Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[Ouroboros]

Yeah weird, like when pigs fly.

The Swine Flu.

 

I wonder if that is a good thing, or a bad thing. Shall we say something isn't as smart as we are because it is too perfect? Because it can remember without "senior moments"? Because it doesn't get drunk or horny from consumption of drugs (or bad electricity)?

Sure. there could be quirks we can do without, but take the fact that we get tired. I biked today (as I said earlier, phew, 25 miles... one of the hills would make the devil cry), and tonight I tell my wife I want to sit down and just watch TV. She will say that she will join me. Have a glass of wine and just take it easy. Or take the fact that we eat, or enjoy a good wine. Should we reduce all those experiences from a synthetic mind? Sure. Lets make it perfect. No blemishes. No desires. No needs. No greed. No nothing... oh, we'll end up with a machine we can't recognize as conscious again.

 

We fact that we can identify with another being is part of recognizing it as more than just a machine. But I'm not sure it is enough.

 

And just to bring up a different side of it. A dog, has a mind, I think, or does it not? But is it rational? We've gone after intelligence machines, and thought that makes the machine human, but at the same time we can feel more human-ness from a dog, who can't speak, reason, argue, or give you square-root of 16.

 

I think we can make a quirky computer that has eccentricities (mine already does). It's easy to make them individual (unique). Shall we dumb them down too so that facial recognition software isn't as good as our facial recognition pattern recognition methodology?

If we make the perfect, then we end up with machines. I believe that part of being conscious is that we are not predictable. Today I feel like chocolate ice cream, but tomorrow I rather have a banana milkshake. A robot can be programmed to randomly pick one or the other, but I was never programmed to have the idiosyncrasies, experience and mood determines that. Experience in the sense that I've learned to like both items, but mood determines which one I pick for the day. This is not based on some random number generator in the amygdala, but based on something else. It's a binary choice, but it's not a binary function determining my decision.

 

This is getting too weird for me. Hypothetical, with too many ifs. Makes for great movies, but not for trying to figure out what a human is. Still, I believe that humans are, at some level, "computers" however complicated we are and whatever quirks we may have.

Sure. And I know exactly what you mean, but I don't think the brain works exactly like a computer (in traditional sense).

[Antlerman]

Reproducing what nature does?

Yep, that’s my view of it. I think we could coax non-living natural systems into manifesting organisms. I mean, if we knew how nature did it on Earth, then couldn’t we influence events so as to duplicate it?

This is what I've been saying from the beginning, and can point you back to my exact words. This is not creating something from scratch, like a computer. You're using nature's systems to let nature do its thing. Consciousness moving into deeper levels such as what we have as humans, will not occur because we made it happen. I'm saying, and have been saying the entire time, that humans cannot create consciousness, as consciousness cannot have us as Source. Therefore no machine that we make through our own designs, such as the computer, will have depth of consciousness emerge from it.

 

Consciousness exists everywhere, not just in humans. Humans just have a particular depth of consciousness because of the development of our brains. But it exists at every level. And as such, it is part of the Universe. We can't create that. It already exists.

[Legion]

This is what I've been saying from the beginning, and can point you back to my exact words. This is not creating something from scratch, like a computer. You're using nature's systems to let nature do its thing.

Oh okay cool, so we seem to be in agreement here.

 

Consciousness exists everywhere, not just in humans. Humans just have a particular depth of consciousness because of the development of our brains. But it exists at every level. And as such, it is part of the Universe. We can't create that. It already exists.

Okay I hear your assertion. But I don’t agree with it. I don’t believe in a pan-psychism, so to speak. Consciousness does not exist everywhere in my view. I don’t believe it adheres less to a rock and more to an animal. Rocks do not possess even a rudimentary awareness in my assessment. They have no subject world. And I believe there was a time on Earth when there was no life and when even the most rudimentary awareness had not grasped its environments.

 

I do suspect that minds are an extension of capabilities which reside in all lives though. I mean, I would guess that even a plant senses its environment, performs some complex transformation of these sensations, and produces predictions which it then acts on. So a plant may not have a mind but I think it still interacts with itself and its environment in complex and poorly understood ways.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Everyone:

 

Yesterday was pretty busy for me and so I was not able to participate in this discussion as much as I would have liked. I did check in now and again and have enjoyed reading what everyone has to say.

 

Today and tomorrow aren’t looking much better for real and in depth participation. So… I am going to contribute my general thoughts on the discussion and leave it up to all of you to chew them apart – as I’ll have very little time for rebuttal or defense.

 

So – please do bear with me if a I get a little preachy.

 

From a personal perspective, the thought that keeps cropping up in any discussion about synthetic intelligence is that there is a very real part of us that decides how we are going to participate, perceive and process life. Following is a very long excerpt from a book I’ve just finished reading. The Intention Experiment – by Lynne McTaggart[/url]: http://books.google.com/books?id=d55ebAAvZRYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intention+experiment#v=onepage&q=happy&f=true

 

Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist and psychologist at the University of Wisconsin’s Laboratory for Affective Neuroscience, recently put this view to the test. Davidson was an expert in “affective processing” – the place where the brain processes emotion and the resulting communication between the brain and body. His work had come to the attention of the Dalai Lama, who invited him to visit Dharmasala, India, in 1992: a science buff, His Holiness wished to understand more about the biological effects of intensive meditation. Afterward, eight of the Dalai Lama’s most seasoned practitioners of Nyingmapa and Kagyupa mediation were flown to Davidson’s lab in Wisconsin. There, Davidson attached 25EEZG sensors to each monk’s scalp in order to record electrical activity from a large number of different areas in the brain. The monks were then asked to carry out compassionate meditation. As with Jerome Stone’s intention regime, the meditation entailed focusing on the utter readiness to help others and a desire for all living things to be free of suffering. For the control group, Davidson enlisted a group of undergraduates who had never practiced meditation and arranged for them to undergo a week’s training, then attached the m to the same number of EEAG sensors to monitor their brains during meditation.

 

After 15 seconds, according to the EEG readings, the monks’ brains did not slow down; they began speeding up. In fact, they were activated on a scale neither Davidson nor any other scientist had ever seen. The monitors showed sustained bursts of high gamma- band activity – rapid cycles of 25-70 hertz. The monks had rapidly shifted from a high concentration of beta waves to a preponderance of alpha, back to up beta, and finally up to gamma. Gamma band, the highest rate of brain-wave frequencies, is employed by the brain when it is working its hardest; at a state of rapt attention, when sifting through working memory, during deep levels of learning, in the midst of great flashes of insight. As Davidson discovered, when the brain operates at these extremely fast frequencies, the phases of brain waves (their times of peaking and troughing) all over the brain begin to operate in synchrony. This type of synchronization is considered crucial for achieving heightened awareness. The gamma state is even believed to cause changes in the brain’s synapses, the junctions over which electrical impulses leap to send a message to a neuron, muscle, or gland.

 

That the monks could achieve this state so rapidly suggested that their neural processing had been permanently altered by years of intensive meditation. Although the monks were middle-aged, their brain waves were far more coherent and organized than those of the robust young controls. Even during their resting state, the Buddhists showed evidence of a high rate of gamma-band activity, compared with that of the neophyte meditators.

 

Davidson’s study bolstered other pieces of preliminary research suggesting that certain advanced and highly focused forms of meditation produce a brain operating at peak intensity. Studies of yogis have shown that during deep meditation their brains produce bursts of high-frequency beta or gamma waves, which often are associated with moments of ecstasy or intense concentration. Those who can withdraw from external stimuli and completely focus their attention inward appear more likely to reach gamma-wave hyperspace. During peak attention of this nature, the heart rate also accelerates. Similar types of effects have been recorded during prayer. A study monitoring the brain waves of six Protestants during prayer found an increase in brain-wave speed during moments of the most intense concentration.

 

Different forms of meditation may produce strikingly different brain waves. For instance, yogis strive for anuraga, or a sense of constant fresh perception; Zen Buddhists aim to eliminate their response to the outer world. Studies comparing the two find that anuraga produces heightened perceptual awareness – magnified outer focus – while Zen produces heightened inner absorption: magnified inner awareness. Most research on meditation has concerned the type that focuses on one particular stimulus, such as the breath or a sound, like a mantra. In Davidson’s study, the monks concentrated on having a sense of compassion for all living things. It may be that compassionate intention – as well as other similar, “expansive” concepts – produces thoughts that send the brain soaring into a supercharged state of heightened perception.

 

When Davidson and his colleague Antoine Lutz wrote up their study, they realized that they were reporting the highest measures of gamma activity ever recorded among people where were not insane. In their results they noticed an association between level of experience and ability to sustain this extraordinarily high brain activity; those monks who had been performing meditation the longest recorded the highest levels of gamma activity. The heightened state also produced permanent emotional improvement, by activating the left anterior portion of the brain – the portion most associated with joy. The monks had conditioned their brains to tune in to happiness most of the time.

 

In later research, Davidson demonstrated that meditation alters brain-wave patterns, even among new practitioners. Neophytes who had practiced mindfulness meditation for only eight weeks showed increased activation of the “happy-thoughts” part of the brain and enhanced immune function.

 

Earlier – as I was reading through several posts logged yesterday I found comments from people talking about what it is to be human. What makes us human????

 

HanSolo said the following:

 

I biked today (as I said earlier, phew, 25 miles... one of the hills would make the devil cry), and tonight I tell my wife I want to sit down and just watch TV. She will say that she will join me. Have a glass of wine and just take it easy. Or take the fact that we eat, or enjoy a good wine. Should we reduce all those experiences from a synthetic mind? Sure. Lets make it perfect. No blemishes. No desires. No needs. No greed. No nothing... oh, we'll end up with a machine we can't recognize as conscious again.

 

We fact that we can identify with another being is part of recognizing it as more than just a machine. But I'm not sure it is enough.

 

He asked the question in regards to connecting with another human, and it is a valid question. But, I’ve another question.

 

What is it in us that “sees” ourselves enough to know that going for a bike ride is healthy for us, not only on a physical level, but on an emotional level? What is it in us that “sees” ourselves enough to know that music will lift our spirits if we are feeling down? What is it in us that “sees” ourselves enough to know that volunteering is a wonderful way to combat depression. I know a young doctor who says he wishes he could prescribe x number of hours of volunteering to his clinically depressed patients.

 

What is it in us that “sees” ourselves enough to know that the act of meditation makes a concrete difference in our ability to handle stress and sadness in our lives?

 

The human animal has the ability to alter its own brain structure. More than that, the human animal has the ability to consciously decide to do the work of being happy.

 

I’ve been married 29 years. No pill in the world would be enough to keep a relationship together long-term. It takes work. Some days it takes a lot of work to love those we love. Some days we must make a conscious choice to see the good in others and they must make a conscious choice to see the good in us. After 29 years of marriage I am still in love with my husband. It isn’t the emotional high love we experienced when we “fell in love”. The love we share now is born out of a conscious joint effort to be kind and good and true to each other… to see the best in each other, even when we are not operating at our best. It is a love born from intentional hard work and it is possible because we are able to make choices about what we will focus on it.

 

As shown by my quote above, human beings have the ability to “leap” out of programmed responses. They have the ability to “reprogram” their own brains. They have the ability to be intentional about this effort. There is something within us that allows us to “see” that we have to make a change.

 

When synthetic intelligence can reflect upon itself enough to know that it must “leap” out of programmed responses and intentionally reprogram itself,,. Then, that will be an amazing feat. That will be a feat worth honoring, worth comparing to human “life”. Until then – the computer’s actions and responses (however intricate and amazing) are still programmed by humans.

[Ouroboros]

As shown by my quote above, human beings have the ability to “leap” out of programmed responses. They have the ability to “reprogram” their own brains. They have the ability to be intentional about this effort. There is something within us that allows us to “see” that we have to make a change.

 

When synthetic intelligence can reflect upon itself enough to know that it must “leap” out of programmed responses and intentionally reprogram itself,,. Then, that will be an amazing feat. That will be a feat worth honoring, worth comparing to human “life”. Until then – the computer’s actions and responses (however intricate and amazing) are still programmed by humans.

That's right. (In my opinion, like everything else I've said in this thread. They're just my personal views.)

 

The human mind (and even animal minds) are programmed (so to speak) through experience and interaction, and not by intentionality. It's not set in motion through one person creating a flowchart or a UML use case diagram and then write a specification for what it is supposed to do or how to react in a given situation, instead it comes through just being. And this being, as part of a nature and a social setting, makes the person become the conscious person. I think this is a very important part of consciousness. The little I have read about psychology have made me realize that our awareness grows with age. And our intelligence, reasoning, and ability to think about ourselves, also grows, and language is a very important part of that growth. So if we want to make a fully conscious replica, it has to be able to learn a language. It has to build the internal construct of abstractions for what the individual words mean. I believe that we do not experience the color red exactly the same. And that's why we can't really pinpoint experiences. They are individual and unique. That's what makes us humans. (And this goes for animals too.)

 

And regarding the bike ride, you took it to a different level than I intended too, but it's cool. It was yet another side which deserved to be mentioned.

 

My intention of the bike ride was more about how imperfect we are as humans. And how our mind/brain gets fatigued and doesn't work as well. A computer doesn't get fatigued, but if it overheats it just shut down--completely. It only works in the on/off state of things, while we work in the 1% to 99% range, depending on nutrition, stress, amount of rest, etc. If we recreate a mind which doesn't have the range of ability (or restrictions), we'll just get another machine, nothing else. Part of recognizing the human in another person is the faults they present. "She is sad." "He came late and was upset over the traffic." "Bob stayed home because he got a cold." When we talk about or to other people, how much of it is really about our limitations? How often do we say, "Bob is so human because he constantly come on time and work as a machine"?

[Open_Minded]

As shown by my quote above, human beings have the ability to “leap” out of programmed responses. They have the ability to “reprogram” their own brains. They have the ability to be intentional about this effort. There is something within us that allows us to “see” that we have to make a change.

 

When synthetic intelligence can reflect upon itself enough to know that it must “leap” out of programmed responses and intentionally reprogram itself,,. Then, that will be an amazing feat. That will be a feat worth honoring, worth comparing to human “life”. Until then – the computer’s actions and responses (however intricate and amazing) are still programmed by humans.

That's right. (In my opinion, like everything else I've said in this thread. They're just my personal views.)

 

The human mind (and even animal minds) are programmed (so to speak) through experience and interaction, and not by intentionality. It's not set in motion through one person creating a flowchart or a UML use case diagram and then write a specification for what it is supposed to do or how to react in a given situation, instead it comes through just being. And this being, as part of a nature and a social setting, makes the person become the conscious person. I think this is a very important part of consciousness. The little I have read about psychology have made me realize that our awareness grows with age. And our intelligence, reasoning, and ability to think about ourselves, also grows, and language is a very important part of that growth. So if we want to make a fully conscious replica, it has to be able to learn a language. It has to build the internal construct of abstractions for what the individual words mean. I believe that we do not experience the color red exactly the same. And that's why we can't really pinpoint experiences. They are individual and unique. That's what makes us humans. (And this goes for animals too.)

 

HanSolo you and are SOooooo.... close in what we are trying to say... and as my son has said to me, "it is merely phraseology that separates us". But, I do have to say something.....

 

It takes intentionality to set the experience in motion. It takes intentionality to set aside time for healthy productive actives that "reprogram" our brains. It takes intentionality to be compassionate and loving towards others, even when they are not easy to give compassion to. Before reprogramming actions, there is first intention. There must first be a recognition that we have "work to do on ourselves".

 

In saying that the human animal can "leap" out of programmed responses, I was pointing to intention. I was pointing something in us that "sees" we must change the way we think and behave. It is this something that separates us from a computer, this ability to "see" that we are in control of our own thought process and then to act on that control. You are right, it is the experience that causes physical changes. But... still.... what is it in us that "sees" we need new experiences, that "sees" we need to choose happiness over self-centeredness?

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo you and are SOooooo.... close in what we are trying to say... and as my son has said to me, "it is merely phraseology that separates us". But, I do have to say something.....

I have no doubt we're close.

 

It takes intentionality to set the experience in motion. It takes intentionality to set aside time for healthy productive actives that "reprogram" our brains. It takes intentionality to be compassionate and loving towards others, even when they are not easy to give compassion to. Before reprogramming actions, there is first intention. There must first be a recognition that we have "work to do on ourselves".

There's a difference between external and internal intentionality. A computer is mostly set in motion by an external intention. A programmer's intentions is what set the program in motion.

 

While a human is mostly internal intention, like you say above, "to be compassionate and loving," which is the person's activity and response, in relationship to their environment.

 

I just wanted to make sure we agree on that distinction. Besides that, I agree.

 

In saying that the human animal can "leap" out of programmed responses, I was pointing to intention. I was pointing something in us that "sees" we must change the way we think and behave. It is this something that separates us from a computer, this ability to "see" that we are in control of our own thought process and then to act on that control. You are right, it is the experience that causes physical changes. But... still.... what is it in us that "sees" we need new experiences, that "sees" we need to choose happiness over self-centeredness?

Right. There is an internal experience of "me," which is more than just a program. And that self-identity is probably the only thing, in my opinion, which is very hard to explain.

 

Like I said earlier, this ability or property of our being must exist in nature, or we would not be able to have it, and I agree with some scientists that points to this and claim that the Universe contains the potential of awareness (of this kind). But of course, that doesn't mean that the Universe is conscious or aware. It just that the potential of it to become must be there. We are God's eyes, ears, hands, and minds. We are the Universe knowing itself.

[Legion]

We are the Universe knowing itself.

Yeah, I guess I'd pretty much agree with this. I think we are intimate with our environments. I think we are some of nature’s agents, busily make a living and learning about nature.

[Ouroboros]

We are the Universe knowing itself.

Yeah, I guess I'd pretty much agree with this. I think we are intimate with our environments. I think we are some of nature’s agents, busily make a living and learning about nature.

I also feel a debt to Nature for being alive, which leads to a foundation for duty of acting right (moral) in everything. I pay back to Nature by acting according to what is most beneficial for life to continue, both my own, and my peers.

[Legion]

I pay back to Nature by acting according to what is most beneficial for life to continue, both my own, and my peers.

A friend of mine advocates a Good Ancestor principle, where our goal is to preserve the options of future generations. She asserts we should try to maximize their opportunities.

[Ouroboros]

I pay back to Nature by acting according to what is most beneficial for life to continue, both my own, and my peers.

A friend of mine advocates a Good Ancestor principle, where our goal is to preserve the options of future generations. She asserts we should try to maximize their opportunities.

Yes, that works too. It depends though on that we assume that humans are good for Nature. For cancer, it is good to spread and survive, but it's not good for the body. I think that's the big, tough question: what is good about humanity?

[Open_Minded]

There's a difference between external and internal intentionality. A computer is mostly set in motion by an external intention. A programmer's intentions is what set the program in motion.

 

While a human is mostly internal intention, like you say above, "to be compassionate and loving," which is the person's activity and response, in relationship to their environment.

 

I just wanted to make sure we agree on that distinction. Besides that, I agree.

 

Yes... I would agree with this (to a degree). I do think a human is mostly internal intention. But... I also honor what happens when we are the recipients of loving and compassionate intention from others. Like the NPR news article in the OP - I do think there is valid reason to believe that when we hold someone else in our own loving and compassionate intentions, their body knows it.

 

In saying that the human animal can "leap" out of programmed responses, I was pointing to intention. I was pointing something in us that "sees" we must change the way we think and behave. It is this something that separates us from a computer, this ability to "see" that we are in control of our own thought process and then to act on that control. You are right, it is the experience that causes physical changes. But... still.... what is it in us that "sees" we need new experiences, that "sees" we need to choose happiness over self-centeredness?

Right. There is an internal experience of "me," which is more than just a program. And that self-identity is probably the only thing, in my opinion, which is very hard to explain.

Like I said earlier, this ability or property of our being must exist in nature, or we would not be able to have it, and I agree with some scientists that points to this and claim that the Universe contains the potential of awareness (of this kind). But of course, that doesn't mean that the Universe is conscious or aware. It just that the potential of it to become must be there. We are God's eyes, ears, hands, and minds. We are the Universe knowing itself.

 

Again... we're probably splitting hairs and the wording is getting in the way.

 

But... what I would say is that the woven within the very "fabric" of the universe is pure awareness or consciousness. This would account for the fact that one photon on the other side of the universe "knows" immediately when the polarization of its correlated partner on the other side of the universe changes.

 

But... there is a difference between pure awareness/consciousness and focused awareness. Just as there is a difference between pure light and focused light - say within a laser beam. Pure light - is diffused. In some form or another, it can be found everywhere. But, when this same light is highly focused - say within a laser beam - it suddenly takes on different form and function.

 

In my mind (and it is only my opinion) we humans dance with focused awareness. It is a symbiotic relationship. Awareness is... because of our highly evolved and complex nature, we are capable of making use of unfocused awareness and focusing it. So... we dance.

 

I think where you and I may part company (and that is o.k.).... is that I believe the dance is led by pure awareness. I think it provides the music. And I guess that's why I use the word, "God".

 

For me... pure awareness just IS... we are here... we experience... we live... because Awareness IS.......

[Alice]

I’ve been married 29 years. No pill in the world would be enough to keep a relationship together long-term. It takes work. Some days it takes a lot of work to love those we love. Some days we must make a conscious choice to see the good in others and they must make a conscious choice to see the good in us. After 29 years of marriage I am still in love with my husband. It isn’t the emotional high love we experienced when we “fell in love”. The love we share now is born out of a conscious joint effort to be kind and good and true to each other… to see the best in each other, even when we are not operating at our best. It is a love born from intentional hard work and it is possible because we are able to make choices about what we will focus on it.

 

As shown by my quote above, human beings have the ability to “leap” out of programmed responses. They have the ability to “reprogram” their own brains. They have the ability to be intentional about this effort. There is something within us that allows us to “see” that we have to make a change.

 

When synthetic intelligence can reflect upon itself enough to know that it must “leap” out of programmed responses and intentionally reprogram itself,,. Then, that will be an amazing feat. That will be a feat worth honoring, worth comparing to human “life”. Until then – the computer’s actions and responses (however intricate and amazing) are still programmed by humans.

 

Faced with a 'machine' in the not too distant future - with the power of speech and 'human like responses' and the ability to carry out a range of household services, from greeting you with a morning smile, serving up your favourite breakfast, knowing where you left your keys, putting a sparkle into every room, and 'programmed' to express an interest in your day, to express concern when you are feeling down and speak congratulations to your joys and success ... I think you'd soon 'experience' something that 'felt' very different to that which you'd anticipate feeling, considering that all this behaviour is 'programmed'

 

Maybe I've watched more star trek than you O_M, but I wouldn't want to get inbetween you and someone who wanted to deny your robot decent treatment ....

 

On a more serious note - whilst I accept that there are ways we achieve the different states of love we experience, including relationships that require 'work' to generate these 'states' - these states can be viewed on scans and we 'experience' them via hormones, neuropeptides and receptors - again I can't see why these cannot be replicated

 

I don't 'like' the idea of these areas in my brain being activated by artificial means - but that it because most of us have reciprocity wired into our brains alongside levels of altruism and we don't want to find that we have loved someone else who isn't loving us back.

 

A few years ago I was making my bed, when I noticed the edge of a book sticking out from under the mattress ... it was not what I first thought it might be it was a book of ideas for men who wanted to be more romantic. This meant that many of the 'creative' and romantic ideas my hubby had 'come up with' came from a book, they were someone else's ideas ...

 

Didn’t make them any less special.

[Open_Minded]

I’ve been married 29 years. No pill in the world would be enough to keep a relationship together long-term. It takes work. Some days it takes a lot of work to love those we love. Some days we must make a conscious choice to see the good in others and they must make a conscious choice to see the good in us. After 29 years of marriage I am still in love with my husband. It isn’t the emotional high love we experienced when we “fell in love”. The love we share now is born out of a conscious joint effort to be kind and good and true to each other… to see the best in each other, even when we are not operating at our best. It is a love born from intentional hard work and it is possible because we are able to make choices about what we will focus on it.

 

As shown by my quote above, human beings have the ability to “leap” out of programmed responses. They have the ability to “reprogram” their own brains. They have the ability to be intentional about this effort. There is something within us that allows us to “see” that we have to make a change.

 

When synthetic intelligence can reflect upon itself enough to know that it must “leap” out of programmed responses and intentionally reprogram itself,,. Then, that will be an amazing feat. That will be a feat worth honoring, worth comparing to human “life”. Until then – the computer’s actions and responses (however intricate and amazing) are still programmed by humans.

 

Faced with a 'machine' in the not too distant future - with the power of speech and 'human like responses' and the ability to carry out a range of household services, from greeting you with a morning smile, serving up your favourite breakfast, knowing where you left your keys, putting a sparkle into every room, and 'programmed' to express an interest in your day, to express concern when you are feeling down and speak congratulations to your joys and success ... I think you'd soon 'experience' something that 'felt' very different to that which you'd anticipate feeling, considering that all this behaviour is 'programmed'

 

Maybe I've watched more star trek than you O_M, but I wouldn't want to get inbetween you and someone who wanted to deny your robot decent treatment ....

 

On a more serious note - whilst I accept that there are ways we achieve the different states of love we experience, including relationships that require 'work' to generate these 'states' - these states can be viewed on scans and we 'experience' them via hormones, neuropeptides and receptors - again I can't see why these cannot be replicated

 

I don't 'like' the idea of these areas in my brain being activated by artificial means - but that it because most of us have reciprocity wired into our brains alongside levels of altruism and we don't want to find that we have loved someone else who isn't loving us back.

 

A few years ago I was making my bed, when I noticed the edge of a book sticking out from under the mattress ... it was not what I first thought it might be it was a book of ideas for men who wanted to be more romantic. This meant that many of the 'creative' and romantic ideas my hubby had 'come up with' came from a book, they were someone else's ideas ...

 

Didn’t make them any less special.

 

I've only one thing to say, Alice

 

You always make me think.

 

Thanks for the brain food, I needed some today, it's past noon and I've not eaten a thing.

[Shyone]

 

A few years ago I was making my bed, when I noticed the edge of a book sticking out from under the mattress ... it was not what I first thought it might be it was a book of ideas for men who wanted to be more romantic. This meant that many of the 'creative' and romantic ideas my hubby had 'come up with' came from a book, they were someone else's ideas ...

 

Didn’t make them any less special.

That's so sweet! I love that, and that you didn't get mad at him for not being the originator.

 

My computer is always surprizing me. I know it's all "programmed" in some way, but it does things like defragment when it's too "fragmented", update when there are updates available - but asks me if I want to, remembers where I have been and what I have done before so that it makes it easier for me to do what I like to do, etc.

 

Then, it also does things I can't understand and makes no sense. I set the view for files as thumbnails, and then maybe it will or won't stay that way. I set the screen size for open new window, and sometimes it stays that way, and sometimes it doesn't. I know there are internal rules there somewhere, but with conflicting rules and random behaviors this computer is more complicated than my wife.

 

She calls it my mistress, but that's another story.

[Antlerman]

Consciousness exists everywhere, not just in humans. Humans just have a particular depth of consciousness because of the development of our brains. But it exists at every level. And as such, it is part of the Universe. We can't create that. It already exists.

Okay I hear your assertion. But I don’t agree with it. I don’t believe in a pan-psychism, so to speak.

Well so far in this thread when you've said you disagree with me it turns out you actually do agree with me, and the problem is in how you perceive what I'm saying. Since I'm feeling slightly better today (above that 50% mark), I can try to apply my mind a little better.

 

In what you read above, does it sound to you like I was espousing panpsychism? I don't think I would suggest there is sentience at all levels, that the fundamental nature of the universe is mental. I would espouse weak emergence, which means that higher levels emerge from components of lower levels and include them in a new state. Mind would be an emergent property, but consciousness is a component at all levels below. There are higher and deeper levels of consciousness, as you yourself have already acknowledged in citing plants as possessing consciousness - consciousness without mind.

 

Seeing fundamental consciousness in the entirety of the universe is not the same as animism, where everything, including inanimate objects is sentient.

 

Consciousness does not exist everywhere in my view. I don’t believe it adheres less to a rock and more to an animal.

So you would believe then in Strong Emergence, where the "emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents"? I found this quote in that link as something that expresses a problem with it that I could agree with:

The plausibility of strong emergence is questioned by some as contravening our usual understanding of physics. Mark A. Bedau observes:

 

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is

uncomfortably like magic

. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."

 

If evolution is about the emergence of higher levels, building new and unique manifestations from lower level components: atoms, to molecules, to cells, to bodies, to minds, etc, then consciousness, since it is seen at least at the level of plants which you acknowledge, either must be something not fundamental to the nature of the universe, or is present all the way down, and all the way up: a fundamental Ground. If it isn't, then it would seem to have appeared magically at the level of organic life.

 

Rocks do not possess even a rudimentary awareness in my assessment. They have no subject world. And I believe there was a time on Earth when there was no life and when even the most rudimentary awareness had not grasped its environments.

You don't think an atom is "aware" of its surrounding environment (cautiously using the term 'aware')? If it didn't 'understand' its worldspace, what it can and cannot interact with, then nothing would exist at any level above it, all the way up to you and me. It "knows" what "makes sense" to it. All on a horizontal plane - its surrounding world, not above or below its own. A water molecule makes no "sense" to the components of an atom, it doesn't fit their worldspace, even though it is an emergence level containing atoms in it. The water molecule "knows" what fits its worldspace, what it can interact with, affect, act upon without "concern" for the worldspace of the atoms' worldspace below it. That world is not 'actively "important" to them (notice the extreme qualifying of these human-level awareness use of language - in no way is it on our level). And so on, to the cell, to the body, to the mind, and so on, and so on.

 

In no way would I suggest a rock 'thinks' like you or I do, or an atom, or a molecule, etc. But perhaps, our 'thinking' is merely a highly sophisticated form of this basic "property" of consciousness, and that we, or the reductionist are the ones doing 'reverse anthropomorphizing' in saying that because a rock isn't us, there is nothing in common between us? But a better world for that would be an "anthropocentric" worldview.

 

Just some possibilities, that wouldn't require "irreducible complexity" and consequently "magic" to be necessary.

 

 

BTW Legion, when you keep coming back to Descartes' "I think therefore I am". You are correct. Who is "I" doing the observing? Not the "personality" that you call you, but the "I" existing before that?

[Legion]

what is good about humanity?

The answer to this is so obvious I feel embarassed to tell you.

 

We'll make great pets!

[Ouroboros]

what is good about humanity?

The answer to this is so obvious I feel embarassed to tell you.

 

We'll make great pets!

And great food for the reptilian aliens from Zyxygy II.

[Ouroboros]

Yes... I would agree with this (to a degree). I do think a human is mostly internal intention. But... I also honor what happens when we are the recipients of loving and compassionate intention from others. Like the NPR news article in the OP - I do think there is valid reason to believe that when we hold someone else in our own loving and compassionate intentions, their body knows it.

Sure. And that's what I mean with interaction with the environment. We are programmed from our experience (which includes other people showing love and compassion, or anger and hate as well), and we are participating in that experience, which makes us makers of our situation.

 

Again... we're probably splitting hairs and the wording is getting in the way.

Right.

 

But... what I would say is that the woven within the very "fabric" of the universe is pure awareness or consciousness. This would account for the fact that one photon on the other side of the universe "knows" immediately when the polarization of its correlated partner on the other side of the universe changes.

Sure. Different levels of "knowing" though.

 

But... there is a difference between pure awareness/consciousness and focused awareness. Just as there is a difference between pure light and focused light - say within a laser beam. Pure light - is diffused. In some form or another, it can be found everywhere. But, when this same light is highly focused - say within a laser beam - it suddenly takes on different form and function.

 

In my mind (and it is only my opinion) we humans dance with focused awareness. It is a symbiotic relationship. Awareness is... because of our highly evolved and complex nature, we are capable of making use of unfocused awareness and focusing it. So... we dance.

Agree.

 

I think where you and I may part company (and that is o.k.).... is that I believe the dance is led by pure awareness. I think it provides the music. And I guess that's why I use the word, "God".

Alright. Yes, I agree awareness is a principle of the Universe and woven into the fabric in that sense, but not that the universe necessarily is organized to actually be aware, or even any outside force for that matter. But I do not say that I know this is a fact, but rather, this is my personal belief, just as the theist have his or her belief that this "other" is aware and have a will.

 

For me... pure awareness just IS... we are here... we experience... we live... because Awareness IS.......

Agree.

[Shyone]

 

You don't think an atom is "aware" of its surrounding environment (cautiously using the term 'aware')? If it didn't 'understand' its worldspace, what it can and cannot interact with, then nothing would exist at any level above it, all the way up to you and me. It "knows" what "makes sense" to it. All on a horizontal plane - its surrounding world, not above or below its own. A water molecule makes no "sense" to the components of an atom, it doesn't fit their worldspace, even though it is an emergence level containing atoms in it. The water molecule "knows" what fits its worldspace, what it can interact with, affect, act upon without "concern" for the worldspace of the atoms' worldspace below it. That world is not 'actively "important" to them (notice the extreme qualifying of these human-level awareness use of language - in no way is it on our level). And so on, to the cell, to the body, to the mind, and so on, and so on.

After reading this, I'm going to go off on a brief tangent.

 

If there is "awareness" of other matter on the part of each bit of matter (and/or energy), then those forces are what constitute that awareness.

 

I am amazed that gravity does not behave like light. Light requires time to travel, gravity doesn't (I don't think). In that sense, all matter is connected. We are feeling the tug of distant stars and atoms right now, as it is happening. It is imperceptible, but real.

 

May the Force be with you.

 

Edit: There are other forces besides gravity that have similar properties, but they are much less powerful. Still, they connect everything.

[Antlerman]

I think where you and I may part company (and that is o.k.).... is that I believe the dance is led by pure awareness. I think it provides the music. And I guess that's why I use the word, "God".

And now, we are on the same side of the veil. It was the precise metaphor that I found to describe it.

 

[Alice]

 

If you have a spare twenty minutes - this is fabulous, stay with it till the end for the source of our ability to create and understand metaphor

 

and then ten minutes with this one to really blow you away ...

 

[Antlerman]

 

You don't think an atom is "aware" of its surrounding environment (cautiously using the term 'aware')? If it didn't 'understand' its worldspace, what it can and cannot interact with, then nothing would exist at any level above it, all the way up to you and me. It "knows" what "makes sense" to it. All on a horizontal plane - its surrounding world, not above or below its own. A water molecule makes no "sense" to the components of an atom, it doesn't fit their worldspace, even though it is an emergence level containing atoms in it. The water molecule "knows" what fits its worldspace, what it can interact with, affect, act upon without "concern" for the worldspace of the atoms' worldspace below it. That world is not 'actively "important" to them (notice the extreme qualifying of these human-level awareness use of language - in no way is it on our level). And so on, to the cell, to the body, to the mind, and so on, and so on.

After reading this, I'm going to go off on a brief tangent.

 

If there is "awareness" of other matter on the part of each bit of matter (and/or energy), then those forces are what constitute that awareness.

Consider this. That matter exists in a spiritual universe, as a manifestation of it, but is itself not spirit though its essence is everywhere through it. Why not?

 

Awareness would be the binding force within nature, and the focus of mind's emerging lens exposes not just its breadth, but depth.

 

I am amazed that gravity does not behave like light. Light requires time to travel, gravity doesn't (I don't think). In that sense, all matter is connected. We are feeling the tug of distant stars and atoms right now, as it is happening. It is imperceptible, but real.

 

May the Force be with you.

 

Edit: There are other forces besides gravity that have similar properties, but they are much less powerful. Still, they connect everything.

The popular Science Fiction of Lucas draws from the traditions of Eastern Mysticism, even though those concepts and experiences in fact transcend cultures and their various mythological systems. Though to these traditions, they are hardly science fiction ideas.

 

BTW, it sounds like you are seeing this a little from what you were just saying.

[Open_Minded]

I think where you and I may part company (and that is o.k.).... is that I believe the dance is led by pure awareness. I think it provides the music. And I guess that's why I use the word, "God".

And now, we are on the same side of the veil. It was the precise metaphor that I found to describe it.

 

 

You came to mind as I typed the metaphor, Antlerman.... But... honestly I don't know any other way to describe how I "view" this fundamental and universal awareness.

 

However this Awareness manifests itself in us... I just can't swallow that we are at the center of it... and yet we participate in the dance. I don't know... we all dance better when we hear the music... we don't have to work at it so hard when the music sinks into us and we must be open to the music. And so the metaphor seems appropriate.

[Shyone]

 

The popular Science Fiction of Lucas draws from the traditions of Eastern Mysticism, even though those concepts and experiences in fact transcend cultures and their various mythological systems. Though to these traditions, they are hardly science fiction ideas.

 

BTW, it sounds like you are seeing this a little from what you were just saying.

I think my imagery would be different from yours, but there is something magnificent about the structure of the universe, and we have only begun to touch the hem of the nature of matter and energy.

 

I can also conceieve of a non-organic massive intelligence. I would insist, however, that it must have something physical that correlates with intelligence, even if it is only a type of force (e.g. weak nuclear forces, gravity, entropy, etc.).

 

I'm done with immaterial, invisible, and transcendent gods that are not a "part of the universe." The universe is, by definition, "all that there is."