Followed by this one:

https://youtube.com/shorts/SByqxvjKfo8?feature=share

Let's face it. The end is near. And only a few months aga I was assured that peace is the result of atomìc weapons. Someday these babies will get used. Happy times!

The baby already has knowledge of the world without ever having walked in it. How can that be? The knowledge must have evolved already in the womb, with closed eyes. In a sense the baby is in the world 9 months. Structures in the brain, without halt, running around during evolving from nothing to baby size. Baby eyes sending patterns, brain reacting, balance, body sending formal information, baby brain reacting. Knowledge forming. No tabula rasa. Then we are thrown in. The world showing itself. The world projected in the fertile soil of the baby brain. Innumerous unconscious, instinctive natural experiments. How does the baby dog know to go to mamma's nipples? The dog image or dog knowledge is already there a priori, contrary to the a priori knowledge of the goose. Smaller brain.

I must have anything to do with his super moustachoe.

He must have admired the attempt of modern man to create robots.

I would never consume any kind of drug (or alcohol) no matter what are the conditions. I prefer to be prone to suicide and be pride of who I am. I know it sounds crazy (I do not care about that either). — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Depression is no natural state. Some drugs do the job. The real cause is not taken away but you just feel better.

How can a sane person not get depressed in a world out of natural balance, where happy childhood memories and the magic of life, are replaced by the rigid madness of adult life, expressed in megalomaniac destruction of a beautiful paradise, which is replaced by an artificial world of steel-framed concreteness, steered by increasingly fast super quantum computers, governing without remorse to shape human behavior and control the planet panoptical, steering life into the straight lines of ratio, forcing people to wannabe like the computers they so admire?

Consider a time when elements of electronic/quantum/biological computing are merged with genetic engineering. Today's computing science is an amoeba in comparison. — universeness

It will pale in comparison with a natural brain. Where is the computing or program in a brain?

Proteins are not the only candidates.
Consider a time when elements of electronic/quantum/biological computing are merged with genetic engineering. Today's computing science is an amoeba in comparison. — universeness

Again you delegate your vain hope into the future. Once upon a time in a future far far away. We dont know if we dont try, true. But we can contemplate the future to be on possibility. You assign way too much creation power to humans. We can't even create one neuron in a lab!

No because it provides a current guesstimated answer to the trivial question 'can the memory capacity of a computer equal that of a human brain?' that people will ask no matter how trivial you say it currently is. — universeness

The guestimate is nonsense. I can give you the Bekenstein fir all computers. But as said, it's static.

It's a far superior guestimated response to a difficult question compared to:

Difficult question: What is the origin story of the universe?
Guestimated answer: Gods — universeness

The origin of the current universe is simple. Together with a mirror universe it inflated into existence on a higher dimensional (4d actually being 7d) wormhole. One on each side. This has happened since the dawn of time and will happen in the future many times. The gods were very wise!

Yes, but it's still all computer generators have. All computing is done with 0 and 1. Even quantum computing. And whatever it's based on it stays computing by program, which ain't going on in the brain. Even not when you think up a program.

But your sensor system did, it just took a while for your processors to confirm the data input. — universeness

Yes. But unconsciously. It made me remember the name. Only when reading the page I saw it mentioned below. So I was informed unconsciously.

Such a comparison is of little value to future musings regarding transhumanism. — universeness

Exactly. So the fact that computer memory exceeds an artificial number of brain capacity is useless.

Comparing how an electronic memory chip stores data and how a human brain stores memories is a trivial comparison. We know all about the former and very little about the latter. — universeness

Which makes the comparison very non-trivial. In assigning a number to brain capacity, the usual definitions of information are used. But you can't use that as the brain memory functions differently. How did Wiki got that number of a pentabyte (bit) information? By counting static units.

So do you now withdraw your suggestion that 'all of your life is engraved on your brain?' — universeness

Okay. Your awake life.

Each observer reports a different emphasis for the exact same visual scene. — universeness

And a computer chip?

I have met similar people. How big was the page, how much writing was on it? etc. — universeness

A whole page in a physics book. By reconstruction. That's not how a computer memory works. That being said, her understanding of physics was great also. Which need not be the case if you can just replicate formulae.

Does that include your time asleep? — universeness

No. Dreams are not remembered easily. They are just replays of memories, fantasies, etc. Even gods talking to you... Sometimes though you remember every night you dream. Sometimes no at all. Luckily maybe...

So you have good peripheral vision — universeness

The point is, I didn't see it consciously.

Yeah, was it as detailed as a photograph would be — universeness

As detailed as you see it.

A way distant, future transhuman system may have such ability.
the two terms are calmly and very briefly dealt with by a new scientist article at: — universeness

So what? It's understanding that counts. Not if you can into detail remember. What you put into a computer's memory is just a static view from a certain angle.

A way distant, future transhuman system may have such ability.
the two terms are calmly and very briefly dealt with by a new scientist article at: — universeness

That system is bound by the number of particles in the universe. The brain contains a whole life of memory. What more do you need? You can use a computer for external static memory.

All of your life is engraved in your brain. The brain memory capacity is near infinite (not to be taken literally...).

I knew someone with such a memory. During my study, once in a while I studied together with a girl. You only had to show her a page for a small time and she could tell you what's on it. But apart from that, memory of a computer is a very different one. The brain reconstructs scenes without them being stored. That's the difference. There is no direct image of a scene stored. You reconstruct and that's the memory.

On a page with text, the word popped up. It was written low on the page. Before I consciously read it. An example how the unconsciousness works.
— Haglund

Yeah :roll: and if you were thinking of a song and it suddenly comes on the radio then that's the gods, servicing your consciousness or perhaps not. — universeness

What I mean is, that it was on the bottom of my visual field already when it popped up. So my brain saw it.

Not impressed, If he flew over a thousand towns, over a thousand days and could then draw the one he saw based on my random number choice between 1 and 1000 then I might be more impressed as long as it was scientifically controlled and he was not secretly accessing a photo taken on the day. — universeness

The details all fitted.

But is it the case that causes precede their effects? — Bartricks

In the fundamental realm of being no. In the larger context of unidirectional time, cause precedes effect. But it could have been the other way round. Why doesn't time go backwards? Heaven knows.

An event can be the cause as well as the effect. Events can cause themselves to be an effect or effect themselves to be a cause. It depends on the direction of time.

But what if I do not want to pray at all? I — javi2541997

No worries. Just live life. Make the gods smile.

Things have to create themselves continuously in order to continue existing. If cause and effect are reversed is self destruction self creation then. Particles can flow back in time shortly to influence themselves.

But believe what you like! Thanks for the discussion! :razz:

You are just confirming my view of your proposed polytheism — universeness

You're just as dogmatic as Dawkins. There is no escape!

Eidetic/photographic memory in humans is not scientifically proven. Every tested case has failed — universeness

Well, I saw a kid flying in a helicopter over a town. When back on the ground he drew the the helicopter sight in minitious detail.

It doesn't have to be, you can save it in backup archival, external electronic memory if you want to. — universeness

Yes, that's true. But then you shift the problem to the backup chip.

You type as if you understand the full workings of the human brain and no one currently does. — universeness

I know how memory works. By reading, introspection, etc. you can get to know a lot! I just had an example. I forgot a word and was looking for it. On a page with text, the word popped up. It was written low on the page. Before I consciously read it. An example how the unconsciousness works.

If a memory forms, the width of neurotransmitter channels in synapses changes. Repeat something 100 times and that pattern is engraved in the strengths between neurons. The same neuron can be involved in more memories. At the same time.

So when you recognize something... click!... the scene "falls" in the trace.

No sorry but you are the opposite. You have not even indicated that you engage in any particular theistic daily practices — universeness

Why should you engage in daily practices? That's merely you prejudice speaking. And besides, me living my life is practicing. That's exactly what the gods wants. Life living as in heaven. In heaven there are no churches. Every life on Earth has a god in heaven. I think your god is nodding his head looking at you. The only reason I believe in gods is because it gives me a free feeling. Not from primal fear, whatever that may be, but from the supposed explicative power of the sciences. The only way to explain life is gods who made the universal stuff. Science describes that stuff.

He took some damned good deep breath of fresh oxygen!

self-destruction is possible — Agent Smith

:up:

Why would self creation be impossible then? What's the asymmetry?

You can overwrite the contents of electronic storage devices. ROM chips are static memory RAM chips are dynamic. The concept that a single neuron can be involved in more than one memory does not mean it can be involved in an infinite number of memories or else a brain would only need one neuron.
Superposition exists in science but that does not mean that the Universe is only made up of one fundamental unit in an infinity of superpositions and states. — universeness

Yes you can overwrite. But then the other memory is gone. Memories in the brain work differently. By connection strengths. One bit in a memory chip is involved in one memory only. One neuron in the brain is involved in innumerous many memories. One bit can be involved in more memories too, but they are unrelated, serial.

That is a very simple sentence and does not reflect the complexity involved. — universeness

It reflects what is tried to be done. Consciously, explicitly designing a program according to which a flow of current or no current is forced to behave, which is different from the processes in a brain attached to a body walking around in a world and resonating with that world, a process which developed freely, unforced by a program.

So I take it that you think a human, alive today, that is 100% dependent on a heart pacemaker for their 'alive' status could not be labeled 'transhuman,' I think that is NOT an unreasonable label to apply in my opinion in such a case. They are at least more than the 'traditional' human. — universeness

With transhuman I don't mean people with pacemakers. I mean life made by man and superseding man.

So how does genetic engineering fit in with your view above? Id genetic engineering not a case of 'editing the program — universeness

DNA contains no program. Only the code or proteins the organism uses.

I don't anthropomorphise nature in this way. — universeness

Me neither. But if we ask her in math she'll answer in math, or whatever language we ask.

Yet we know the full human gnome! and we have cloned sheep and cattle and have genetically modified crops. We could not have such technologies if your statement above was accurate. You cant edit a process you don't know! — universeness

Yes, but we don't know if the DNA has or hasn't been influenced by the organisms themselves or accidentally. It's just a DOGMA that DNA mutates by chance.

Science is not an art, such statements are just fanciful. — universeness

Science is an art.

Again you role-play with the god posit. — universeness

Again, it's no role play. That's what you want it to be. Where is the evidence?

A = dead and A= alive ??? — universeness

Yes. The God as you envision is dead. That omni super powerful moral superior being. The gods, on the other hand, live.

Your play.

Already at fundamental level soul bestows the universe. Developing in ever more complexity during universal evolution, only to end in fading, diluting memories of it in a far photonic future. After which the sign at the start is given to replay the story. In different colors and sounds.

You are one of the most unconvincing theists I have encountered. You are role-playing, for your own reasons. That's the only logical conclusion I can make. I think you just enjoy taking the more esoteric viewpoint. I can't help seeing you try to convince yourself with 'I do believe, I do I do I do believe, I Do I DO I DO. But I am not convinced you do. — universeness

You can try to rationalize me, because you don't understand... to no avail. I stick with the gods story!

I think you are trying to constantly give the kiss of life to this limited and singular example of the use of the word 'dogma' in a science paper that you have found. You also ignore the fact that dogma is the foundation of all religions. I think the score remains scientific dogmatism:0, Theistic dogmatism: big BIG number! — universeness

The point is that it's the worst kind of dogma there is. It projects thing in the real, material world which is just an assumption to fit the ideal. There is absolutely no evidence for it. And there are a lot of different dogmatic views. The Standard Model being one of them.

So, is the theory of evolution dogmatic? Yes...