, industrially,technically, financially, artistically, and scientifically. Computers alone have yet to be entirely independently motivated in these areas but computers are joined deeply into all the vital areas of human civilization and are integrated and more and more with the burdens inevitably shifting towards computers that are penetrating human areas of activity. It may remain somewhat difficult to move everything into computers for a while but the energies are moving in that direction.
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Jan Sand »

I am in no way a neurologist nor even professionally involved in biological work but I have dissected human brains on a job and am aware that it is an organ composed of a group of nerve complexes that coordinate in processing sensory input and modulate and process this array of inputs into pattern complexes that are used to formulate some sort of dynamic map of the useful elements of the environment. There are various internal discriminations and cooperative analyses with references to memory patterns and genetic and evolutionary prejudices to see to it that the entire organism prospers and reproduces. Since a living body is actually a cooperative organization of living cells, each sub-unit is a living being and partakes of the evolutionary determination to operate properly and participate properly in survival. Thereby the eyeballs, as well as the other components must have inbuilt a purpose and intent to aid in this survival and adds to the total consciousness to this end.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Belindi »

James, the reason nature 'designed' shame and remorse in us is if nature had not so 'designed' us humans then we could not live in societies, could not share cultures of beliefs and practices, and would not have been humans at all.The creatures that we call men would not exist. I don't suppose that lone predatory dinosaurs had these emotions even towards their own eggs.

As it is those humans who are unable to feel shame and remorse are deemed to be unwholesome and are called psychopaths or sociopaths.The amount of freedom that intelligent machines are designed to have will be proportionate to the amount of shame and remorse that they are designed to feel. Only creatures that can feel shame and remorse can be safe around other creatures, and those feelings are included in socialisation of mammalian infants. Religions are punitive insofar as they don't educate for social control, but instead threaten and rule though fear and threats or alternatively rewards.

The question in the title of this thread is not a question for philosophers but for technologists, engineers, and scientists. Only questions that bear upon ethics and morality are questions for philosophers.
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Jan Sand »

That the major forces of civilization are involved with various forces of finance which has nothing at all to do with shame and remorse as openly indicated in the daily news reports of butchery and deceit. It would indeed require major innovation to inculcate shame and remorse into the digital technology since humanity shows little of that as its own component.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Belindi »

Jan Sand wrote: April 15th, 2018, 4:03 am That the major forces of civilization are involved with various forces of finance which has nothing at all to do with shame and remorse as openly indicated in the daily news reports of butchery and deceit. It would indeed require major innovation to inculcate shame and remorse into the digital technology since humanity shows little of that as its own component.
I disagree. Shame and remorse are the default feelings that socialise men. That there are societies is the evidence for my claim. Your claim, Jan Sand, is also true that the daily news would seem to indicate otherwise. The human is a battle field of right over wrong.
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Jan Sand »

And that battlefield has been furiously in activity throughout all human history and the bright shining light of USA liberty and freedom has always and especially at present constructed its formidable power which sucks about half of its immense wealth into weapons and other instruments of domination. This is the central core of most humanity and remorse and shame find no inscription on its flags. The incipient invasion on automatic digital soldiers is now the intensive preoccupation of most of the world's militaries.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Londoner »

JamesOfSeattle wrote: April 14th, 2018, 2:44 pm Now I’m beginning to think you’re just being ornery. I’ll repeat myself: I use words like “ability” and “purpose” because those are the closest analogs to the concepts I have in mind. Also, “purpose” is not a property of a thing. “Purpose” is an explanation of why a thing came to exist. When we need to distinguish, we can say natural purpose versus intentional purpose. If you disagree, just try to put everything else in the context of how I am using the terms.
Absolutely; 'purpose' is not a property of a thing, which is why I say eyeballs don't have it. To use 'purpose' to mean 'why things came to exist' is also deeply misleading, because it implies things have intentions, that the universe has a plan. To use words that describe objects as if they had intentions is something any philosopher is alert for, because it features as the start of various proofs of God; that the universe has a design, that it exhibits a 'purpose', thus there must be a consciousness behind it.

If an explanation of 'why a thing came to exist' just means 'what are its causes?', why not say 'causes'?

So I cannot just accept the way you are using these words. 'Purpose' is not a property of things, nor is there any such a thing as 'natural purpose'. Nature does not have purpose, indeed there is no entity 'Nature'.
And I would say that there is an idea/concept for “inputs” independent of consciousness, and that the generation of a structure to represent that concept requires consciousness, and that the process of generating that structure involves something best referred to as “inputs”.
I do not understand how there can be any idea/concept that is independent of consciousness. That would mean an idea/concept was a material thing, so that a concept might exist independently of anyone having that concept. Likewise a 'structure to represent that concept'; if there is a structure then it is an object, not a concept.
Me: It cannot be a 'sign' unless there is something it is a sign-to, something that interprets that sign.

Okay, so let’s talk about any aversion reflex. We’ll call the neurotransmitter produced by the c-fiber an “nsign” which has the “npurpose” of being “n-interpreted” as damage, thus generating another “nsign” which is “n-interpreted” by a muscle cell which “nresponds” by contracting. Is that better?
It is the same. To interpret something as 'damage' requires an external observer. If I bruise an apple I might say it is 'damaged', because I had some preference as to how the apple should be. But the apple does not care; it does not have the purpose of being an unblemished apple, nor does God or Nature have any particular purpose for the apple that has been frustrated.

If the neurotransmitter interprets something as 'damage', that neurotransmitter must have a sense of the organism as a whole, and a preference for the organism being one way rather than another. Yet we are talking about very simple chemicals.
Close, but not quite right. The ‘Cartesian theatre’ does not contain a consciousness. The Cartesian theatre is an entity which Dan Dennett correctly describes as competent without comprehension. The theatre creates the consciousness, in that the theatre has a repertoire of input/output sets, and any individual input/output that actually occurs is a conscious event. And yes, those inputs are signs ... no, wait ... I mean ... nsigns.
I think your descriptions are more like the Cartesian theatre that is in Descartes.
I did not create the title of the thread. I absolutely agree that computers, right now, have a degree of consciousness. You might have noticed I put them at level 4...

I don’t know about you, but I’m engaged on the project of explaining why computers already have consciousness at level 4 and that there is no logical impediment to creating computers at level 6 (or above?). Also, just in case someone has this idea, computers will not accidentally “become” conscious when no one is looking.
As I have said, I do not see there is any difference between those levels. They all amount to 'reacts to other things', so everything in the universe would be conscious in that sense. And since everything in the universe follows exactly the same rules, then everything in the universe is conscious in exactly the same way.

We humans might be impressed or surprised by certain of these reactions - a machine that plays chess! - because these reactions mimic things that humans do. The humble plant can also react and do stuff, which is equally complicated, but because we humans don't do plant-stuff we don't think of the plant as being on the same level of consciousness as the computer. So, a hierarchy of consciousness reflects a human feeling of superiority to the rest of the universe, that we are the most perfect thing, the apex and 'purpose' of creation. The more like a human something is, the better the consciousness score.

(Personally, I don't see what is achieved by linking 'reacts to other things' to the word 'consciousness'. If everything is 'conscious', and nothing is not-conscious, then to call something 'conscious' does not tell us anything.)
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Jan Sand »

Consciousness is betrayed as to existence by a demonstration of intent, Living things require a homeostatic internal stability to maintain existence. It does not matter to a galaxy if its components ae swallowed by a central black hole. It does not matter to a rock if it rolls down hill or is squashed down by glacial weight. It matters to living things that they have their internal structures destroyed to become inoperable and they are designed by evolution to prevent that. Living things defend their dynamic systems and to do that they must be aware of their condition and of possible destructive forces and they must have means to maintain their status quo. In general, computers do not have this awareness but their is no reason it cannot be designed. Insofar as computers have defensive security software they are slightly aware. Considering how vulnerable computer systems are to attach and how vital they now are to much of human civilization it seems very unlikely that computers and their networks will remain without their necessary awareness and accompanying degrees of consciousness.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Belindi »

Jan Sand wrote: April 15th, 2018, 4:56 am And that battlefield has been furiously in activity throughout all human history and the bright shining light of USA liberty and freedom has always and especially at present constructed its formidable power which sucks about half of its immense wealth into weapons and other instruments of domination. This is the central core of most humanity and remorse and shame find no inscription on its flags. The incipient invasion on automatic digital soldiers is now the intensive preoccupation of most of the world's militaries.
Jan Sand, you say "USA liberty and freedom". There is little freedom in any society where most of the citizens are uneducated and so unable to withstand the authority of a state which is in thrall to money and power. The USA is of course not alone in being populated by people who don't even know they are being enslaved by the moneyed and the powerful.
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

Londoner wrote: April 15th, 2018, 6:06 amTo use 'purpose' to mean 'why things came to exist' is also deeply misleading, because it implies things have intentions, that the universe has a plan.
So you would say that the question “why do we have kidneys?” is misleading because it implies the universe has a plan?
If an explanation of 'why a thing came to exist' just means 'what are its causes?', why not say 'causes'?
Because there are two kinds of why questions. “How come?” and “What for?”. Causes answer the first kind. Purposes (okay, npurposes) answer the second kind.
I do not understand how there can be any idea/concept that is independent of consciousness. That would mean an idea/concept was a material thing, so that a concept might exist independently of anyone having that concept. Likewise a 'structure to represent that concept'; if there is a structure then it is an object, not a concept.
Man you are picky. Okay, I will accept (i.e., define) that a concept is not independent of consciousness. A concept is an abstraction that has been represented by a physical structure for the purpose of acting as the input to a (level 4) conscious process. How’s that?
Me:We’ll call the neurotransmitter produced by the c-fiber an “nsign” which has the “npurpose” of being “n-interpreted” as damage, thus generating another “nsign” which is “n-interpreted” by a muscle cell which “nresponds” by contracting. Is that better?

You:It is the same. To interpret something as 'damage' requires an external observer. If I bruise an apple I might say it is 'damaged', because I had some preference as to how the apple should be. But the apple does not care; it does not have the purpose of being an unblemished apple, nor does God or Nature have any particular purpose for the apple that has been frustrated.

If the neurotransmitter interprets something as 'damage', that neurotransmitter must have a sense of the organism as a whole, and a preference for the organism being one way rather than another. Yet we are talking about very simple chemicals.
You say a lot of things here that either repeat what I said or have nothing to do with what I said.
1. “To interpret something as 'damage' requires an external observer.” Agreed. The ‘something’ is the input to an Agent/Mechanism.
2. The stuff about the apple has nothing to do with the signs and purposes I’m talking about.
3. The neurotransmitter does not interpret. The neurotransmitter is the passive input to an Agent/Mechanism. The Agent interprets, I mean, n-interprets.
As I have said, I do not see there is any difference between those levels. They all amount to 'reacts to other things', so everything in the universe would be conscious in that sense.
I don’t know what to tell you. It’s like saying you don’t see the difference between
1. Quarks, etc.
2. Atoms
3. Molecules
4. Cells
5. Organisms
6. Societies
They all amount to quarks, etc., so there’s no difference?
So, a hierarchy of consciousness reflects a human feeling of superiority to the rest of the universe, that we are the most perfect thing, the apex and 'purpose' of creation. The more like a human something is, the better the consciousness score.
That is not a necessary view of the hierarchy. The hierarchy simply describes an observable scale. It does not place a value on being at any point in the scale. And yes, humans are currently at the top of the scale, but some of us are saying that we will soon be surpassed on that scale.
Personally, I don't see what is achieved by linking 'reacts to other things' to the word 'consciousness'. If everything is 'conscious', and nothing is not-conscious, then to call something 'conscious' does not tell us anything.
This is the point of the hierarchy thing. It’s important to know that everything is atoms, but it would be impossible to discuss organisms in terms of just atoms. Likewise, it is important to know that every process is ‘reacts to other things’, but it will be impossible to explain human consciousness without functions, purposes, signs, and concepts. Oh ... sorry ... nfunctions, npurposes, nsigns. [sigh]

*
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Jan Sand »

There is an interesting item at https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/ ... personhood wherein legal arguments are considering robots as persons under the law and liable to be sued for damages. Since a robot at the moment has no personal income nor can be made to suffer through imprisonment I can only place this under the general category as human insanity. It's like suing a gun for killing somebody or a bridge because it has collapsed. No doubt it would be a field day for lawyers but even if a robot gains some kind of consciousness it remains a most peculiar concept,
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Sy Borg »

Jan Sand wrote: April 16th, 2018, 1:47 am There is an interesting item at https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/ ... personhood wherein legal arguments are considering robots as persons under the law and liable to be sued for damages. Since a robot at the moment has no personal income nor can be made to suffer through imprisonment I can only place this under the general category as human insanity. It's like suing a gun for killing somebody or a bridge because it has collapsed. No doubt it would be a field day for lawyers but even if a robot gains some kind of consciousness it remains a most peculiar concept,
I'm inclined to agree, Jan. Like the "female" AI being given greater rights in Saudi Arabia than women.

There may come a time when a learning machine experiences meaningful qualia, but how would we know? After all, we spent centuries wreaking all manner of havoc on other species based on the false belief that they were neither conscious nor capable of truly experiencing pain. Hopefully some AI equivalent to neuroscience will help.

There might be a touch of self preservation involved too. If they become sentient, one would hope that we have not treated them badly!
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Jan Sand »

Greta wrote: April 16th, 2018, 3:49 am
Jan Sand wrote: April 16th, 2018, 1:47 am There is an interesting item at https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/ ... personhood wherein legal arguments are considering robots as persons under the law and liable to be sued for damages. Since a robot at the moment has no personal income nor can be made to suffer through imprisonment I can only place this under the general category as human insanity. It's like suing a gun for killing somebody or a bridge because it has collapsed. No doubt it would be a field day for lawyers but even if a robot gains some kind of consciousness it remains a most peculiar concept,
I'm inclined to agree, Jan. Like the "female" AI being given greater rights in Saudi Arabia than women.

There may come a time when a learning machine experiences meaningful qualia, but how would we know? After all, we spent centuries wreaking all manner of havoc on other species based on the false belief that they were neither conscious nor capable of truly experiencing pain. Hopefully some AI equivalent to neuroscience will help.

There might be a touch of self preservation involved too. If they become sentient, one would hope that we have not treated them badly!
The interesting aspect of this problem is to examine the whole dynamic of the entire criminal justice system from ancient times into current practice. It is to understand the responsibilities of criminal behavior, If a man steals money or goods because society has not given him the possibility to feed or clothe or provide vital medical care fir himself or his family, who is responsible for the crime? If a person has become so warped in mind because of ill treatment as a child or because of education that gave him or her a gross misunderstanding of personal rights and responsibilities, who or what should be held for criminal reprise? This is a fundamental problem for society to solve and obviously, since proper justice throughout all societies is most often difficult or impossible to obtain, where is responsibility to be placed. Established society has never really faced or solved this extensive problem.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Londoner »

JamesOfSeattle wrote: April 15th, 2018, 4:52 pm So you would say that the question “why do we have kidneys?” is misleading because it implies the universe has a plan?
If that was understood as asking "what is the intention of the kidneys?" then yes.
Because there are two kinds of why questions. “How come?” and “What for?”. Causes answer the first kind. Purposes (okay, npurposes) answer the second kind.
I would answer the second question; "Nothing". An object is what it is, it is only 'for' something if we, something outside the object, have a purpose for it. A hammer is not 'for' anything in itself. It doesn't have any objectives. It only becomes 'for killing zombies' or 'for hammering nails' in the context of our purpose, not the hammer's.
Man you are picky. Okay, I will accept (i.e., define) that a concept is not independent of consciousness. A concept is an abstraction that has been represented by a physical structure for the purpose of acting as the input to a (level 4) conscious process. How’s that?
Philosophy is picky. If you aren't, you let ambiguities of language lead you by the nose. So, in the above, I still do not understand what 'represented' could mean. I might have the abstract concept of 'a triangle'. What characterises a concept is that it is no particular triangle. If we drew a specific triangle, to regain the concept we would have to say; 'forget all the specifics of the thing you are looking at, the angles, the length of the sides, that it is on paper and accessible to the senses'...because the concept of a triangle does not have any of those properties. (Indeed, the concept of a Euclidean triangle cannot be realised physically).
You say a lot of things here that either repeat what I said or have nothing to do with what I said.
1. “To interpret something as 'damage' requires an external observer.” Agreed. The ‘something’ is the input to an Agent/Mechanism...
You do use the word 'damage' and I am pointing out that the word has connotations that are not there in the context in which you use it. I give the example of the damaged apple to illustrate what is understood by 'damage' - like 'purpose' and 'interprets' - and why, if we insert words like these into a description of a mechanical process, we are smuggling in the notion of a consciousness.
Me: As I have said, I do not see there is any difference between those levels. They all amount to 'reacts to other things', so everything in the universe would be conscious in that sense.

I don’t know what to tell you. It’s like saying you don’t see the difference between
1. Quarks, etc.
2. Atoms
3. Molecules
4. Cells
5. Organisms
6. Societies
They all amount to quarks, etc., so there’s no difference?
But you are not presenting these things separately but as a connected hierarchy. If your hierarchy describes the universe in terms of particles then yes; that describes everything in the universe. Atoms, cells, humans, lots of humans, they all work according to exactly the same laws of physics.

There is no point at which some other force; 'spirit' or 'elan vital' inserts itself into the process.

You can get to 6. and say 'let's describe 'society' from another angle than particle physics', but then it is no longer part of that hierarchy based on particles.
That is not a necessary view of the hierarchy. The hierarchy simply describes an observable scale. It does not place a value on being at any point in the scale. And yes, humans are currently at the top of the scale, but some of us are saying that we will soon be surpassed on that scale.
It is not an observable scale! Such a claim begs the question in that it implies both such a scale exists and that it is objective.

I do not think there is any scale at all, since 'reacts to other things' describes everything in the universe. As with the quarks scale, everything in that scale contains quarks and all the quarks behave in exactly the same way. No quark is above any other quark. The only reason we might place a human 'at the top' is because we humans happen to be interested and impressed by other humans; but the quarks in humans are the same as quarks in rocks.
Likewise, it is important to know that every process is ‘reacts to other things’, but it will be impossible to explain human consciousness without functions, purposes, signs, and concepts. Oh ... sorry ... nfunctions, npurposes, nsigns. [sigh]
You say you need these things to 'explain human consciousness' but we have not yet shown that there is anything that needs explaining. It is like my saying that 'we need God to explain the purpose of the universe' when we haven't established it has got any purpose.

if 'consciousness' applies to everything (because everything reacts) then what is to explain? If no object can be without consciousness, then to ask why things are conscious is a metaphysical question. It is like asking 'why is there gravity? or 'why is there mass? It could only be asked from a position outside the world we inhabit.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021