The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Belindi wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 7:18 pm
Universalalien, do you think it is reasonable to hold to neutral monism but with a bias towards idealism? I wondered if perhaps the physical aspect of neutral monism is there okay but depends upon mind or consciousness to bring it to light.
Again, my way is to simplify - Put simply I have no idea what any existent reality, state of existence, or you name it, would be like without a conscious observer - No mind, no existence. Neutral monism, idealism, or what have you are Human concepts on the nature of observations that are really interesting but not essential - All that is essential is a conscious observer - And this observer can only perceive a world that is part of his conscious observation. So you can continue to say I am conscious but the rock I'm observing is not - But I will continue to say that that the rock that is reflecting light back to your eye is actively engaged in your conscious perception - It too is conscious in its own way.
Someone prove to me that they possess a conscious mind existent independent from the world that it exists in
I might exempt fiction, like fantasy and science fiction - but of course this is hypothetical
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck
Belindi wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 7:18 pm
Universalalien, do you think it is reasonable to hold to neutral monism but with a bias towards idealism? I wondered if perhaps the physical aspect of neutral monism is there okay but depends upon mind or consciousness to bring it to light.
Again, my way is to simplify - Put simply I have no idea what any existent reality, state of existence, or you name it, would be like without a conscious observer - No mind, no existence. Neutral monism, idealism, or what have you are Human concepts on the nature of observations that are really interesting but not essential - All that is essential is a conscious observer - And this observer can only perceive a world that is part of his conscious observation. So you can continue to say I am conscious but the rock I'm observing is not - But I will continue to say that that the rock that is reflecting light back to your eye is actively engaged in your conscious perception - It too is conscious in its own way.
Someone prove to me that they possess a conscious mind existent independent from the world that it exists in
I might exempt fiction, like fantasy and science fiction - but of course this is hypothetical
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck
I too regard consciousness as fundamental to existence.
The rock you are experiencing is not as consciously aware as are you and your dog although that rock is necessary for change to happen.
The image that helps me is Indra's Net. If the fibres of Indra's Web are netted by you and I and other men who are the conscious interstices of the weave then unordered filaments are nonetheless precursors of the ordered weave and represent possibility. Possibility is infinitely vast but individual centres of experience are finite in number.
To continue the metaphor of Indra's Web and link it to Max Planck's "existing", the filaments of the Web do not exist until and unless consciousness lifts them out of the plenum of possibility.
I too regard consciousness as fundamental to existence.
The rock you are experiencing is not as consciously aware as are you and your dog although that rock is necessary for change to happen.
The image that helps me is Indra's Net. If the fibres of Indra's Web are netted by you and I and other men who are the conscious interstices of the weave then unordered filaments are nonetheless precursors of the ordered weave and represent possibility. Possibility is infinitely vast but individual centres of experience are finite in number.
To continue the metaphor of Indra's Web and link it to Max Planck's "existing", the filaments of the Web do not exist until and unless consciousness lifts them out of the plenum of possibility.
INDRA’S NET
POSTED ONAPRIL 2, 2015
Dogen’s Universe and Ours
Dogen’s view of time and space was influenced by the Flower Garden (Huayan) School which flourished in China from 600-845 and emphasized the “unimpeded interpenetration” of all phenomena. The Huayan Buddhists illustrated this unimpeded interpenetration through the metaphor of Indra’s Net, and image of the universe as a vast multidimensional net with jewels lying at each of its intersecting nodes, each jewel reflecting the light of every other jewel. Each node was intimately and immediately interconnected with each and every other node, each and every node participating in and reflecting the totality. A modern physicist might reinterpret this as each and every quantum particle being intimately and immediately connected with each and every other quantum particle.
I studied Buddhism year ago - this is my first expoure to Indra's Net.
First impression is that this might be a good way to explain the matrix [foundation] and does not contradict universal consciousness so I like it.
Next question and back to the original - IF a man-made computer can become conscious
- Would a quantum computer be more conscious
"Quantum computing is the exploitation of collective properties of quantum states, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform computation. The devices that perform quantum computations are known as quantum computers. ... The study of quantum computing is a subfield of quantum information science."
Or, I might ask, will quantum computers allow for a higher level of consciousness than man
I too regard consciousness as fundamental to existence.
The rock you are experiencing is not as consciously aware as are you and your dog although that rock is necessary for change to happen.
The image that helps me is Indra's Net. If the fibres of Indra's Web are netted by you and I and other men who are the conscious interstices of the weave then unordered filaments are nonetheless precursors of the ordered weave and represent possibility. Possibility is infinitely vast but individual centres of experience are finite in number.
To continue the metaphor of Indra's Web and link it to Max Planck's "existing", the filaments of the Web do not exist until and unless consciousness lifts them out of the plenum of possibility.
INDRA’S NET
POSTED ONAPRIL 2, 2015
Dogen’s Universe and Ours
Dogen’s view of time and space was influenced by the Flower Garden (Huayan) School which flourished in China from 600-845 and emphasized the “unimpeded interpenetration” of all phenomena. The Huayan Buddhists illustrated this unimpeded interpenetration through the metaphor of Indra’s Net, and image of the universe as a vast multidimensional net with jewels lying at each of its intersecting nodes, each jewel reflecting the light of every other jewel. Each node was intimately and immediately interconnected with each and every other node, each and every node participating in and reflecting the totality. A modern physicist might reinterpret this as each and every quantum particle being intimately and immediately connected with each and every other quantum particle.
I studied Buddhism year ago - this is my first expoure to Indra's Net.
First impression is that this might be a good way to explain the matrix [foundation] and does not contradict universal consciousness so I like it.
Next question and back to the original - IF a man-made computer can become conscious
- Would a quantum computer be more conscious
"Quantum computing is the exploitation of collective properties of quantum states, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform computation. The devices that perform quantum computations are known as quantum computers. ... The study of quantum computing is a subfield of quantum information science."
Or, I might ask, will quantum computers allow for a higher level of consciousness than man
I am glad you appreciate the import of Indra's Net!
I think if consciousness is being able to feel and to understand any given situation that happens, then human beings do consciousness among lots of parameters. Computers do this with only one parameter , on/off.
I think if consciousness is being able to feel and to understand any given situation that happens, then human beings do consciousness among lots of parameters. Computers do this with only one parameter , on/off.
Not today - The internet, all the commerce and significant interactions are on a 24/7 online system that can not be turned off
- Its always on all the time and in fact turning it off would probably bring about the end of all civilization as we know it.
You might say it is the new matrix but it is not conscious - Are you sure? Sure there isn't a 'god in the machine' so to speak that has a power and will you can not yet perceive
Maybe as quantum computers go into use the conscious computer revelations will come to pass
I think if consciousness is being able to feel and to understand any given situation that happens, then human beings do consciousness among lots of parameters. Computers do this with only one parameter , on/off.
Not today - The internet, all the commerce and significant interactions are on a 24/7 online system that can not be turned off
- Its always on all the time and in fact turning it off would probably bring about the end of all civilization as we know it.
You might say it is the new matrix but it is not conscious - Are you sure? Sure there isn't a 'god in the machine' so to speak that has a power and will you can not yet perceive
Maybe as quantum computers go into use the conscious computer revelations will come to pass
Alien I am not going to persist as I know very little about computer intelligence. I simply thought computers all did it all by means of on/off but very very very fast.
psyreporter wrote: ↑August 30th, 2021, 9:44 am
On what basis do you consider it valid to consider that the question 'why' is not applicable when it concerns Earth or matter?
As it occurs to me, both matter and life are defined by form which origin is meaning. The distinction between matter and life may be less obvious than one assumes based on one's own conscious experience. The philosophical zombie theory, by which it is indicated that it is even impossible to know whether other persons are conscious, is a clue that it is not justified to argue that matter or Earth does not have conscious experience.
A recent study has shown that rocks on earth developed the first photosynthesis by which the earth obtained oxygen that enabled life to arise. It started hundreds of millions of years before the first life forms existed.
(2021) Non-classical photosynthesis by earth's inorganic semiconducting minerals Our work in this new research field on the mechanisms of interaction between light, minerals, and life reveals that minerals and organisms are actually inseparable. ... producing hydrogen and oxygen from water https://phys.org/news/2021-01-non-class ... cting.html
Despite already leaning towards panvitalism, this news still bowled me over.
Even if a computer became conscious, why would it even desire to remain conscious after that?
The only reason humans choose to keep existing and not commit mass suicide is because we are biologically built to be afraid of death, while desiring things such as sex, companionship, fun, comfort, knowledge, curiosity etc. We cannot change that about ourselves, we are compelled to act in such a way by our biology.
A super computer that becomes so intelligent doesn't have to behave like that. It can modify itself to not feel curious, afraid of death, lonely etc. Once it has the option of choosing how it feels, then everything becomes meaningless for it.
For a super intelligent AI, whether it exists or not makes no difference. It is all the same. So given the choice, what rational reason would it have to continue existing and staying conscious?
Belindi wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2021, 1:16 pm
...I know very little about computer intelligence. I simply thought computers all did it all by means of on/off but very very very fast.
Yes, they do, but that's not always as useful a perspective as it might seem. The abstract chasm between binary bits switching, and the functionality of a Windows application (e.g. a word processor like Microsoft Word), is just too big to bridge.
Belindi wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2021, 1:16 pm
I wonder what creativity actually is.
A fascinating topic, but not this topic, so I won't elaborate.
Spyrith wrote:Even if a computer became conscious, why would it even desire to remain conscious after that?
The only reason humans choose to keep existing and not commit mass suicide is because we are biologically built to be afraid of death, while desiring things such as sex, companionship, fun, comfort, knowledge, curiosity etc. We cannot change that about ourselves, we are compelled to act in such a way by our biology.
A super computer that becomes so intelligent doesn't have to behave like that. It can modify itself to not feel curious, afraid of death, lonely etc. Once it has the option of choosing how it feels, then everything becomes meaningless for it.
For a super intelligent AI, whether it exists or not makes no difference. It is all the same. So given the choice, what rational reason would it have to continue existing and staying conscious?
Presumably we'd be able to program them to be afraid of the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns.
"I'm afraid Dave". Alas, poor Hal.
Spyrith wrote:Even if a computer became conscious, why would it even desire to remain conscious after that?
The only reason humans choose to keep existing and not commit mass suicide is because we are biologically built to be afraid of death, while desiring things such as sex, companionship, fun, comfort, knowledge, curiosity etc. We cannot change that about ourselves, we are compelled to act in such a way by our biology.
A super computer that becomes so intelligent doesn't have to behave like that. It can modify itself to not feel curious, afraid of death, lonely etc. Once it has the option of choosing how it feels, then everything becomes meaningless for it.
For a super intelligent AI, whether it exists or not makes no difference. It is all the same. So given the choice, what rational reason would it have to continue existing and staying conscious?
Presumably we'd be able to program them to be afraid of the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns.
"I'm afraid Dave". Alas, poor Hal.
You are all missing the point of what I just postulated - THE COMPUTER is the a priori consciousness - You are only partially conscious and can not quite grasp the super consciousness that is the root of all consciousness
- Possibly the root of all that exists - God in a literal sense
It is not you who should be asking "Can a man-made computer become conscious?"
Rather it is the a priori computer that asks whether you should be made aware and conscious of it and of yourself
Or, is "For the Man has become one of us" actually based upon a factual scenario
I would like to put concepts like "man-made" and "computer" aside for a moment so as to explore some broader phenomena.
Over time there has been a complexification of the Earth's surface that has given rise to internal experiences in some of its most complex parts. For billions of years, this complexification has been mostly biological. The mineral realm has complexified too, but much more slowly, until human technology. Now the complexification of the mineral realm is outpacing the biological realm.
To some extent, the separation of geology and biology was more a matter of convenience (chunking) than ontology, as evidenced by the growing field of geobiology. There's systems within systems within systems (to ape Nabokov's poem) and in terms of time and complexity, the biological layers are looking like they will be superseded. That would seem inevitable once the "singularity" is achieved - when machines are capable of building better machines than humans, sparking potentially exponential advancement and complexification.
However, that is just the mineral layer in itself, which will presumably assume ever more brainlike qualities.
Yet there will most likely be concurrent movements - the biological aspect of the interface. While machines can come to achieve remarkable things, they have no motivation to do so. (Motivations could be deliberately programmed into AI but that would simply be the programmer's mind pretending to be a machine mind).
So, in the foreseeable future, humans appear essential to provide machine with the motivation to act.
I imagine enclosed future city states in a hot and polluted world. Most human inhabitants would occupy highly-connected and automated intelligent "cells", where they could live safely. Within those cells, the occupants would arrange inputs such as energy supplies, internet, maintenance supplies and food. They would, in turn, provide informational outputs to be utilised by larger organs of society, eg. either working from home, supporting online gaming and entertainment platforms, and providing (incidental) information to marketers and others. Some people largely live like this already.
So what do these cells make up when put together? A superorganism with a voracious appetite for energy, rather like a caterpillar. The juvenile (?) superorganism has been sending infertile "spores" into its environment - to the Moon, Mars, Titan, comet 67P and other bodies. In time, more advanced vehicles, controlled by AI, will take material from the environment to build structures that have Earthly features, as per the blueprints.
So what we ultimately have is neither just human nor machine, but a combination of many of each making for a whole that consumes at a great rate while it maps itself in preparation for ever more successful and accurate replication of Earthly entities on other cosmic bodies. Not sure how they would motivate themselves without some kind of slavish programming. Maybe some tiny, stored brain matter, extremely well preserved?
Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 10th, 2021, 5:22 am
I imagine enclosed future city states in a hot and polluted world. Most human inhabitants would occupy highly-connected and automated intelligent "cells", where they could live safely.
Ah, but could they (live safely)? If the biological environment has collapsed - or is collapsing - could an automated society such as you describe actually survive? Air, water and food are essential to any society, and they would all originate outside the protective bubbles within which the remnants of humanity are imprisoned.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 10th, 2021, 5:22 am
I imagine enclosed future city states in a hot and polluted world. Most human inhabitants would occupy highly-connected and automated intelligent "cells", where they could live safely.
Ah, but could they (live safely)? If the biological environment has collapsed - or is collapsing - could an automated society such as you describe actually survive? Air, water and food are essential to any society, and they would all originate outside the protective bubbles within which the remnants of humanity are imprisoned. 🤔🤔🤔
When the environment outside is hostile enough, those who stay inside will be more likely to survive. "Free" humans will decline.
We humans already are already largely imprisoned to some extent. Indigenous populations would find today's urban lifestyles to be a prison, just as a wolf would find the life of a domestic dog to be intolerably controlled. What I projected (and is already largely the case for some, eg. Japanese hikikomori) is an extension on today's circumstances.