@charleton Having a rough day? You seem unusually cantankerous and unhelpful today...

How do you know I exist? — charleton

We don't. The current theory is that you're a cleverly programmed AI troll. One that's very stuck on materialism.

@charleton

Hmmm... You don't seem to have anything constructive to add to this thread at this point. Perhaps you would consider reading the two books I mentioned above? Both of them point to the lack of an objective physical reality.

Can anyone propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? — CasKev

The closest thing I have found is The Simplest Case Scenario proposed by Karl Coryat, which says
"a system of observers connected in this way can be treated as one single observer. It is a kind of super-observer that comprises many individual observing subsystems, which are tied together in mutual informational constraint."

To me, this explains why there would be no conflicts or inconsistencies in the perceived reality, but doesn't explain how the original arising of self-aware consciousness could be split off or assigned to multiple entities.

Just reread some parts of Robert Lanza's Biocentrism. Does our inability to assign self-aware consciousness to computers point to reality being created by consciousness? Does our inability to explain how consciousness arises from matter further support this? To me, this would also point to a singular consciousness rather than a shared reality, as having multiple creators would surely result in conflicts and inconsistencies in the shared reality, which don't seem to exist. — CasKev

Can anyone propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness?

Why would you ask such a question? — charleton

Not according to Robert Lanza's book Biocentrism. Give it a read. There's a free pdf version online.

Yes, it's called parallel evolution. — charleton

Can you explain in a bit of detail how that would work in a scenario where reality is created by consciousness?

I don't think that is supportable. — charleton

Can you propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? I'm having difficulty coming up with one...

Just reread some parts of Robert Lanza's Biocentrism. Does our inability to assign self-aware consciousness to computers point to reality being created by consciousness? Does our inability to explain how consciousness arises from matter further support this? To me, this would also point to a singular consciousness rather than a shared reality, as having multiple creators would surely result in conflicts and inconsistencies in the shared reality, which don't seem to exist.

By conversing with me you implicitly agree that I exist,
or else there would be no point in conversing. — Jonathan AB

Could it be looked at as a complex version of schizophrenia? You have to admit, life would be pretty boring without some imaginary friends...

You never experience a time when there's no experience. — Michael Ossipoff

What do you think about the possibility of everyone's consciousness continuing indefinitely once it has been awakened? Each conscious entity has its own possibility-story that adapts to allow its consciousness to survive within that possibility-story. For example, someone could die in a car accident in my reality, but in theirs, the paramedics are somehow able to revive that someone, so that their reality can continue. Or perhaps there is no interdependence between realities - each conscious entity's reality branches off from one of many source realities at the time of birth of consciousness. Since I can only have conscious self-awareness in one reality, I guess this would mean that I would be the only truly self-aware conscious entity in my reality...?

Have you read The Simplest-Case Scenario by Karl Coryat? I'd be interested to hear whether his theories on information being fundamental fit with ideas of a holographic universe...

but how do you know about the size of the hole? — CuddlyHedgehog

Oh, he knows his holes, especially black ones...

Bionic AI cockroaches

There is no way I - or you - can prove that this is not just a dream.
But if this is an illusion - I still know that it is "I" that is suffering it. — Jonathan AB

And no way to prove anyone but me is self-aware...

What makes it even funnier is that the deck was from a magic trick set! :D

Freaked myself out yesterday... Thought I would play a little game. Randomly decided on a playing card while sitting at work, and tried to see if it would somehow manifest itself. Picked the 3 of clubs. Tried a random card generator to see if it would be the first card to appear. It wasn't. Tried getting my girlfriend to guess it over the phone while I was thinking about it. Tried the same thing in person with my two kids and my mom. They all guessed wrong. A couple of hours later, I was in the laundry room. The day before, my 2-year-old son had thrown 6 or 7 playing cards down the laundry chute after his bath (with my girlfriend). Five of them were face down on the floor. I said to myself, wouldn't it be freaky if the first card I turned over was the 3 of clubs...? And it was!!! [insert spooky music here]

"For example, did dinosaurs actually exist, or was that 'memory' just part of the story consciousness created to explain our existence in the present moment?" — CasKev

"The bones exist. They change over time. What happened before we can only guess, and that is what science does. It makes up a story by guessing. We can never know, but we can enjoy the bones and the story behind it." — Rich

So according to Bohmian Mechanics, there is only one possible reality, based on causation, right? Wouldn't that mean the past is fixed and should be able to explain what we see in the present, as opposed to what Stephen Hawkings postulates in the quote I posted earlier from his book 'The Grand Design'? Or does it just say that what we observe in the present exists, and will behave according to certain patterns, with no real certainty of the events leading up to the present?

In Bohmian, it is a fundamental aspect. — Rich

So that is to say it occurs, but has no observable explanation as of yet?

The former issue with quantum potential is that it acts instantaneously at a distance. But this is a non-issue nowadays because of experimental support for non-local action at school distance. — Rich

So the issue of quantum entanglement remains unexplained? There is no known cause for the "spooky action at a distance"?

I've had an experience where this seemed obvious — Roke

Where what seemed obvious?

It's not retroactive with Bohmian Mechanics. — Rich

I'm pretty sure this experiment shows true retroactivity ...

Also, Bohmian Mechanics doesn't seem compatible with what Stephen Hawkings writes in 'The Grand Design'. Am I right?

"The usual assumption in cosmology is that the universe has a single definite history. One can use the laws of physics to calculate how this history develops with time. We call this the “bottom-up” approach to cosmology. But since we must take into account the quantum nature of the universe as expressed by the Feynman sum over histories, the probability amplitude that the universe is now in a particular state is arrived at by adding up the contributions from all the histories that satisfy the no-boundary condition and end in the state in question. In cosmology, in other words, one shouldn’t follow the history of the universe from the bottom up because that assumes there’s a single history, with a well-defined starting point and evolution. Instead, one should trace the histories from the top down, backward from the present time. Some histories will be more probable than others, and the sum will normally be dominated by a single history that starts with the creation of the universe and culminates in the state under consideration. But there will be different histories for different possible states of the universe at the present time. This leads to a radically different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don’t have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us.

The idea that the universe does not have a unique observer-independent history might seem to
conflict with certain facts we know. There might be one history in which the moon is made of
Roquefort cheese. But we have observed that the moon is not made of cheese, which is bad news
for mice. Hence histories in which the moon is made of cheese do not contribute to the present
state of our universe, though they might contribute to others. That might sound like science fiction,
but it isn’t.

An important implication of the top-down approach is that the apparent laws of nature depend on
the history of the universe. Many scientists believe there exists a single theory that explains those
laws as well as nature’s physical constants, such as the mass of the electron or the dimensionality
of space-time. But top-down cosmology dictates that the apparent laws of nature are different for
different histories."

@Rich

Instantaneous behavior doesn't explain retroactive behavior though, does it?

@Rich

Does Bohmian Mechanics explain the quantum experiments where a particle's behavior is affected retroactively based on a choice made in the present?

The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality... — CasKev

Getting back to this... Assuming quantum behavior at a macro level, what seems more likely? That once observers collapse probability waves, they are permanently collapsed, and future collapses have to be consistent with what has already been collapsed? Or is everything being constantly re-collapsed, and the consistency arises from probability waves being heavily weighted toward what existed previously? (I'm currently leaning toward re-collapse dependent on cumulative collective memory...)

Another question... If reality depends on conscious observation, does it not make the most sense for reality to have arisen from a single consciousness? If so, what seems more likely? That there still exists only one conscious observer, in which all other seemingly conscious observers are just constructed 'bots'? Or that the single consciousness was able to create similar conscious entities capable of co-creating reality? (I'm currently leaning toward a single conscious observer, given the inability to create conscious AI, and the lack of understanding of how consciousness arises from matter...)

I had the same response once to a lecturer who claimed she was making her own universe. I told her to try to take my wallet and she might notice another mind at work. — Rich

But of course you would be 'programmed' to behave in certain ways consistent with my first-person experience, so as to appear self-aware. There's no way for me to explicitly prove that another entity is truly self-aware and experiencing the sense of 'I' that I do. I would have to have a way to temporarily 'plug in' to your first-person experience.

There is no collapse and it is not in the mind. — Rich

Doesn't this contradict the findings of quantum mechanics - that something only comes into existence (probability waves collapsing into particulate matter) once it is observed?

The universal memory is constantly morphing. — Rich

Cumulative memory is constantly changing in the present moment, but is every aspect of our past already firmly established, waiting to be observed, or do the as of yet undiscovered elements of our past exist only as probabilities, morphing to fit our most current observed reality? For example, did dinosaurs actually exist, or was that 'memory' just part of the story consciousness created to explain our existence in the present moment?

I can infer that there are other minds, but we only ever know mind in the singular and in the first person. — Wayfarer

That's something I'm currently stuck on... It's hard to imagine me being the sole source of consciousness, somehow creating all that exists (including other seemingly self-aware entities) at some subconscious level. It's easier to swallow the idea that there is some sort of greater source consciousness of which we are all a part, and we are co-creating a shared reality. The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality... Also confounding is the thought of the timing of all forms of consciousness coming into existence. Was most of reality basically already collapsed by the time my remembered self-awareness started to form; or is the past constantly adjusted to reflect the collective memories of all conscious entities that exist at any one time?

The ideas I'm currently contemplating are whether:
a) i) I would be the only self-aware, conscious creator in my perceived reality; or
ii) Reality would be shared by multiple conscious entities, all contributing to its creation
b) Assuming a) + i), will my consciousness never end; will my perceived reality persistently adapt to explain how my consciousness continues to survive (e.g. will anti-ageing technology somehow extend my life indefinitely?)
c) Assuming a) + ii), will my perceived version of reality continue indefinitely in a realm of multiverses, and my death(s) will only be experienced in the perceived realities of other conscious beings

Unless you believe in Spiritualism. — Michael Ossipoff

Lately, I'm leaning toward Robert Lanza's theory of biocentrism, which as I understand it (not so well just yet) relies on consciousness, wherever or however it exists, to collapse probabilistic wave functions into one's perceived reality. Things don't exist until they are perceived. Matter, space, and time are constructs of the conscious observer.

What about an android that exactly duplicates human behavior? — Michael Ossipoff

Like I said above:

Even if you program complex algorithms for decision-making based on probabilities, in the end, the machine's actions will only be a result of electricity passing through circuits according to rules established by man. There will never be the conscious observer witnessing the 'thought' process, or truly feeling emotions. — CasKev

..

... or having the will and final choice on how to act.

In general, then, "purposefully-responsive" is more useful term than "conscious". — Michael Ossipoff

Something like a mousetrap is simply compelled into movement by events in its physical surroundings. It can't randomly decide to release on a whim.

Where do you draw the line, for consciousness? Mammals? Vertebrates? Animals? Eukaryotic cellular organisms? All cellular organisms (including bacteria)? All biological organisms coded by DNA or RNA (including viruses)? All biological organisms (including prions)? — Michael Ossipoff

I currently draw the line at plants, which as a whole, grow and move according to rules established at the cellular level. I don't see there being a conscious observer witnessing the results of cellular activity. Unlike a mousetrap, the movement and growth is subject to some degree of chaos, there being some degree of probability involved, which would explain that while no two flowers are identical, there exist limits to its ability to move and grow (i.e. a typical rose will never have a span of ten feet, or be able to orient itself to the sun with any sort of speed).

What's the difference between being human and being AI? — TheMadFool

I would say consciousness. As intelligently as you could ever program AI to be, you still have to tell it how to react to stimuli. Even if you program complex algorithms for decision-making based on probabilities, in the end, the machine's actions will only be a result of electricity passing through circuits according to rules established by man. There will never be the conscious observer witnessing the 'thought' process, or truly feeling emotions.

The way carbon bonds to itself (and other elements) allows the millions of unique molecules which no other element has the capacity to form. — Moliere

It still begs the question why there do not exist non-living carbon-based structures that combine to serve a greater function. It appears as though only living things attempt to survive, and all seemingly intelligent behavior or structure exists only in living things, or things created by living things.

Creation is fundamentally quantum (mind/memory) evolution within a holographic paradigm. — Rich

Can you restate this in simpler terms, perhaps using an analogy?

I just can't believe that cells made of particles somehow just randomly created entire biological systems. Particles of metal don't randomly organize themselves into rockets. Intelligent intervention is needed to shape inanimate or non-thinking materials into purposeful forms.

@Rich But getting back to the issue of intelligent design, how could atoms and molecules have such complex behavior patterns in the absence of any sort of underlying physical structure? That's like electricity in a computer just doing its own thing without someone arranging all of the bits, and telling them how to behave.

To me, invoking 'laws of nature' like @TheMadFool has done equates to subatomic particles behaving in certain ways just because. Panpsychism, as I understand it, says that everything has a mind of sorts.

I tend to think that consciousness and self-awareness can only exist in our physical world when there is a brain to produce/hold it.

Quarks, atoms, molecules and such appear to be the 'simplest' forms of matter, and seem to have a life of their own, despite not having physical structures that would allow them to think. For them to be able to combine into living systems, there would have to be some sort of guidance involved (i.e. the 'laws of nature' would have to be programmed into them, so that that they consistently behave according to a set of rules). Kind of like how electricity has certain reliable properties, and can be used to bring a computer to 'life' by constructing the circuitry just so. I can't see how there could be consciousness or self-awareness at this level. (e.g. Man, being a quark is really hard work!).

My guess is that essentially inanimate objects like rocks have no consciousness - they are just assemblages of particles that are affected by surrounding forces.

At the next level you have things like cells, that move with purpose, can reproduce, and can organize themselves to form part of a greater system. With no brain, there is likely no consciousness or sense of self.

Let's move on to plants. They can slowly respond to changes in stimuli (e.g. a flower will open during day, and close up at night, according to the amount of sunlight), but seem to be no more than a collection of different cell types, each with their own function. They have cellular systems that will act and react in order to survive and reproduce, but it's hard to imagine them feeling pain, or having awareness of existence.

Now insects. Here, while there is no ability for things like language and self-reflection, I am guessing there is an ability to feel pain, and to know that it sucks (even though they can't always express it in ways obvious to humans). I tend to imagine this level of brain kind of like the empty, wordless state humans can achieve through meditation - awareness of being alive, able to observe stimuli, and a sense of what's good and bad in terms of survival and avoidance of suffering.

This is getting to be a bit long, so I'll just write that between insects and humans, I would say there is a spectrum with increasing levels of consciousness and self-awareness.

laws of nature — TheMadFool

At the risk of sounding like @Rich ( ;) ), how could these 'laws of nature' simply arise? It still makes no sense that quarks, atoms, molecules, et cetera, somehow behave in ways that allow complex living conscious entities to form.

Also, despite these mass extinctions that have occurred, I think one could easily argue there has been an upward trend in the intelligence level and creative capability of living organisms.

There's no law that forbids a pig sprouting wings and taking flight. — TheMadFool

Yes, but why would an organism sprout wings in the first place, pig or otherwise? How would they get from randomly produced stubs to fully functioning wings without the end goal in mind? Not to mention on an organism that wings will work on, with the wings suitably positioned for flight? (and remember, this all being done by quarks, atoms, molecules, that somehow know precisely how to do this)

No one chooses mental illness. What would be the aim?

The trouble with depression is that people lack the motivation or will to do the things needed to get better. The lucky ones have a good support system, or are able to use medication to get them back to a point where they are able to do the work to get better.

Perhaps our creation was of a quantum nature, where a number of possibilities existed, which started being 'collapsed' by this awakening creative conscious observer, starting with a big bang, and beginning to establish the macro rules like gravity. Sentient life could have formed as an extension of this consciousness, and started co-creating our perceived reality at the micro level.