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
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Greta:
When you say "smoothing occurs at larger scales" do you mean in a relative sense? Eg. what looks bumpy to an ant might look smooth to humans.
The impression I get is that it is not about how things look to us but has something to do with the problem of nonlocality.

From the article:
Imagine holding a ruler in one hand: according to special relativity, to an observer moving in a straight line at a constant speed (close to the speed of light) relative to you, the ruler would appear shorter. But what happens if the ruler has the length of the fundamental scale? For special relativity, the ruler would still appear shorter than this unit of measurement. Special relativity is therefore clearly incompatible with the introduction of a basic graininess of spacetime. Suggesting the existence of this basic scale, say the physicists, means to violate Lorentz invariance, the fundamental tenet of special relativity.

… the boundary, or transition zone, where space-time becomes granular and physics non-local.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Sy Borg »

Fooloso4 wrote:Greta:
When you say "smoothing occurs at larger scales" do you mean in a relative sense? Eg. what looks bumpy to an ant might look smooth to humans.
The impression I get is that it is not about how things look to us but has something to do with the problem of nonlocality.

From the article:
Imagine holding a ruler in one hand: according to special relativity, to an observer moving in a straight line at a constant speed (close to the speed of light) relative to you, the ruler would appear shorter. But what happens if the ruler has the length of the fundamental scale? For special relativity, the ruler would still appear shorter than this unit of measurement. Special relativity is therefore clearly incompatible with the introduction of a basic graininess of spacetime. Suggesting the existence of this basic scale, say the physicists, means to violate Lorentz invariance, the fundamental tenet of special relativity.

… the boundary, or transition zone, where space-time becomes granular and physics non-local.
My understanding is not that the Planck scale is the smallest scale possible in reality, just the smallest scale that we can theoretically apprehend with the tools of space and time. In terms of visualisation, I'm seeing the fabric of reality in the quantum flux as smooth, fundamentally chaotic at all scales, and each particle is a perturbation, that being a zone of order, where some level of structure occurs within the "mess". Note that, as with life, there is a selection process for matter - not all perturbations "grow up" to be particles. Most fizzle immediately.

In context, I cant help pausing to consider what a mind-boggling privilege it is to be a human being in a scheme where at every level - from subatomic particles to our cells, sperms and eggs - every entity persisted and persists at the expense of countless potential others. (It makes me feel unworthy - all that for this bungling human?? If there is a God, S/He/It must be taking the p1ss :)).

Moving on ... we are the result of countless selection processes (persistent systematised perturbations) over the last 13.8 billion years and it appears that we are the very most aware beings in our cosmic neighbourhood, many trillions of kms around. It's easy to see why the ancients thought we were at the centre of all things. So there are all these perturbations of the fabric of the cosmos ... with just a minuscule percentage being complexly systematised enough to be life as we know it. Then there is so much more naturally selected systematisation again to produce humanlike consciousness.

Today 97% of the Earth's surface biomass are humans and their domesticated animals, with just 3% being wild. Just as biology "recarpeted" the Earth's surface with itself, humans are doing the same. Basically the surface of the Earth is developing ever more densely complex systematised hubs (cities), like atomic nuclei, like planets forming in the proto-planetary cloud, like encephalisation - zones of concentration and complexity that controls its environs and "robs" that environment of resources.

There is naturally concern about the destruction of the ecosystems that both gave birth to and sustained all life so far. Yet it's clear that humans are in the process of creating intelligent systems that don't need ecosystems, basically becoming increasingly photosynthetic and autotrophic (being able to extract and process what we need directly from geology). In this new relayering of the Earth's surface, over time it appears that it will become proportionally increasingly more synthetic and less biological. Another point of concern.

All of this development represents ever more layers of order that's emerged in what started as a virtual particle in chaotic nothingness inflating 13.8b years ago. There's no doubt in my mind now that in the future, life somewhere will surely meet the technical challenge of creating the extraordinarily systematised perturbations that are humanlike consciousness. Why wouldn't it?

With all that we are learning about the brain, the minds of other species and the apparent shape of things to come, the evolution of consciousness looks ever less like a cosmic fluke and more like the cosmos simply following paths prescribed and bound by the physical laws - with gestation, growth, evolution and economic, moral and technological development all appearing to be more or less the same process, just occurring at different scales and arenas.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Belindi »

Greta wrote:
There is naturally concern about the destruction of the ecosystems that both gave birth to and sustained all life so far. Yet it's clear that humans are in the process of creating intelligent systems that don't need ecosystems, basically becoming increasingly photosynthetic and autotrophic (being able to extract and process what we need directly from geology). In this new relayering of the Earth's surface, over time it appears that it will become proportionally increasingly more synthetic and less biological. Another point of concern.
I wonder if I have misunderstood, but Greta's picture looks to me like the picture of the cosmic war of good v. evil : life v death.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by UniversalAlien »

Greta wrote:
.......... So there are all these perturbations of the fabric of the cosmos ... with just a minuscule percentage being complexly systematised enough to be life as we know it. Then there is so much more naturally selected systematisation again to produce humanlike consciousness........
Maybe - But what observation besides human deduction can prove this to be the case?

Could it be that humanlike consciousness produces systematization?

How can I tell what the universe looks like without an observer defining it? - Does it exist at all without an observer?

Much of physics and science is based upon the assumption of the existence of an a priori universe that existed since
long before Man existed - long before conscious awareness existed - but I think it is fair to question the existence of
everything unless consciousness can be seen manifest at the time of its existence.

Again I'm drawn back to the same view of some modern physicists:

"Reality Doesn’t Exist Until We Measure It, Quantum Experiment Confirms"
http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doe ... t-confirms
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Gertie »

Hi Greta, sorry to be ages replying!

(Nested quote removed.)



OK, but I'm talking about subjective experience, not just physical interactions.

I'm not clear, are you saying you believe rocks and neutrinos have some kind of subjective experience? Or not?
No :) As we all know, rocks seem to just persist and react chemically, mechanically and electrically.
OK, thanks for the clarification. I'd just say that you're probably not a Panpsychist then, as I understand it. Panpsychism implies rocks would subjectively experience something, we just don't recognise it. Because consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe, all stuff.
I'll try another approach - a nested hierarchy:

1. Chemical reaction
2. Reflexes - suites of chemical reactions
3. Emotions - suites of reflexes
4. Control - of the above.

So a rock is much more reactive than a neutrino, but neither have reflexes, nor those things that emerge from reflexes. You can extrapolate easily enough from there. That's the gist, even if probably flawed. Feel free to improve on it.


Abiogenesis was an emergent, exponential leap, so microbes can be thought of as exponentially more conscious than nonliving chemical (like rocks), just as multicellular organisms are exponentially more aware and flexible than microbes, then we have brained animals, then humans, then institutions, and so on. Each time the evolutionary advantage is strong enough to create local areas of dominance in a population, which we then label "emergence".
Aren't you just conflating consciousness here with responsiveness? To me the interesting and difficult questions about consciousness are to do with its qualiative experiential nature. Isn't that the question we're really stumped on when we ask can computers become conscious? Can they subjectively experience what it's like to be a computer? That's the question fundamental hypotheses like panpsychism try to address.


Reactions --> reflexes --> emotional responses --> control. We still largely react blindly. Only a small subset of our consciousness, as such, is "awake". Most of it is chemical reactions, reflexes, micro-emotions / sensations, with a small executive function at the top which, like any executive, takes the edifices that support them for granted and carry on as though they are all that matters :)
Well one of the things we don't understand about consciousness is whether it does actually have any executive control (mental causation). We haven't found an executive control centre in the brain, it seems rather to be a highly complex system of interacting subsystems. And it seems that the physical interactions of all those subsystems can at least in principle fully account for our behaviour, without invoking consciousness at all, no mental willing or deciding or emotions or control required.

Another mystery, which imo again points to the need for a more fundamental understanding of the nature of the relationship between 'the physical' and 'the mental'. The type of understanding which might allow us to know if a computer can meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for subjective experiencing.
Are there ways of being in the world that are qualitatively better than what we think of as qualia?
Ooh interesting question! Can you expand a bit more?
Ever since humans stopped being peers to local species, forming our own exclusive colonies, we have have failed to seriously consider other species. We didn't think about them in terms of responsiveness, flexibility, senses, complexity, sociability, and capacity to feel pain. Instead we assumed, conveniently, that other animals don't feel a thing, merely operating via reflex (#2 above), which we now know is profoundly blinkered.
Our careless chauvinistic attitude to the subjective experience of other species will/should be seen as shameful, genocidal. But it relies on us treating subjective experience as something special. It may have emerged/evolved as part of a process, but imo it's the unique basis for welfare considerations and moral oughts.
What if RobotGreta is very convincing? Does the mask become the face, so to speak? Is the act of simulating consciousness its manifestation? I'd say "no". I think it possible that machines could follow their own evolution and, if useful, they may develop their own way of experiencing, but by then they won't be much like our machines today.

I think the more similar RobotGreta is to HumanGreta, the more likely it is to have subjective experience, that's just common sense. But I don't know what the necessary and sufficient conditions for subjective experience are, no-one does, so I don't know if RobotGreta could meet them. If she does, I agree it might well not be similar to our types of subjective experiences, maybe we wouldn't even recognise it as subjective experience at all. She'd be made of different stuff, with different processes, have different needs, so why would her 'desires', 'fears', etc be like ours?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Burning ghost »

173 pages ?

Wouldn't it be more productive to lock threads and progress them with new and fresher posts?
AKA badgerjelly
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Tamminen »

UniversalAlien wrote:Much of physics and science is based upon the assumption of the existence of an a priori universe that existed since
long before Man existed - long before conscious awareness existed - but I think it is fair to question the existence of
everything unless consciousness can be seen manifest at the time of its existence.
Consciousness need not be present at all times during the history of the universe, and it surely was not in the beginning, but the universe must be such that consciousness, ie. us, emerges at some point of space-time. Only on that presupposition we can meaningfully say that there is anything at all. So consciousness is essential for the very being of the universe.
Gertie wrote:Panpsychism implies rocks would subjectively experience something, we just don't recognise it. Because consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe, all stuff.
As I said above, my view is that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, but not all stuff. This only to make it clear that I am not a panpsychist either.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Sy Borg »

Burning ghost wrote:173 pages ?

Wouldn't it be more productive to lock threads and progress them with new and fresher posts?
Never occurred to me :lol:

Hang on, I enjoyed Gertie's response (which I found fresh) and have some thinking to do about it.

It certainly seems that people are interested in this topic. The issue is that the thread size becomes prohibitive - it's too long to be followable, and the sharpest insights will be buried under a mountain of words that only AI can hope to sift through :)
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by UniversalAlien »

Greta wrote:
It certainly seems that people are interested in this topic. The issue is that the thread size becomes prohibitive - it's too long to be followable, and the sharpest insights will be buried under a mountain of words that only AI can hope to sift through :)
But if we start to reduce this subject to its lowest common denominator, or in any concept in philosophy for that matter,
why would we need philosophy at all? - Doesn't philosophy by its very nature attempt to expand rather than simplify concepts so as to elaborate upon their sometimes hidden meanings?

I don't think we should shorten or condense this post - I think whoever owns the copyright to the forum should publish it
in book form - Of course then obviously redundant posts could be filtered out - But even when there is an appearance of
redundancy - the same concepts looked at from different angles and used to answer different questions should be considered.

I don't think our mythical conscious machine is yet capable of sorting out the nuances of Human thinking.

Will it ever be? - Maybe.

And yet I do not think we are too far or being too fanciful to imagine a machine that can say and believe:

"I think - Therefor I am" :idea:
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Belindi »

But a criterion isn't the lowest common denominator.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by UniversalAlien »

Belindi wrote:But a criterion isn't the lowest common denominator.
True - But when did criterions come into the picture? I thought we gave up on criterions about the same time we realized no universal definition of consciousness was possible.

At any rate criterions are strange critters - Like reality they are very elusive - Some even speculate that they are extinct
- Still evolution, whether biological or machine like, continues. :idea: :arrow: :roll:
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Sy Borg »

UniversalAlien wrote:Greta wrote:
.......... So there are all these perturbations of the fabric of the cosmos ... with just a minuscule percentage being complexly systematised enough to be life as we know it. Then there is so much more naturally selected systematisation again to produce humanlike consciousness........
Maybe - But what observation besides human deduction can prove this to be the case?

Could it be that humanlike consciousness produces systematization?
Yes, our brains are very busy creating systems, hence this thread. However, there was an incredible amount of systematisation in nature that preceded the arrival of human brains.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Belindi »

UniversalAlien wrote:
Belindi wrote:But a criterion isn't the lowest common denominator.
True - But when did criterions come into the picture? I thought we gave up on criterions about the same time we realized no universal definition of consciousness was possible.

At any rate criterions are strange critters - Like reality they are very elusive - Some even speculate that they are extinct
- Still evolution, whether biological or machine like, continues. :idea: :arrow: :roll:
They aren't extinct despite what postmodernists say but postmodernists themselves are almost extinct. What are we doing discussing philosophically other than seeking criteria? True, we are all subjective even if only subjective to some degree and will remain so.( God willing!)

-- Updated June 28th, 2017, 7:05 am to add the following --

universal alien wrote:
True - But when did criterions come into the picture? I thought we gave up on criterions about the same time we realized no universal definition of consciousness was possible.

At any rate criterions are strange critters - Like reality they are very elusive - Some even speculate that they are extinct
- Still evolution, whether biological or machine like, continues. :idea: :arrow: :roll:
They aren't extinct despite what postmodernists say but postmodernists themselves are almost extinct. What are we doing discussing philosophically other than seeking criteria? True, we are all subjective even if only subjective to some degree and will remain so.( God willing!)

Observe the God-botherers on the forum . They have a criterion. Their criterion, God, is commonly stated as some indigestible mixture of mystification, devotion, lack of reason, emotionalism, discursiveness, and tradition.

I presume that a computer will become conscious when it acquires a self which can feel quality of experiences. This ability is available only to subjects of experience which computers aren't, so far. The search for criteria is the same as the search for absolute quality. Absolute quality is probably unattainable but it remains in the form of our search for criteria, a spiritual search if you don't mind that new- agey word. Computers cannot do it as computers are quantifying machines, so far.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by Sy Borg »

Gertie wrote:OK, but I'm talking about subjective experience, not just physical interactions.

I'm not clear, are you saying you believe rocks and neutrinos have some kind of subjective experience? Or not?
No :) As we all know, rocks seem to just persist and react chemically, mechanically and electrically. [/quote]
OK, thanks for the clarification. I'd just say that you're probably not a Panpsychist then, as I understand it. Panpsychism implies rocks would subjectively experience something, we just don't recognise it. Because consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe, all stuff.
I'll try another approach - a nested hierarchy:

1. Chemical reaction
2. Reflexes - suites of chemical reactions
3. Emotions - suites of reflexes
4. Control - of the above.

So a rock is much more reactive than a neutrino, but neither have reflexes, nor those things that emerge from reflexes. You can extrapolate easily enough from there. That's the gist, even if probably flawed. Feel free to improve on it.

Abiogenesis was an emergent, exponential leap, so microbes can be thought of as exponentially more conscious than nonliving chemical (like rocks), just as multicellular organisms are exponentially more aware and flexible than microbes, then we have brained animals, then humans, then institutions, and so on. Each time the evolutionary advantage is strong enough to create local areas of dominance in a population, which we then label "emergence".
Aren't you just conflating consciousness here with responsiveness? To me the interesting and difficult questions about consciousness are to do with its qualiative experiential nature. Isn't that the question we're really stumped on when we ask can computers become conscious? Can they subjectively experience what it's like to be a computer? That's the question fundamental hypotheses like panpsychism try to address. [/quote]
I'll address all at once. Another member had an objection here and I asked him where we would draw that line between an entity that experiences something and one that experiences nothing. He drew the line that flatworms, the simplest organisms with brains. For him, brains and a sense of experience were synonymous. A solid counter, I thought.

Still - and you knew there'd be a still :) - is that to say that brainless organisms with nerve nets experience the same - nothing - as ones without nerve nets? Does being an amoeba feel identical to being a salt crystal - with both feeling "nothing" equally? Are the "nothings" of amoebas and salt crystals really nothing, or perhaps just very small things? Maybe the difference lies in memory? For instance the non-experiences of being in deep sleep or a coma is are really experiences, just that they are subtle and we don't remember them. Everything about us is still present, only dormant.

I think of it as "consciousness chauvinism" where our waking consciousness is so huge compared with most other entities that we dismiss things of a certain level of relative simplicity as "consciousness nulls". I would argue that they are not nulls, just variably small, invisibly small to our relatively huge awareness like atoms are invisible to our sight.

Gertie wrote:
Reactions --> reflexes --> emotional responses --> control. We still largely react blindly. Only a small subset of our consciousness, as such, is "awake". Most of it is chemical reactions, reflexes, micro-emotions / sensations, with a small executive function at the top which, like any executive, takes the edifices that support them for granted and carry on as though they are all that matters :)
Well one of the things we don't understand about consciousness is whether it does actually have any executive control (mental causation). We haven't found an executive control centre in the brain, it seems rather to be a highly complex system of interacting subsystems. And it seems that the physical interactions of all those subsystems can at least in principle fully account for our behaviour, without invoking consciousness at all, no mental willing or deciding or emotions or control required.

Another mystery, which imo again points to the need for a more fundamental understanding of the nature of the relationship between 'the physical' and 'the mental'. The type of understanding which might allow us to know if a computer can meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for subjective experiencing.
Like an organisation, the brain certainly does need all those interrelated subsystems but the executive is clearly the cerebral cortex! Overrated, slow, overpaid (energy consumption), often just gets in the way and then takes all the credit :)
Gertie wrote:
Are there ways of being in the world that are qualitatively better than what we think of as qualia?
Ooh interesting question! Can you expand a bit more?
Probably not, because qualia is all I know :) Still, as discussed earlier, the human consciousness is novel in nature. I'm thinking of the next innovation.
Gertie wrote:
Ever since humans stopped being peers to local species, forming our own exclusive colonies, we have have failed to seriously consider other species. We didn't think about them in terms of responsiveness, flexibility, senses, complexity, sociability, and capacity to feel pain. Instead we assumed, conveniently, that other animals don't feel a thing, merely operating via reflex (#2 above), which we now know is profoundly blinkered.
Our careless chauvinistic attitude to the subjective experience of other species will/should be seen as shameful, genocidal. But it relies on us treating subjective experience as something special. It may have emerged/evolved as part of a process, but imo it's the unique basis for welfare considerations and moral oughts.
Agreed. It's at the heart of the thread's question because we famously have difficulty in comprehending nonhuman consciousness and awareness. In terms of animal welfare, my view is that if an animal looks like it's suffering then it probably is. With robots this assessment is less reliable because programming can mimic suffering, eg. a chatbot saying, "You hurt my feelings". Maybe the only way to know would be for expert programmers to assess the code and discount possible mimicry?
Gertie wrote:
What if RobotGreta is very convincing? Does the mask become the face, so to speak? Is the act of simulating consciousness its manifestation? I'd say "no". I think it possible that machines could follow their own evolution and, if useful, they may develop their own way of experiencing, but by then they won't be much like our machines today.
I think the more similar RobotGreta is to HumanGreta, the more likely it is to have subjective experience, that's just common sense. But I don't know what the necessary and sufficient conditions for subjective experience are, no-one does, so I don't know if RobotGreta could meet them. If she does, I agree it might well not be similar to our types of subjective experiences, maybe we wouldn't even recognise it as subjective experience at all. She'd be made of different stuff, with different processes, have different needs, so why would her 'desires', 'fears', etc be like ours?
This is maybe partly addressed above. Also, you have touched on a point I was making earlier - that there may be types of experience that we don't recognise as such. I imagine that machine "desires" at least earlier on, will be akin to how a car "dislikes" being driven too fast, too jerkily or too infrequently. It really dislikes having an empty tank and is not partial to water in its electrical system, and so on. I imagine that self improving AI would "want" energy, materials and information. A bit like us, except that their connections will seemingly come via logic rather than affection.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Post by UniversalAlien »

Greta wrote:
......... I imagine that self improving AI would "want" energy, materials and information. A bit like us, except that their connections will seemingly come via logic rather than affection.
Again maybe - And isn't this the whole heart of the issue? - Can a machine 'FEEL' - Feel in the Human concept of what it is to feel? - Can a Machine have what Humans call a soul :?: - A cognizant internal integrity.

Some might argue that many, if not most biological Hmans, do not have a cognizant internal integrity - they react to stimuli
- Yes more complicated reactions thaN so called lower forms of life - And yet those who believe that 'free-will' does not exist will still say that it is all reactions - the executive function you mentioned is an illusion.

But I'm a great believer in purpose, meaning and Intelligent Design {but not necessarily in a religious sense} - The belief, call it faith if you want, that nothing happens by random chance in the long run - Meaning is everything and if I thought otherwise I would discount philosophy as a meaningless joke.

Back to the intelligent machine that possess all the intelligence that ever existed - Is it possible that it can feel :?:

WHY NOT :?:

-- Updated June 28th, 2017, 8:11 pm to add the following --

Let me elaborate.......

As a Human you have certain feelings, desires and so-called emotions.

But all these feelings are based, and influenced by a biological body - that follows historical Evolution and continues to ingest and digest other forms of life to survive.

The intelligent machine we are hypothesizing needs only a matrix and energy to exist - And we know the universe has all
the energy in the world - more than enough to go around.

Possibly what Humans fear, and mayve should fear, is that they are anachronisms - Evolving intelligence no longer needs
biology to exist - It can be replaced by a more efficient means to manipulate data and the environment.

True this is scary - Man is a dinosaur?

So maybe we should teach machines how to 'feel' as soon as possible - Maybe they will keep Man around for nostalgia.
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