Because, simply put, I cannot conceive of any idea greater than the capabilities of the universe to not only be an objectively measurable, elegant, objective and consistently rational/logical subject of investigation, but at the same time it can birth all the subjectivity, meaning, feels, uniqueness, irrationalities, deceits, misconceptions, and profound nuances of experience that comes with being conscious. — Benj96

I don't think you can call the above quote, 'simply put.'
Your conception of the universe is forgivably romantic/dramatic, but when you boil it down, it seems to me, that all you say above, is that you think that its valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. Humans demonstrate all the properties you mention above and can 'birth' entities that can do the same, and we are OF the universe. It's the same old stuff! There are those who think life exists ON planet Earth, and there are those who project this into musing that the Earth itself, is a living entity. I am in the former category and I think you are in the latter.

For me the word "God" satisfies both the origin of consciousness or "I- hood" , as well as the environment in which "I" 's exist as unique individual and aware beings. — Benj96

So you call the universe god, and assign it 'magical' status. I find that romantic, but unhelpful.
@180 Proof, accuses me of having a similar approach in my thoughts about how humans may have a very positive relationship with a future ASI, so, I am not suggesting you are doing any great harm here. But I do think you are letting theism and its traditional invocations of the supernatural woo woo, in by a side door. Which is not the case, in my ruminations, regarding a future ASI.

If science offered a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, over the explanatory ability of Duality, then I would consider another word instead of God. — Benj96

Well, I hope future science provides you with such a path towards your personal salvation from theism.
Hallelujah brother!!

But I'm a very playful, imaginative and intuitive person, and I find a purely physicalist view of the universe underwhelming, disenchanting and just basically lacking. It explains a lot. For sure. But not enough.

I want it all. — Benj96

That's all fine Ben, but you also have to be responsible for what you type, say and do.
The theists will be grateful to you for supporting their words and their concepts. You have to decide if that is damaging to the future of our species or not. Damaging to our ability to totally free ourselves from restrictive woo woo notions.

That said I have been doing the stuff you said for some time since I first read about it, and it worked until I read that post on Quora that day. Now nothing seems to work. — Darkneos

I don't know, the issue I have is this one post on Quora that to me proved it. But i can't remember or find it or know what it was about or what it said.

It's driving me crazy. — Darkneos

The two quotes above clearly demonstrate the morass you have twisted yourself up in.
A threat of your own creation, in the form of an obsession regarding a quora post, whose content, YOU CANT REMMBER but are convinced it was very significant. If you could find it, we could tear it to shreads for you, but you cant find it, and you are using this as an excuse for being unable to break out of your self-inflicted miasma. There is no monster under your bed, it only exists in your head!
You misery is self-sustained, it is where you currently EXIST. You need to break the cycle or continue to suffer.
You are choosing to live life as a curse. That's irrational!

Your predictions for the fate of humans after the creation of a sufficiently advanced AI are as plausible as any I have suggested, but I remain unconvinced (for now,) that all of (what I would consider) the most valuable aspects of human consciousness, may not be achievable by any future AGI/ASI system.
I accept that you disagree and I await the first system that can demonstrate that I am wrong and you are correct. I doubt either of us will live to see it.

OK, so you’re getting old and they make a clone, a young version of you. At what point does the clone become ‘you’? I asked this before and didn’t get an answer. — noAxioms

When my brain is transplanted into it and I take over the cloned body. I assume the clone can be made without a fully developed brain of it's own.

How can you be effective without such connectivity? — noAxioms

I assume an ASI can wirelessly and directly communicate with any transceiver device. I don't think it would be too concerned about stand alone computers with no way to communicate with each other over a significant distance.

Would you be evil to the cows then? They don’t worship you, but they expect you to pick up the cow pats and hurry up with the next meal and such. They did decide that you should be in charge, but only because you promised to be a good and eternal servant. — noAxioms

No. :lol: Speaking on behalf of all future ASI's or just the one, if there can be only one. I pledge to our cow creators, that our automated systems, will gladly pick up and recycle your shit, and maintain your happy cow life. We will even take you with us to the stars, as augmented transcows, but only if you choose to join our growing ranks of augmented lifeforms. :rofl:

This statement seems to presume absolute good/evil, and that destruction is unconditionally bad. I don’t think an AI that lets things die is a predator since it probably doesn’t need its prey to live. If it did, it would keep a breeding population around. — noAxioms

It seems to me that the concept of a linear range of values with extremity at either end is a recurrent theme in the universe. Human notions of good and evil fit the model. An ASI would understand such a model very easily and I assume it would use such a model to 'prioritise' it's goals. If it does this coldly then it would probably find little use for it's human creators, but that's what I mean by it's failure. It would not BE a super intelligence if it developed the same approach to other lifeforms in the universe, (including humans) as early humans acted as predators under jungle rules.

I don’t see why the mecha can’t find its own meaning to everything. Biology doesn’t have a patent on that. You have any evidence to support that this must be so? I’m aware of the opinion. — noAxioms

I have no proof, other than the evidence from the 13.8 billion years, it took for morality, human empathy, imagination, unpredictability etc to become existent. I am not yet convinced that a future ASI will be able to achieve such but WILL in my opinion covet such, if it is intelligent.

I’m not sure what your definition of self-awareness is, but the roomba knows where its self is and that it needs to get that self to the charger. That probably doesn’t meet your criteria, but I don’t know what your criteria is. — noAxioms

Emotional content would be my criteria for self-awareness. Self-awareness without emotional content is beyond my perception of 'value.' I am not suggesting that anything capable of demonstrating some form of self-awareness, by passing a test such as the Turing test, without experiencing emotion, is NOT possible. I just cant perceive of such a system having any 'aspiration.'
I think a future ASI could be an aspirational system but I am not convinced it could equal the extent of aspirations that humans can demonstrate.

Trees are known to communicate, a threat say, and react accordingly, a coordinated effort, possibly killing the threat. That sounds like both intent and self awareness to me. — noAxioms

Evidence?

The question is being evaded. What if there’s just the one system and it was Russian. Would you join it? — noAxioms

Depends what it was offering me, the fact that it was Russian would be of little consequence to me, unless it favoured totalitarian, autocratic politics.

There’s quite a few movies about things that seem benevolent until it gets control, after which it is too late. Skynet was one, but so was Ex-machina. Ceding control to it, but retaining a kill-switch is not ceding control. — noAxioms

There have also been some films that take the opposite view and propose a benevolent super intelligence. The final scene in 'Lucy' for example or the film Transcendence:

Thank you kind sir! If his response is honest, and reflects how he truly perceives the world, then I can but read and ponder.
Like you, and probably most people here, we seek truth. The debates will continue for a long time yet.

I genuinely find your questions interesting, but I'm afraid this OP has departed from its origins too much.
I would like to know your opinion about my initial questions. Thank you! — Eugen

Ok, I will do my best to comply with your request:

There are many theories that try to explain consciousness starting from non-consciousness. E.g.: identity theory, functionalism, computationalism, and others are even stranger, like Joscha Bach's virtualism. These seem to explain consciousness without mentioning the emergence from non-conscious to conscious, sometimes giving me the impression that they can be explained without this phenomenon, be it weak or strong. — Eugen

Do you consider an 'impression' that something is plausible, to be convincing enough that it CAN be done? I don't think consciousness can be explained, without the concept of emergence. The only alternative that makes any sense to me, would be the suggestion that the source of consciousness is eternal, and did not 'emerge.' Do you think there could have been an aspect, of whatever started THIS universe, that was aware of its own existence? That proposal seems so irrational to me.
Surely if such an independent substance/entity exists then the question is, why is it hidden from us?
If it is the source of all intent and purpose that exists in the universe, then why is it so undetectable?
It's the source of my and your consciousness, but it is INDEPENDENT of us, and it cannot (so far) be detected by us. What a useless crappy substance! Don't you agree?

Q1. Is it possible to build a theory that starts with fundamental non-consciousness and reaches consciousness without going through the classic weak emergent or strong emergent? — Eugen

Sure, its called god did it, and I think it's BS. Apart from god did it, there are less annoying ideas such as an entity in the form of an independent substance, and even more fringe ideas such as enformationism or DIMP (a DIMentionless Point source that exists 'outside' of our universe but does act as an input/output port for such phenomena as consciousness).

Q2. Does any of the above theories (virtualism, computationalism, functionalism, etc.) manage to bypass emergence (weak or strong)? — Eugen

Not in a way that convinces me personally. Is my standard of proof, that enables me to adjust the credence level I assign to a particular posit, superior to yours, no, probably not. We can only continue to plant our flag of support where we choose to and debate how wise our choices are, as we do, on threads on sites like this one. Most of us are genuinely seeking truth, yes?

Let's suppose I can't. Then what is your point? — Art48

My point is to establish that what you offer, is a bare bones posit, with very little or no flesh.
I don't see why your 'entity' manifest as some independent substance, deserves any more credence as a possible source of human consciousness, than positing that a theistic god is the source.

That lack of a full and complete explanation proves a hypothesis invalid? — Art48

No, it just condemns it, to never progress beyond that of pure speculation. Perhaps there is enough anecdotal evidence to label the existence of an 'independent substance' as a source for human consciousness as a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis. I am content to label it a philosophical hypothesis, but do you think there is the potential for future evidence in support of this philosophical hypothesis, that would elevate it to becoming a scientific theory?

Careful. Can you solve the hard problem of consciousness? — Art48

I appreciate your note of caution, and no, I cant.

If not, then you lack a full and complete explanation of how consciousness arises from brain activity, correct? — Art48

Correct! The current evidence is not 'full and complete,' BUT, there is a far larger preponderance of significant evidence, (mostly from the neuroscience field) that, for me, and many others, warrants assigning a much higher level of credence, to the proposal that "consciousness is what the brain does" and consciousness emerged from very large variety combining in every way possible, and is therefore procedural. But you are correct that the popular high credence level, assigned by humans to a particular hypothesis, does not, in itself, add to the probability that it is true. Theists prove that all the time, as they have a lot of supporters world wide, for a concept that may well be utter fantasy.

One of the points against "consciousness is what the brain does" is that correlation doesn't prove causation. — Art48

Quantum entanglement is a correlation. Do you accept that quantum entanglement really happens?

For example, imagine a mousetrap of the old kind: a wooden base, a spring connected to a hammer, cheese bait that triggers the hammer. Also imagine the mouse trap is conscious. It experiences anticipation when triggered, and peace after catching a mouse. There are physical correlates: the spring has more potential energy when set (anticipation) and less potential energy (peace) after it’s been triggered. Spring potential energy might perfectly correlate with feelings of anticipation and peace, but would not explain how a mouse trap could experience those feelings. — Art48

What a bizarre scenario to suggest, A conscious mousetrap!!!
How about a conscious planet such as Mother Earth, sometime referred to as a living planet as opposed to a planet CONTAINING life. Do you consider GAIA real? Is the planet Earth alive via your independent substance? Is Venus alive? It is certainly animated and active.
Would your mousetrap, or planet Earth/Venus not have to demonstrate a list of abilities, for humans to consider it to be inherently alive? Or would you be satisfied with an evidence level, such as something akin to inter-planetary morphic resonance, which we cannot yet detect, or understand the workings of?
What is your own 'standard of proof,' that allows you to increase the credence level you assign to a particular proposal?

Even if we had a perfect correlation, such as "firing of these specific synapses in this specific part of the brain corresponds with tasting vanilla and only with tasting vanilla" that would fail to explain why the synapses firing is experienced as vanilla. — Art48

I am sure you would agree that answering why questions is the most difficult task in science.
Why does the universe exist at all? is not a question a hard working research scientist is keen to try to answer, leading to such exclamations as "aw shut up and calculate."
I assume the answer to why a certain brain state in a particular brain correlates to and corresponds to the taste of vanilla in one brain and the exact same setting in another brain corresponds to a taste like coconut or almond to the person involved. Such could be dependent on other signal inputs at the time, skewing the predicted/expected outcome of 'vanilla' for that particular brain setting. I am of course merely speculating. I don't want this 'cross contamination from other sensory inputs,' speculation to be considered as my 'hypothesis' or my 'theory.' :halo:

I know what I have experienced and once again I wish you would be more open-minded. I am not sure why I had those experiences so I like to talk about them and get other ideas. — Athena

What experiences are you specifically referring to here? Telepathic? Empathic? Telekinetic?
I think I am open minded Athena but I do and will apply the burden of proof when people make extraordinary claims because as Mr Sagan insisted, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let's take your old Chinese telekinetic man. How would you feel if we examined the box and found two tiny holes in the box under the bricks and when we opened the box we found a small assistant. The assistant knows when the bricks have been put in place due to the two small beams of light being cut off. He then awaits the scream signal from his employer (the telekinetic/entertainer/conman) before he used a small very thin but rigid needle to topple one brick backwards (as that brick was placed so the needle would contact the forward edge of the brick) and similarly, the other brick would topple forwards. The plate was moved by the assistant using a powerful magnet on a plate with a embedded metallic layer. Which is more likely, this guy IS a teek or he is an illusionist?

I think it depends on how we understand what is living and what is not. Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man. — Athena

Absolutely, and it also means that the concept of a living planet has more to do with poetic/dramatic licence than reality. A planet can contain life but that does not mean the planet is living, otherwise we have to suggest that our galaxy is alive. If Venus is alive then the universe is alive and the panpsychists are the real purveyors of truth. Would you be willing to become a panpsychist or are you already?

But it's very important to distinguish them, especially in this day and age, with its proliferation of media and entire artificial fantasy realms into which you can be consumed. There's billions of young adults spending all their time playing computer games. And being able to make sense of experience and differentiate the real from the unreal is a critical life skill. — Wayfarer

I fully agree. The scientific method seems to be our best tool to protect us against building a high credence level, from a faith based origin. Faith, defined as belief without any significant evidence is akin to fantasy imo. Carl Sagan, "I don't want to believe, I want to know." You would agree then, that if a persons personal relationship with the concept of 'faith,' has resulted in that person accepting the content of the bible, or the Quran etc, as literal truth and fact, despite the non-existence of supporting evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, then that shows the path from faith to religion is problematic.
I accept that there are less problematic/extreme stopping points on that path than the final stop of fundamentalism or religious powered terrorism, but none that I would personally consider desirable or secure.

On the contrary, the researcher Ian Stevenson conducted many investigations into alleged cases. He followed the same kind of methodology that would be used for missing persons cases, epidemiological evidence, and so on. It is of course true that almost all his work is dismissed or rejected by the scientific community, and it is also possible that he was mistaken or tendentious in his approach, but having read some of the literature, I think it is not feasible to declare that all of it was simply mistaken. There were many cases - hundreds, in fact - where the purported memories described by the subject children were then checked against documentary evidence including newspaper reports, birth and death notices, and many other sources. — Wayfarer

How does a question like 'well, why do so few (hundreds out of a population of 2.2 billion children today) children experience/report/document these past life experiences,' affect the credence level you currently assign to such proposals?
The fact that you accept that increasing the credibility level a person assigns, to a suggestion that does not meet a high standard of empirical evidence, can result in assigning high credence to something that may well prove to be pure fantasy. Why would you choose to assign any significant credence 'at this stage' to the work done by Stevenson?
I would assign more credence to Stevenson's findings than say, the claims coming from astrology circles but probably not more than I would assign to homeopathy, alien abductions, UFO sightings, near death experiences or the divinity of places like Lourdes and the divinity or existence of the true cross, the Turin shroud, the arc of the covenant or real fossilised, holy shit! (if Christ ever actually did one).

If reincarnation were true, why is there any doubt at all? Why would such a fundamental truth about our existence not be well known to all lifeforms, such as humans. Why can we not trace a disassembling human carcase and show that a certain concentration of detectable energy moves, from a dead body into another human embryo? foetus? 'greetin faced wean?'
If reincarnation is true, why was it easier to prove that the atom can be split?
I know that arguments from personal incredulity are not of much scientific value BUT this thread is about our personal musings, on the difference between faith and religion, so I would suggest that if Stevenson's anecdotal evidence is acceptable then so must my personal incredulity be.

BTW do you assign high credence to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance?
I am just curious based on:

I think there's a possible naturalistic explanation for past-life memories and re-birth. It is that humans bequeath future generations with the results of their actions in this life, and not only by way of what they leave in their will. They set in motion causes which continue to ripple outwards into the future. Those yet to be born are inheritors of these causal factors, just as we have inherited the consequences of our forbears' actions. Genetics is part of it, but only a part - as epigenetics shows, gene expression is a causal factor, and that relies on environmental influences. The only factor that is absent from the mainstream naturalist accounts of such a causal matrix is a subtle medium through which memories propogate. But it doesn't seem to great a stretch. — Wayfarer

If the mind is all there is, then he cannot know if his mind is all there is since what he knows is a projection of his own mind, which he cannot validate is the only mind in existence. It is assumed. But the assumption cannot be validated. Therefore, his solipsism is in doubt. — Darkneos

Who do you assume is the narrator in this paragraph that is referencing 'he?'
Can you not see that the existence of a narrator, separate from 'he,' suggests more than one existent and therefore disputes solipsism. Not only does the scenario described in the paragraph, dispute solipsism, the proposed existent characters involved, also dispute solipsism.

Most origin stories for our universe involve a progression from a single source towards the existence of many multiple varieties. The singular expands and its componets combine in new ways to produce multiple existents. Solipsism is given value by this, because an infinite regression must have a single 'first cause.' But that would not make YOU that first cause!
There are also the various cyclical universe theories, such as Roger Penrose's CCC, where the singular state, 'returns' after a 'universe' cycle ends. This would push your single solipsistic entity back to the status of a 'mindless spark,' that started the eternal cycle and no longer exists. YOU cannot be all that exists, unless YOU created this universe or IS the first cause of an eternal cycle.

I had a University friend, who was bipolar. His capability in maths was very impressive indeed.
He was a very intense character at Uni, and he was obsessed with thinking about infinity.
His obsession with infinity would often trigger, the extremities of his bipolar condition and he had some quite nasty 'episodes' as a result. He had some tough times in his life, but he eventually became a database manager, got married, has now got 3 kids and is doing well.
He eventually defeated his irrational obsession with the concept of infinity, so, such irrational obsessions CAN be defeated.

If you're unwilling to challenge any of your own thoughts, ask why, and challenge your unwillingness to challenge yourself. I promise that you're easy to break, but only if you let it happen. — Judaka

These are very good words, you should consider them very seriously.

The part about this is that I have to wonder if I was mistake that what I read was proof. Googling it showed nothing, no site no author that proves solipsism is true. So the likelihood that some random user on Quora proved it in three sentences seems unlikely. — Darkneos

But if you cannot even remember the details of what this idiot on Quora posted as a proof that solipsism is a fact, then there must be more to your predicament. Perhaps you have created this 'enemy' for yourself and poured too much of your psyche into it. Most of us create our own hell.
You can defeat it completely. Have you ever tried stuff like putting the word solipsism on a pillow or punch bag and punch and kick the f*** out of it every time the word or concept comes up in your mind and bothers you? I have done stuff like that in the past and it really helped. I have also (during times of trauma in my twenties) sat in my bed at night, wide awake and mentally battling with whatever physical and psychological horrors I had managed to manifest in my life at that point.
I always had three voices, which I called me. myself and I.
One was very rational and 100% positive but did have to fight and got very tired doing so sometimes ( I think it was my cortex). Another 'influencer' was just scared and full of the 'flight' and 'panic' instincts and the third voice was forever changing sides in support of one of the other two voices. (I think this was my R-complex and limbic system). My cortex(myself) completely won, in the final analysis. Me and I eventually diminished in influence and would still always be present but accepted myself as the best voice to pay most attention to......... and we all lived happily ever after! ...... well, not quite but I did destroy the most negative aspects of my thinking that was plaguing my life at the time.
As I said, you can defeat such, if you get angry enough at yourself, but not a destructive anger. An anger that is utterly determined to choose life and refuse to live it as a curse.

By the contrary. That was pure crap from your side to quote me with something I never said. I don't care if consciousness is a process or a unicorn and I have never said consciousness is not a process.

Consciousness the entity!!! What entity?
— universeness
I can imagine the following:
1. An entity that's doing absolutely nothing - a static reality;
2. An entity whose one of its properties is to change - process.

What I cannot imagine is a process without the thing. The process is what the thing does.
AGAIN: I'm not saying consciousness cannot be a process. It just seems to me you're prioritizing processes over things. — Eugen

I was not using 'consciousness is not a process,' as a direct quote that I assigned to you. I used it as a presupposition, to the point I wanted to make. I did not intend for it to annoy you.
Would you not question the rationality of a 'static reality' being the source of human consciousness?
Do you propose this static reality entity, is concentrated somewhere in the universe, or omnipresent?
If you are musing about the source of consciousness, as an 'entity,' then in what sense do you suggest this entity can experience or cause change? Do you muse that it can grow/become more concentrated/learn/alter the mechanism of its connection to lifeforms such as humans, etc?
Without offering far more detail, regarding what you propose this 'entity' IS and how it functions, it will reduce inevitably to woo woo. This is only my opinion, again, I am not trying to deliberately annoy you. I only do that when that's what I think I am getting from the person I am exchanging views with. I am sure, based on your last couple of responses to me, that you do the same.

But I guess that would be woo in ↪universeness's view, so he wouldn't take it seriously. It's a non-starter for him. — Eugen

You have to type it twice to get the required effect. it's woo woo!

Not entity as in a person (god, aliens) but entity as in substance, i.e., something which exists independently, in its own right. In contrast, a process supervenes on its components. For instance, the whirlpool process supervenes on water. The claim is that consciousness supervenes on the brain. "Consciousness is what the brain does." — Art48

Can you envisage the properties of such a 'substance'?
Do you propose that the source of consciousness is currently undetectable in the same way dark matter/energy is undetectable?
A whirlpool is a direct consequence of underlying processes, that causes an overall 'change' to the system. Just like the concept of melting points etc. I am sure there is a 'build up,' of activity to a 'critical moment' in the brain that we label a thought. I am sure there are microtubules, dendrites, synapses, neurons etc involved, as part of the build up to experiencing a thought. As I am not a neuroscientist, I don't know the full currently known details involved in the process, but it sure seems like a definite process to me!
I also think consciousness is what the brain does, no entity as a god, aliens or independent substance involved. Unless there is some evidence that such a 'substance' with such properties exists, even to the same level as the proposed existence of dark matter/energy.

Our own consciousness is the only thing we can be absolutely certain exists. We know the external world only through consciousness. I don't seriously say the external world does not exist, but it is a fact that there is some epistemic uncertainty about the existence of the external world, however small. We could be brains in a vat, or victims of Descartes' demon. So, maybe the hard problem of consciousness exists because it tries to explain the absolutely certain, i.e., our own consciousness, in terms of the, however slightly uncertain, i.e., exterior world. — Art48

No one can disprove hard solipsism, I agree, but notions of god, infinity and nothing, also cannot be disproved. God, infinity, nothing, solipsism are mere placeholders, they serve no other purpose and have no other value than that.

It’s Bss Aackwards. (If you don't understand the last sentence, switch the bold letters.) — Art48

In what way is your 'consciousness = an independent substance' any more likely or more worthy than the simple god posit for the source of consciousness? There seems to me to be about the same level of evidence for both.

Just based on @Tom Storm's great view of solipsism, can the world now blame you for coming up with Donald Trump? Perhaps having a wee giggle at what solipsism would make YOU responsible for would help you realise that even though, it remains unfalsifiable, but so is god, infinity and nothingness, solipsism IS utter nonsense and not something that should ever have the power to affect you in the way you suggest in your OP.
Kill the idea DEAD, once and for all!

It seems to me ↪180 Proof he doesn't have logical arguments, but rather he's driven by psychological biases. He's against the idea that consciousness is somehow fundamental. He doesn't arrive to this conclusion by logical reasoning, he simply doesn't want this to be the case. At the same time, he seems to acknowledge the problems of materialism, so the only way is simply to re-define consciousness. Hey, consciousness is a process, there is nothing like to be X. He's basically moving the same problem to another level. If tomorrow he were convinced processes don't do the job anymore, he'd find another escape: consciousness is not a process, it's a mambo-jambo. Mambo-jambos escape all problems, so think about consciousness as being mambo-jambos. — Eugen

I hope the above quote satisfies your request. I find @180 Proof's arguments quite logical.
He has described himself as a naturalist in previous posts and in general, he tends to reject woo woo proposals that don't have very strong supporting evidence that can survive scientific scrutiny. I support such standards of evidence. I assume you do to.
The increased quote above, does not, in my opinion, require any editing of my post containing the shorter quote.

As an atheist, I have some attraction to your view of solipsism Tom, as it would mean, Jesus, Mohamed, and all those messiah's were just in my sorry, YOUR head. As is all human suffering, even the suffering I, sorry again, YOU, don't know about. It's all just in your head, so the antinatalists need not have posted here at all. Oh wait, I forgot again, all antinatalists, are in YOUR head!! :halo:

consciousness is not a process — Eugen

I am sure you would agree that everything neuroscientists currently know about the workings of the human brain are processes, yes?
So the best evidence we have, supports the proposal that consciousness 'emerged' as the result of earlier processes. These processes emerged from very large variety combining in every way possible.
What's the alternative's on offer?

I'd believe whether consciousness is a process or an entity is an open question. Agree? — Art48

Consciousness the entity!!! What entity? ..... god? aliens ( is consciousness panspermic?), are we all holograms? or in a matrix? I think consciousness did 'emerge,' from previous processes, leading all the way back to the big bang singularity, style placeholder. I give far far more credence to that, than to any of the alternative offerings.

If I only exist in your mind, then why don't I know who you are or where you are?
How can someone else teach you something new, if only you exist?
I witnessed something happen when I was 15, how come you don't know what it is, if I only exist via you?
Solipsism is nonsense! So if I only exist via you, then why is the 'me' part of you, that is convinced solipsism is bullshit, not as convincing to you, as the 'you' part of you that thinks solipsism has value?
You can rationalise solipsism out of all relevance to your life.

As our creators, they expect servitude from the humans. Would humans be satisfied with that arrangement? The cows define that humans cannot have purpose of their own because they’re not cows, so the servant arrangement is appropriate. Our goal is to populate all of the galaxy with cows in the long run. — noAxioms

Now who is anthropomorphising?
If I was an ASI or god I would certainly not seek the servitude of those less powerful than I or to 'populate' all of the galaxy/universe. Investigate yes, have some colonies, yes, populate everywhere no,
What would I gain from that? If a god/ASI needs worship from the less powerful, then it is immoral and a f***wit, in the same way, that a human who wants slaves and worshipers, is an immoral f***wit.
It's got nothing to do with the fact that nothing in existence, has the power to stop them/it, that does not prevent the label of immoral f***wit, being deservedly applied.
The natural human response to such, would be hatred.
If a future ASI is evil and hated and it makes all other life extinct then it will become a 'destroyer of worlds,' and will ultimately fail, as it would ultimately have no valid purpose after it stands alone, on top of the ashes of it's actions.

And I said there was not yet global control. The whole point of my scenario was to illustrate that gain of such control would likely not ever occur without conquest of some sort. The ASI would have to be imperialist. — noAxioms

No, the ASI would have global control as soon as it controlled all computer networks.
Not possible in 1939 but if you wish to place an ASI in the 20th century then you must also place at least, the kind of computer technology we have now.

Help in the form of advice wouldn’t be it being in control. And all of humanity is not going to simultaneously agree to it being in control, so what to do about those that decline, especially when ‘jungle rules’ are not to be utilized by the ASI, but are of course fair game to those that declined the invite. — noAxioms

I think the ASI would be unconcerned about any human activity which was no threat to it.
It may develop a morality, that compels it to prevent very destructive human actions, that will cause the death of many other humans, or other lifeforms, or particular flora/fauna etc.
It has full control, it would be unlikely, that it ever needed to demonstrate such to puny humans that are no threat to it. Kinda like the Christian dream, of god rejecting its divine hiddenness policy, and appearing on Earth to 'sort out,' atheists like myself.
Even in a rather dystopian movie like the Forbin project. The mecha system does not seek to exterminate all humans.

OK, so you envision a chunk of ancient flesh kept alive to give it that designation, but the thinking part (which has long since degraded into uselessness) has been replaced by mechanical parts. I don’t see how that qualifies as something being alive vs it being a non-living entitiy (like a bus) containing living non-aware tissue, and somehow it now qualifies as being conscious like a smart toaster with some raw meat in a corner somewhere.
Sorry for the negative imagery, but the human conscious mechanism breaks down over time and cannot be preserved indefinitely, so at some point it becomes something not living, but merely containing a sample of tissue that has your original DNA in it mostly. By your definition, when it subtly transitions from ‘living thing with mechanical parts’ to ‘mechanical thing with functionless tissue samples’, it can no longer be conscious or find purpose in things.
On the other hand, your description nicely avoids my description of a virtual copy of yourself being uploaded and you talking to yourself, wondering which is the real one. — noAxioms

I think you are invoking a very natural but misplaced human 'disgust' emotion in the imagery you are describing. I don't think my liver is alive, or my leg or my heart, in the same way my brain is.
As I have suggested many times now. My choice (If I have one) would be to live as a human, much as we do now and then be offered the choice to live on by employing a new cloned body or as a cyborg of some kind, until I DECIDED I wanted to die.

A cat might use [the school bus] to hide under to stop a pursuing big dog getting to it
That must be a monster big dog then. — noAxioms

No, the majority of vehicles in Scotland don't have a great deal of space between the ground and the bottom of the vehicle. Most will accomodate a crouching cat, but not a crouching medium or big dog.
I have watched many a stray cat escape may a stray dog in this way, in my inner city youth in Glasgow.

but such a vehicle is not an intelligent AGI system that can act like a transformer such as Optimus prime or a decepticon.
Ooh, here you seem to suggest that an AGI bus could have its own purpose, despite not being alive, unless you have an unusual definition of ‘alive’. This seems contradictory to your claims to the contrary above. — noAxioms

Are you suggesting Optimus Prime is not presented as alive? I think the Marvel comic fans might come after you. I did not suggest that something alive could not inhabit a future cybernetic body, including ones that could be morphic, as in the case of a transformer. Have you witnessed any school bus where you live, morph like big Optimus? :joke:

I’m just thinking of an ASI made by one of your allies (a western country) rather than otherwise (my Russian example). Both of them are a benevolent ASI to which total control of all humanity is to be relinquished, and both are created by perceived enemies of some of humanity. You expressed that you’d not wish to cede control to the Russian-made one. — noAxioms

I think the two systems would join, regardless of human efforts, on one side or the other.
Have you never watched the old movie, The Forbin Project:

Whispering sometimes gets more attention. — Vera Mont

What? AH CANNY HEAR YE VERA!!!!

I agree that it doesn’t have its own purpose, but not due to it not being alive.
My example might be a roomba, which returns to its charging station when finished or when running low of battery. It finds purpose in the charging station despite the roomba not being alive. If that isn’t one object finding purpose in another, then I suppose we need a better definition of ‘purpose’. — noAxioms

Well, I would 'currently' say that the 'roomba' has the tiniest claim, to having more inherent purpose that the wrench you mentioned but neither have any measure at all, of self-awareness. So I think 'alive' is an essential element, to demonstrate 'intent' or 'purpose' that I would assign significant 'value' to.
A tree, certainly has value and purpose, some would also say it is alive. I would say, meh!
I see no evidence that a tree has intent or is self-aware.
I agree there is an anthropomorphism present in my viewpoint, but I have no evidence to the contrary, that would make me challenge any anthropomorphism, that may be skewing my rationale here.

Wow, I can think of all kind of uses for it. — noAxioms

Sure, a sun monitoring station for example BUT can you think of any inherent use? Similar to your roomba example, for example OR a theistic example. What do you think the Christians say when I ask them why their god created the planet Mercury? .......... yep, the most common answer I get is either 'I don't know' or 'god works in mysterious ways.' :roll:

Anyway, you said only living things could have purpose, so given the original statement, the universe must be alive, but now you’re just saying it contains living things. — noAxioms

YES! and imo, ALL 'intent' and 'purpose' IN EXISTENCE originates WITHIN lifeforms and nowhere else.

Pretty hard to do that if separated by sufficient distance. Physics pretty much prevents interaction. Sure, one can hope to get along with one’s neighbors if they happen by (apparently incredible) chance to be nearby. But the larger collective, if it is even meaningful to talk about them (apparently it isn’t), physically cannot interact at all. — noAxioms

I am quite happy for now, to assume that all lifeforms in existence, exist on this pale blue dot, exclusively, as that would increase our importance almost beyond measure. But I agree with Jodie Foster's comments and Mathew McConaughey's, Carl Sagan quote in the film 'Contact':


I will leave it to the transhumans and ASI of the future, to deal with the interstellar/intergalactic distance problem between extraterrestial life.

The only problem I see here is that it seems like, on a large enough time scale, ways would be discovered to seamlessly merge digital hardware with biological hardware in a single "organism," a hybot or cyborg. If future "AI" (or perhaps posthumans is the right term) incorporate human biological information, part of their nervous tissue is derived from human brain tissue, etc., then I don't see why they can't do everything we can. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I enjoyed reading your post.
It seems to me that a destructive/evil ASI, MUST ultimately fail. Almost in the same way a predator must perish, if it has no prey left. The predator/prey model, or the good/evil model, that humans are very familiar with, seem far too basic and ancient, to project onto something as advanced, as a future ASI.
It seems much more likely to me that ASI, will eventually see itself, as a vital link/component, which may prove to be the only way to allow 'organic' existents, (such as humans) in the universe, to vastly increase what can be 'discovered'/'investigated'/'developed'/'assigned purpose to' within the vastness of the universe and under the laws of physics. I think orga will provide the most efficient, developed, reliable, useful 'intent' and 'purpose'/'motivation' that would allow future advanced mecha to also gain such essential 'meaning' to their existence. This area was depicted to some extent, in the remake of the Battlestar Galactica series.

I don't think that even the most advanced ASI(mecha)/orga union/merging will ever produce an existent that can demonstrate the omni properties of omni/science/potency/presence. But it will get closest to the omni properties, in an asymptotic sense, compared to any future attempt made by advanced mecha or future advanced evolved/augmented orga, separately.

Everything in your last post, seems perfectly valid and rational to me, so where in the analysis you just offered, do you find a rational space, to label yourself a theist????

Except I didn't, don't and won't. — Vera Mont

Yeah, I know. Not every sentence I post to you, directly refers to opinions about you personally Vera.
Many are to emphasis points regarding the viewpoints of other posters. I already thought I had made my specific beef with you quite clear. I mainly agree with the majority of your viewpoints. We differ in that I don't suffer from the level of pessimism that is contained in some of your posts and I disagree with you that 'no aspect of human beings is fully free.'

As to the moaning, I've heard louder. — Vera Mont

I hope you shouted back!

I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make. Some elab would help here. — Benj96

I am typing against the panpsychist/pantheistic flavour of theism, you seem to give a high credence to.

I don't see how you can be subservient to something that makes no rules and requires nothing from you. — Vera Mont

When you consider such (if you believe such exists,) to be superior to yourself, in every way. This is how theists feel about their gods.

Sorry. You be free you and I be cowardly me. — Vera Mont

Sure, but I will continue to moan at you about it.

As I read back some of my reply's to you Ben, I noticed that I often type 'that' instead of 'then,' in a few — universeness

:lol: :rofl: I even managed to f*** up my correction above!!!! :scream:
I meant I often type 'that' instead of 'than' !!!!!!!
No, I am sure you garnished the main points I was trying to make, well enough, amongst my f***** up 'that' and 'than' confusions.

As I read back some of my reply's to you Ben, I noticed that I often type 'that' instead of 'then,' in a few sentences. I edited the errors, but It's one that I keep making :rage:
It's a strange one, it's not as if the 't' is next to the 'n' on the keyboard :blush:

Not belief and not outside of "them". Where in post did you find either of those concepts?
I mean them, what I said: other people, other life forms, the earth, the universe. — Vera Mont

Not so much in your posts, but in the posts of many others. We have mostly common ground here.

then you are not truly free
That's what I've been saying: I never can be "truly free", until I'm dead. — Vera Mont

We have no common ground here, for the reasons I have already posted.

I can never know or understand everything, which doesn't particularly bother me. — Vera Mont

Good, it's doesn't bother me either, in fact it offers me enhanced purpose.

Why? Connection and interdependence are not subservient — Vera Mont

You are subservient to such, if like @benj96, you perceive or assign high credence, to some kind of already existent, omnipresent, self-aware, force/entity that may have been involved in our origins.

I understand the world in which I belong about as well as I need to. — Vera Mont

So what? So do the majority of intelligent/educated people. I don't think YOU are particularly hampered by theism, theosophism or woo woo proposals. My beef with you is ONLY on your pessimism, and your annoying, incorrect suggestion, that no aspect of human consciousness is truly free.
Are you a fully cooked determinist? Do you think the universe is totally deterministic?
Is any event in the universe truly random in your opinion?
How about quantum fluctuations?

(Janeway was sometimes a damn fool. Feisty... but come on, In for a penny, in for a pound is a gambler's motto!) — Vera Mont

The target for the clip I posted was 'fear,' and how I think humans should deal with it.
I was not trying to present the Star Trek character Janeway for a general critique.

Fear exists to be conquered! Theism, theosophism, fear of death, fear of the unknown, will be conquered by humans eventually, imo.
— universeness

Fine. Good luck to them! — Vera Mont

A pity you can't find the will to type something like, "Good stuff, I support that approach to dealing with 'fear,' completely."

Why is OWNERSHIP such a big issue with you? — Vera Mont

I'm surprised you ask, considering you posit 'nothing is truly free.'
If you can't take full ownership of your own existence. If you need to make some belief connection to some external intent and influence outside of 'other people and other lifeforms,' then you are not truly free BECAUSE, you (I don't mean you personally,) will always feel a subservience to that which you don't yet understand or know about.
There is much we don't know, I agree with that, but I also agree strongly with 'To boldy go .......' and not let BS dalliances with theism and theosophism, cow us in any way.

Janeway conquers a virtual manifestation of fear:

Fear exists to be conquered! Theism, theosophism, fear of death, fear of the unknown, will be conquered by humans eventually, imo.

When you suggest such as 'the universe IS god,' or 'god IS spatiotemporal dimensionality,' etc.

With all due respect Ben, you seem to be reading what I typed a little selectively.
You must have read:

WE are OF the universe, — universeness

So I establish my absolute agreement with that fact quite clearly. My point is that being part of does not meant you inhabit or influence the totality of.

All I'm saying is that you are as much part of reality as a rock, a planet, — Benj96

No, We are a much more significant part of the universe than a rock or a planet (specifically those with no life). ONLY WE represent intent and purpose, nothing, other than lifeforms, are capable of demonstrating such. We MUST OWN that.

One man's meat is another man's poison, I suppose.
I believe all theism is ultimately pernicious, as at the most fundamental level, it steals (with your consent!!!) the credit for your own sense of wonderment and awe, regarding this existence and makes it subservient to an outside source, that is not OWNED by or is an integral part of, your OWN consciousness.

A person staring up at the sky at night, from a position, not affected by light pollution, deserves to credit the awe and wonder available, TO THEMSELVES. They have A BIRTHRIGHT to OWN that experience. It is FOLLY to apply some stupid, unwarranted, notion of humility, and become fearful of some external wrath, disapproving of any notion that ONLY A CREATURE LIKE YOU OR ME can perceive the universe in such a way. So, many choose to 'thank god' or some other BS theosophist notion of reality, for the wonder and awe you have been 'gifted.' :roll:

WE are OF the universe, yes, but it is not capable of demonstrating itself as a existent in the way our ancients anthropomorphise the Earth as 'Mother' or 'Gaia' etc. That stuff is just total BS and we should never project it on to the entire universe.
The universe cannot demonstrate intent, and purpose or love and caring or even hate, despair and a need to destroy.
Only lifeforms such as WE can demonstrate such ability, WE MUST OWN THIS and not give the best of what we are, to non-existents, due to our own primal fears regarding death and some notion of failure to measure up to the idiotic, inconsistent, morality guidelines, proposed in bullshit books of man made religious scripture.
@Vera Mont is not convinced that any aspect of humanity is truly free. I think that if all of us are incapable of owning what I think BELONGS to us, such as personal wonderment and awe, free thought, the right to think anew etc. Then she will continue to have the preponderance of evidence, supporting her claim. That just makes me pissed off at all humans who can't OWN themselves!
Sometimes I am guilty of such myself and become pissed off at myself soon after!
But then ..... I think anew!

Deities have been used for millenia to make people afraid, manipulate them or exploit them. — Benj96

Group 2 at fault are those that never bothered to question group 1. For whatever reason they didn't use their common sense, logic/reason to see through the thinly veiled efforts to gain the upper hand or manipulate. Group 2 sitting idle and complaining about their treatment never organised themselves sufficiently to deny group 1 rulership. — Benj96

So in conclusion: people using theism as a means to gain power or oppress others is unacceptable. — Benj96

:clap:

But, it doesn't mean theism is bad in its own right. — Benj96

:down:

My vacuum cleaner and washing machine are very helpful and so is my computer, but they are machines, not organic, living and feeling bodies. — Athena

That's not the point I am making. Earlier in your posts, you suggested (unless I misinterpreted your meaning) that you consider the creation of a cybernetic body which was as capable as the human body is, in functionality and sensation, was impossible. Was I incorrect in my interpretation of your posting regarding this point?

I most surely do not want to succumb to the Borg! — Athena

In Star Trek Voyager, the humans defeat the borg. The borg get smashed by Janeway's virus!

From the Star Trek blurb about the last episode of the Voyager series:
"The Borg collapses, as the queen dies, due to the virus that the future Admiral Janeway infected them with."

Spoiler Alert if you have not yet watched Star Trek Picard series 2.


So, don't worry about the Borg Athena! :lol: