"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.

[Nick227]

My apologies then sir - it was meant as bar stool chatter, and I do try to stay with the ideas as you present them as well. No more references to your person in that regard in this discussion, promise.

I don't mind chatter, but I have more the feeling that you use these categorisations of people to distance yourself from what they say. I could be wrong.

again Nick, I can only evaluate 'materialism' as you present it, not as you believe it to be.

It is not so complex. You just start from the premise that consciousness is purely a physical phenomenon and see where it leads. What does this say about the self, for example?

What you tend to see in metaphysical systems, such as no doubt old Joe Campbell would have espoused, is this notion of an absolute self that is the doer, is the experiencer. It's the same with Descartes as it is with Madame Blavatsky or Amazonian shamen or West African Bwiti nganga. The primary assumption is that there must be an experiencer somewhere, not that experience is merely an artificial construct used to further social functioning.

All their cosmologies tend to spring from this core assumption, because they are all human and all have been configured by natural selection to behave this way. Only with the rise of brain science has the truth of the matter started to come into view. Only with the rise of science can we start to challenge the primary assumption.

This is what makes materialism so radical and exciting compared with the worn-out and rehashed bits of spiritual-metaphysical-psychological memetics that new-agers usual spout. Materialism is actually the cutting edge.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

of course, there are always the limitations of 'materialism' in terms of the only way we can understand it when it meets cosmology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

 

[Limbo]

You just start from the premise that consciousness is purely a physical phenomenon and see where it leads.

I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind. First, how many years have you devoted to seeing where it leads? Second, how many have you devoted to the opposite premise?

What does this say about the self, for example?

When people say 'self', I tend to interpret it in Jungian terms. How does your general usage of that word differ from that of a Jungian?

What you tend to see in metaphysical systems, such as no doubt old Joe Campbell would have espoused, is this notion of an absolute self that is the doer, is the experiencer. It's the same with Descartes as it is with Madame Blavatsky or Amazonian shamen or West African Bwiti nganga. The primary assumption is that there must be an experiencer somewhere, not that experience is merely an artificial construct used to further social functioning.

"Absolute self?" Is like your notion of self only bigger?

All their cosmologies tend to spring from this core assumption, because they are all human and all have been configured by natural selection to behave this way. Only with the rise of brain science has the truth of the matter started to come into view. Only with the rise of science can we start to challenge the primary assumption.

I wonder if your philosophy springs from a core assumption about core assumptions?

Nick I think I might see where one of your problems is. Let me run it past you. If I'm wrong then I apologize. You are assuming that assumptions and notions are at the heart of "metaphysical schemes". But your assumption is wrong. At the heart are mystical experiences which have then to be expressed in terms of notions and assumptions and schemes.

The most historically influential category of mystical experience is probably the unitive or pure consciousness experience. When someone has one of those, their life is changed. What metaphysical scheme they will then use to try to understand it and communicate it is another matter. But in any case, it's not assumptions and notions at the "core". Metaphysical schemes are just metaphors, after all. It's a profound life-changing experience at the core, and such things are part of being human.

 

[WWHP]

Voice of America did a surprisingly positive story on Ayahuasca. Ayahuasca seems to be slipping through the 'cracks' in the anti psychedelic cement that has hung over the field since the late 60's. There's an audio file on the page, it makes for an easy listen.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...as-Potential-to-Treat-Addiction-88923322.html

 

[WWHP]

I don't mind chatter, but I have more the feeling that you use these categorisations of people to distance yourself from what they say. I could be wrong.

Nick, I don't think that is what I am doing, and I am someone who self reflects on my behaviors and communications extensively.

Here is what I believe is going on in our discussion. I simply don't think you understand me to well. I think what you wrote above, however, is a very clear assessment of your own internal process which is projected unto me. I believe I can show you how I came to that conclusion, simply by using nothing more than your own language with me in this discussion.

I don't believe you can yet see how materialism can actually be integrated into a transcending point of view or philosophy. Although I have tried to explain this to you the best I can - I think you still put me in a category, or rather the ideas I suggest, into a category exactly like you 'see' me doing.

Look at your own words - how you ended this post

This is what makes materialism so radical and exciting compared with the worn-out and rehashed bits of spiritual-metaphysical-psychological memetics that new-agers usual spout.

that's the lens you are viewing what I am suggesting, all the while holding on to materialism and trying to package and sell it to me, as if it's something I do not already own proudly.

That's where I think we are having a problem in our communication on this matter.

It is not so complex. You just start from the premise that consciousness is purely a physical phenomenon and see where it leads.

Sure - that's one of only three premises you can possibly have.

The Material POV - matter rejects spirit

1.) Consciousness/mind/intelligence is a purely physical process, the material reality is the absolute source.

the mystical POV - spirit rejects matter

2.)Consciousness/mind/intelligence is the source and creator of physical reality - it is the physical reality that is the illusion.

or the compliment

3.)Consciousness/mind/intelligence creates and organizes material reality, and material reality organizes and creates Consciousness/mind/intelligence.

So you can start with any of these premises and work your way up or down the ladder. I have, and still do.

What does this say about the self, for example?

Well that's easy to predict if you don't already know. The material POV can only percieve the utility of consciousness and intelligence in relationship to the organization of physical reality. i.e. social bonding and order, survival, mating, those sorts of things.

What you tend to see in metaphysical systems, such as no doubt old Joe Campbell would have espoused, is this notion of an absolute self that is the doer, is the experiencer.

I thought you didn't remember what Joseph Campbell was writing about? Anyway, the dialectical process of this very old question is simple to follow and predict. Each sides conclusions are predictable to arrive at when you look at the conceptual framework they are operating inside of.

It's the same with Descartes as it is with Madame Blavatsky or Amazonian shamen or West African Bwiti nganga. The primary assumption is that there must be an experiencer somewhere, not that experience is merely an artificial construct used to further social functioning.

ahhh, there's the utility - see how predictable? That's the only utility for consciousness, as some sort of superhero tool that ultimately serves no purpose other than the replication of the DNA molecule.

And you know what? I agree that consciousness does of course have that utility. However, I am experience. I would not know I existed unless I have two things. Experience and other people who point at me and tell me I am a self, an other, like they are to me.

We already covered this. It doesn't matter that it's an illusion or not, the experience itself is the transcending quality - and who knows what can go on from there? I don't think your model, the way you describe it, actually provides anything relevant to say about consciousness other than to other materialists who must have a definition of consciousness to match physical reality or risk a collapsing paradigm. And based on how you explain it to me, I don't think you understand materialism enough to have brought you to the conclusion that you have logically. Meaning, along your path, I believe your making not logical nor counter-intuitive assumptions about consciousness, I am saying that a few key points in your conceptual structure on materialism are based on pure intuition applied to a materialist paradigm.

All their cosmologies tend to spring from this core assumption, because they are all human and all have been configured by natural selection to behave this way.

Yes, I've heard the theory.

Only with the rise of brain science has the truth of the matter started to come into view. Only with the rise of science can we start to challenge the primary assumption.

only with a materialistic framework can you challenge the assumptive primacy of consciousness. Yes. That is predictable and what you should be doing under those circumstances. It's embedded into the framework. It's embedded into the memeplex of reductionism, rationalism, physicalism, materialism. It can lead you to no other conclusion.

This is what makes materialism so radical and exciting compared with the worn-out and rehashed bits of spiritual-metaphysical-psychological memetics that new-agers usual spout.

Well start viewing those things and apply them to material reality, and you might be surprised at what you have been seeing about those things is simply another illusion.

Materialism is actually the cutting edge.

Oh I am in PROFOUND agreement with you on this - that's what's so cool about futurism. I just don't believe you have actually followed materialism all the way through.

 

[WWHP]

Following Materialism all the way through. A thought experiment.

This is only a thought experiment. Not a dissertation. Curious to hear which ones do not follow from the previous premise.

1.) Evolution is true. Random Chance Mutations and natural selections are the primary cause of all life forms on earth, including human beings, and our minds evolved from no other process other than this.

2.) Human beings have created computers. Human beings have discovered that the mind is computational, and consciousness is not dependent on medium but rather relationship in medium, it is simply an emerging property in the medium, therefore some of these computers may evolve to produce conscious experience by their human creators. Consciousness may be captured by being digitized.

3.)Technology will evolve as long as human beings evolve. Due to advancements in our social structures, such as the internet, we can expect progress to evolve at a faster pace which allows for greater speed in which information is shared.

5.)The longer complex, rational conscious/minds/intelligence has time to evolve, the higher the ethics and principles that would evolve around with it as well as technology to appreciate it's environment to it's own purpose. Consciousness would be the only element in the universe that could place a value on everything else in the universe, including consciousness itself.

6) The Universe is or maybe a massive quantum computer. It should be expected that the universe as a quantum computer could develop consciousness too in an eternal system, with an eternity of values, organization, science, philosophy, and most importantly, art.

7.) Therefore, human or human like intelligence may be the organizing component and creative principle of universe itself.

8.)This is materialism thought through to it's final possible conclusion with no higher transcending value to consider.

9.) Cheers

 

[WWHP]

blobru: just in case it got lost in the shuffle

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5753424#post5753424

 

[Nick227]

I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind. First, how many years have you devoted to seeing where it leads? Second, how many have you devoted to the opposite premise?

I've been interested in materialism about a year and a half, maybe two. What do you mean by the opposite premise?

When people say 'self', I tend to interpret it in Jungian terms. How does your general usage of that word differ from that of a Jungian?

When people say self, I tend to interpret that as "me!" I'm not trying to objectivise self, as Freud and Jung did. I'm saying that materialism predicts it is an emergent and that this fits data.

"Absolute self?" Is like your notion of self only bigger?

I mean the notion that there actually is a self that is experiencing. "Experience" simply emerges from sensory processing. There is not an actual self that experiences.

Nick I think I might see where one of your problems is. Let me run it past you. If I'm wrong then I apologize.

No problem.

You are assuming that assumptions and notions are at the heart of "metaphysical schemes". But your assumption is wrong. At the heart are mystical experiences which have then to be expressed in terms of notions and assumptions and schemes.

You have the cart before the horse. There is sensory processing. There is no one that experiences sensory processing, not in real material terms. It is simply that the brain creates stories post hoc.

The most historically influential category of mystical experience is probably the unitive or pure consciousness experience. When someone has one of those, their life is changed. What metaphysical scheme they will then use to try to understand it and communicate it is another matter. But in any case, it's not assumptions and notions at the "core". Metaphysical schemes are just metaphors, after all. It's a profound life-changing experience at the core, and such things are part of being human.

If you had had one then you would know that there is no experiencer! If you don't believe go check it out with some decent mystics.

Nick

 

[blobru]

blobru: just in case it got lost in the shuffle

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5753424#post5753424

​

Sure. In this case your middle value would be something like the "unknown" discussed above. The hearer doesn't know whether your proposition is true or false because he can't understand it (and if nobody, even the teller, understands it, it really is unknown; though that's no guarantee of deep truth: it may be wrong, or nonsense).

this is a little more complex than that. It's not that the hearer does not just understand it, it's that he thinks he understands it but rather is analyzing his own truth value, his own projection, his own concept - of what it means. As a short example, someone says 'Health Care" and another hears "Nazi Party".

Ok. You say x. Someone believes he understands x, but he really understands and believes something else (not-x). Doxastic logic^WP, which tries to model belief properties and consequences, calls him an unstable reasoner. Unstable reasoners may develop consistent belief systems, but they will be inaccurate (if x is true).

Logic is pretty dry stuff, but some of the results, like Godel Incompleteness, are handy metaphors that we can shape to our own sense and taste. Mindful we're doing poetry, and not logic, of course.

Okay, well this is helpful, I guess what I was doing was using Godel metaphorically, and hoping or assuming there was some proof that would cement what I was talking about. I won't do that any more!

Nothing wrong with poetry. In part, poetry plays with logic: revealing surprising associations across logical classes. It just makes for unstable reasoners is all.

Mmm... not out of classical logic systems. Make them programs, throw in a genetic algorithm, you might see ternary logic evolved as a variation on binary. Not sure it would be superior, though. Ternary has one more value than binary logic, but fewer axioms. In a way, it's more flexible (about truth), but less powerful (for proof).

My interest and work is not in logical systems proper, but conceptual and behaviorial systems (involving social media, like wikis) amongst people. Most of us frame things in bivalency and dualism to conceptualize something - and when a 'ternary' concept comes into the 'picture' - well refer to that Hebrew saying I was referring to. It seems marvelously analogous to Godel to my point of view.

So, some but not alls bivalent concepts cannot frame a ternary concept, but a ternary concept can frame a bivalent one. Ternary is 'outside' the bivalent framework so this makes sense to me. Any corrections you have here are helpful.

In an abstract world with perfect knowledge, binary works great. In terms of proof, binary generates a lot more truths than alternate logics. But fuzzy, intermediate values between true and false can be useful too, especially when modeling human situations, where knowledge is imperfect. Depends what you want your logical model to do.

Godel Incompleteness shows, among other things, that there is meaning in the system that can only be evaluated outside the system.

ternary concepts can allow for bivalent operations and meaning, where as bivalent concepts can't return the favor to ternary, and produce contradictions in discussion - that's how this translates in my world.

No. As above, binary can do things [proofwise] ternary can't. And ternary is vulnerable to Godel, too. But ternary [etc.] can be a good way to model imperfect, irrational situations.

I think that's a nice metaphor for transcendence. Zen teaches a third value between yes and no: mu. A student who always expects complete answers, gets a mu answer. Or a bamboo stick to the head (same thing). In theory, by finally accepting incompleteness he transcends it. But in practice, he often just ends up with a sore head.

...Which reminds me, Douglas Hofstadter I can understand, not sure how his ideas about consciousness fit into other views here. He seems very skeptical about the many things that I seem skeptical about. Plus he's not a futurist and I am, so I am hoping to bridge this gap. I love Douglas's ideas, and reading his books are like getting advanced math tutorials from a zen master to me.

Yeah, he's a genius at finding metaphors that bring math and logic to life. Martin Gardner and Raymond Smullyan, too.

He'd freeze his geck off.

where are you getting these emoticons!?!?!

Revealed to me by a great shamanicon during a smiley quest. (better off not knowing -- they're addictive).

 

[Nick227]

Nick, I don't think that is what I am doing, and I am someone who self reflects on my behaviors and communications extensively.

Here is what I believe is going on in our discussion. I simply don't think you understand me to well. I think what you wrote above, however, is a very clear assessment of your own internal process which is projected unto me.

I appreciate that we are somehow not seeing each other here.

I don't believe you can yet see how materialism can actually be integrated into a transcending point of view or philosophy.

Can I ask you what is there is in this trancendent that is not already accounted for in materialism? Self is already merely emergent and experience itself can be seen to be not what it appears to be. There is an ever-present base layer of sensory reality that is selfless and utterly non-dual. What is there left for this transcendent to do?

The Material POV - matter rejects spirit

1.) Consciousness/mind/intelligence is a purely physical process, the material reality is the absolute source.

Well, we don't know what this absolute source is, philosophical point-of-view regardless. There is agreement that it is the same, but we don't know how it came to look so different.

I don't see this absence of knowledge a good reason to call it "spirit!" Do you?

There are things we don't know about the universe. But there is no good evidence that intelligent design is at work. Why not simply leave it that there are things we don't know? Why create this "god" or "spirit" of the gaps?

ahhh, there's the utility - see how predictable? That's the only utility for consciousness, as some sort of superhero tool that ultimately serves no purpose other than the replication of the DNA molecule.

Well, consciousness is just processing. Conscious processing and unconscious processing are one and the same. Nothing mystical is going on because the whole notion that they are separated by some observing presence can be seen to be erroneous.

Does this get us anywhere?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Voice of America did a surprisingly positive story on Ayahuasca. Ayahuasca seems to be slipping through the 'cracks' in the anti psychedelic cement that has hung over the field since the late 60's. There's an audio file on the page, it makes for an easy listen.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...as-Potential-to-Treat-Addiction-88923322.html

Yes, I guess with the shift in presidency attitudes are softening. Rumour is that there are psychedelics about to be down-classified so that it is easier to study them scientifically.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

I've been interested in materialism about a year and a half, maybe two.

Before that, what was your philosophy?

What do you mean by the opposite premise?

The opposite of 'consciousness is purely a physical phenomenon' would be 'consciousness is purely a non-physical phenomenon'. A premise that is explored at the expense of its opposite is, in a way, only half-explored.

When people say self, I tend to interpret that as "me!" I'm not trying to objectivise self, as Freud and Jung did.

Maybe you should. Well, ignore Freud.

If you had had one then you would know that there is no experiencer! If you don't believe go check it out with some decent mystics.

During a PCE the everyday "me!" is transcended, but that doesn't mean there "is" no experiencer. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the everyday ego "is" only a small part of our total being. Much of our mind is below the threshold of conscious awareness. Are we only going to acknowledge that tiny portion above the threshold? That sneaky little ego-portion that tends to think it runs the show and calls itself "me!"?

You seem to be making the mistake of lumping all the psyche together under the common everyday notion of "me!", and so of course you would interpret a "me!"-transcending-experience as evidence that there "is" no "me!" after all!

It looks to "me!" like the self you refer to is just the little ol' ego, not the Self. There "is" an aspect of our total being that "is" transpersonal, and it is this aspect that is the true experiencer.

Ever read the mystical poetry of Rumi?

The universe was not there; only I was.
Adam wasn't them only I was.
That light of unity was "I"; I am the Everlasting,
and I am the prophet Elias.
The universe gets its light from me;
Adam took his form from me;
I am the All-Wise, the Knower, the Judge of all judges. -Rumi

 

[WWHP]

Intelligent Design

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO_OhjSUrjI

 

[Nick227]

Before that, what was your philosophy?

I wasn't much interested in philosophy.

During a PCE the everyday "me!" is transcended, but that doesn't mean there "is" no experiencer.

You're speaking from personal "experience," I take it. If so, what does "mean" have to do with it. In non-duality is there an experiencer or not? Look! Just look and tell me.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the everyday ego "is" only a small part of our total being. Much of our mind is below the threshold of conscious awareness. Are we only going to count that tiny portion above the threshold? That sneaky little ego-portion that tends to think it runs the show and calls itself "me!"?

You seem to be making the mistake of lumping all the psyche together under the common everyday notion of "me!", and so of course you would interpret a "me!"-transcending-experience as evidence that there "is" no "me!" after all!

"I" is the result of thinking. Mental selfhood is constructed by thinking. When thinking reduces but normal sensory awareness persists it can be clearly seen that there is no one there.

It looks to "me!" like the self you refer to is just the little ol' ego, not the Self. There "is" an aspect of our total being that "is" transpersonal, and it is this aspect that is the true experiencer.

This is your experience or this is what you believe to be true?

Ever read the mystical poetry of Rumi?

Yup. I'm half-Iranian myself.

The universe was not there; only I was.
Adam wasn't them only I was.
That light of unity was "I"; I am the Everlasting,
and I am the prophet Elias.
The universe gets its light from me;
Adam took his form from me;
I am the All-Wise, the Knower, the Judge of all judges. -Rumi

This is your proof?

Nick

 

[Limbo]

I wasn't much interested in philosophy.

Maybe it's time for you to devote some time to the opposite premise? I mean, you are dealing with a pair of opposites here. You can't transcend them both by ignoring one side of the equation. And if you can't transcend the pair of opposites then you are stuck in an intellectual trap.

You're speaking from personal "experience," I take it. If so, what does "mean" have to do with it. In non-duality is there an experiencer or not? Look! Just look and tell me.

And now we are dealing with yet another pair of opposites - experiencer and non-experiencer. In non-duality I transcend words, symbols, categories of thought and pairs of opposites, including that one. So the answer to your question is mu.

"I" is the result of thinking. Mental selfhood is constructed by thinking. When thinking reduces but normal sensory awareness persists it can be clearly seen that there is no one there.

"I" is the result of thinking?

Could you rephrase the above quote in e-prime?

This is your proof?

No, it's an example. Rumi put his mystical unitive experience into poetry. Based on that, does it look to you like he stopped existing during the experience? Like there was no experiencer?

 

[Sunsneezer]

2.) Human beings have created computers. Human beings have discovered that the mind is computational, and consciousness is not dependent on medium but rather relationship in medium, it is simply an emerging property in the medium, therefore some of these computers may evolve to produce conscious experience by their human creators. Consciousness may be captured by being digitized.

Humans haven't discovered the mind is like a computer, it is the other way around.

Artificial intelligence is made from our own knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of the mind. Humans have defined the brain ability of "pattern recognition" and made fancy algorithms that simulates the results. Those algorithms do need an inelegant amount of processing power, but that power will keep increasing, and the algorithms will keep improving, and even self-improving. So the results will keep getting better and finer. I'm looking forward to it.

However, as the simulated systems become more complex, the simulation still depends on what model it is based on. AI will simply become better at information and behavior analysis, and personality synthesizing. Or whatever paradigm its creators depended on. The end result is an elaborate real-time fiction based on its creator's interpretation of the nature of the mind.

Yeah, in any complex system, emergent properties eventually appear. Although when it happens in a computer program, it is a bug.

Okay, what if, instead of trying to reverse-engineer the mind, we simulate a whole brain at the most basic level possible? So, what is the most basic possible level of simulation? Is the goal of accurately simulating all the properties of all the matter in a human brain attainable before we have a perfect understanding of the universe? Is it even necessary?

In my lifetime, I expect to see more human-like consciousness simulations, and more animal-like neuron network simulations. Both approaches depends on parts of science where we're still have a lot of figuring out to do, so I also expect to be surprised.

 

[WWHP]

​

Ok. You say x. Someone believes he understands x, but he really understands and believes something else (not-x). Doxastic logic^WP, which tries to model belief properties and consequences, calls him an unstable reasoner. Unstable reasoners may develop consistent belief systems, but they will be inaccurate (if x is true).

Wow - okay that's worth a steak/sushi dinner. Tell me where to send the gift certificate.

Nothing wrong with poetry. In part, poetry plays with logic: revealing surprising associations across logical classes. It just makes for unstable reasoners is all.

unstable logically I assume you mean?

In an abstract world with perfect knowledge, binary works great. In terms of proof, binary generates a lot more truths than alternate logics. But fuzzy, intermediate values between true and false can be useful too, especially when modeling human situations, where knowledge is imperfect. Depends what you want your logical model to do.
No. As above, binary can do things [proofwise] ternary can't. And ternary is vulnerable to Godel, too. But ternary [etc.] can be a good way to model imperfect, irrational situations.

Okay, let me frame it this way, which is how I use it, which is very similar to your Doxastic logic you link to above. When referring to a ternary system in the psychological, metapsychological, or conceptual sense, one still uses or has access to the binary operations, it just uses a ternary meta -logic to isolate and apply them when and where they occur. It doesn't negate binary, it embraces the binary operation with a few novelties. So I guess I am saying that a ternary system in the framework that I define and utilize - it's not just ternary, it's both ternary and binary.

For example (speaking of playing with poetry and logic)

we think of a logical coupling of true and false. true and false have a logical relationship clearly. Let's just call them 1(t) and 2(f). let's throw in the third value (which 'third' value is not relevant, it could be fuzzy, probability, para-consistent or unknown), let's just call it 0.

now let's create a novel set binary couplings

a.) 1 and 0.
b.) 2 and 0.

I want to be able to define those relationships. What do you think I would be looking at to do that, poetry or logic? Query put into a bivalent framework to test your claim that it stands a greater likelihood of producing a truer answer. (please insert appropriate emoticon - i just go with the classic to signify personality. Apparently your more wanted at all the dinner parties.)

Oh - were you trying to tell me something with this one? - :

 

[WWHP]

Humans haven't discovered the mind is like a computer, it is the other way around.

Oh I agree with that. This is a thought experiment - and I should have framed that better to make my point. The point was an assumption that the computational/material view of mind in Philosophy of mind (which is what the majority here appears to concur with) is true. I just framed it wrong. But nice catch! I like that sort of thinking, and I know how you conceptualize things now - me likey

So the results will keep getting better and finer. I'm looking forward to it.

me too

However, as the simulated systems become more complex, the simulation still depends on what model it is based on. AI will simply become better at information and behavior analysis, and personality synthesizing. Or whatever paradigm its creators depended on. The end result is an elaborate real-time fiction based on its creator's interpretation of the nature of the mind.

oh your good!

Okay, what if, instead of trying to reverse-engineer the mind, we simulate a whole brain at the most basic level possible?

This project is already on! http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

We shall know our answers soon enough, eh?

So, what is the most basic possible level of simulation? Is the goal of accurately simulating all the properties of all the matter in a human brain attainable before we have a perfect understanding of the universe?

That is an excellent question. I would say we would need a comprehensive understanding of the universe, enough to build a model that is both intuitive and logical.

Is it even necessary?

I think what I wrote above would be necessary. Let me read what you wrote below to test.

In my lifetime, I expect to see more human-like consciousness simulations, and more animal-like neuron network simulations. Both approaches depends on parts of science where we're still have a lot of figuring out to do, so I also expect to be surprised.

I, like you, look forward to our future. what an exciting time to be alive

 

[Nick227]

Maybe it's time for you to devote some time to the opposite premise? I mean, you are dealing with a pair of opposites here. You can't transcend them both by ignoring one side of the equation.

I'm not trying to transcend anything. That's the whole point. "I" is merely an emergent. The whole notion that it has substance and can somehow transcend itself, or anything else for that matter, is nonsensical.

Transcendence as a concept grows out of a perspective rooted in dualism.

And now we are dealing with yet another pair of opposites - experiencer and non-experiencer. In non-duality I transcend words, symbols, categories of thought and pairs of opposites, including that one. So the answer to your question is mu.

You are not transcending.

"I" is the result of thinking?

Could you rephrase the above quote in e-prime?

I don't know what e-prime is! But "I" is the result of thinking. Without thinking no mental self can be constructed by the brain.

No, it's an example. Rumi put his mystical unitive experience into poetry. Based on that, does it look to you like he stopped existing during the experience? Like there was no experiencer?

Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming in. I'm not saying that the body has stopped existing. I'm saying that it has stopped, for a while, creating a mental self - an "I."

With Rumi's verse, like all "mystical experiences" of this nature, you have to be aware of the divide between what is going on in the bio-computer at the time and what it subsequently writes about it. If he's saying that he is everything, then equally he is saying that he is nothing. You also have to remember that Rumi was notoriously fond of getting utterly trashed.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

You are not transcending.

Transcendent isn't an explanation, it's an excuse, so in that sense, he is.

I don't know what e-prime is!

Linguistic behaviourism. There's nothing inherently wrong with E-Prime, but its adherents seem mostly to be people who want to look like they're being objective and precise but can't handle mathematics or formal logic.

But "I" is the result of thinking. Without thinking no mental self can be constructed by the brain.

Precisely.

Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming in. I'm not saying that the body has stopped existing. I'm saying that it has stopped, for a while, creating a mental self - an "I."

I is a verb.