Sure, and I think that's all both of us are doing, when it comes to a possible future AGI/ASI, 'a little speculation.' I am always a little reluctant to apply the word 'rationalise' to any aspect of theism.
I fully agree with your choice of the words 'fantasize.' I don't mind fantasy, I love sci-fantasy. I think you are also a fan. I just don't think that collecting such fables in old books and calling the content 'the word, the truth and the light,' is anyway to build, maintain and progress a planetary population of 'rational' humanity. I know you hold similar views so I will stop rambling on about rationality Vs theism.

I can't say. 1) I can't compare mechanical with organic computing because they are totally different and 2) I just came to know about the second type, so I don't know even the basics in this field.
In any way, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, that a human-like consciousness --and mind, in general-- can be attached to either of them. — Alkis Piskas

I hope you have become a little more intrigued, regarding 'The biological computer.'
I think it's worth trying to keep up with developments in quantum and biological computing.
I think these are gong to change the human experience very significantly indeed.

I'm afraid they would have slept away whithin a couple of minutes!
(Even if I am a good speaker and teacher.) — Alkis Piskas

We will never know!
A future ASI might be able to ............. nah! perhaps my ASI speculations need to take a break! :halo:

rationality Vs theism. — universeness

I.e. sound defeasible reasoning vs woo-of-the-gaps fairytales. :wink:

Absafragginlootly
I posted a debate recently between Matt Dillahunty and an Eastern orthodox who used the ID 'Posh.'
It was titled 'Is Christianity rational?'
An interesting debate that clearly demonstrates the contention of the word 'rational,' between theists and atheists:


Definitely worth watching, if you have a spare 2.5 hours!

Well, hello again Mr Gaspar! I hope any exchange between us, can be more fruitful than it has been in the past. — universeness

-I am sure it was not my fault = ).

The part I have underlined, confirms for me, that after the big bang, we moved from a situation of disorder, everywhere in the universe, and due to the homogeneous nature of the universe at that scale, that disorder, 'evolved' into the 'relative' 'order' of the galaxy clusters we observe today. — universeness

In your opinion, do you think disorder favors high entropy? Does High complexity implies high entropy?

Thanks, but I'll pass. Shooting fish in a barrel like that ain't fun anymore. :halo:

I hope you have become a little more intrigued, regarding 'The biological computer.' — universeness

I have.

I think it's worth trying to keep up with developments in quantum and biological computing. — universeness

I'll do my best. But I can't promise anything! :grin:

I think these are gong to change the human experience very significantly indeed. — universeness

AI has already changed the human experience. But this has been done gradually. As the developments in other scientific/technological fields have. Only that the progress in all these developments is achived geometricly, i.e. faster and faster. But who knows, maybe some spectacular, revolutionary change awaits us in the future.
All this is fine. However, I would like more to see a progress in the human sciences too. And with them, the human condition. Which, unfortunately, I think deteriorates instead of improving. And this is sad.

perhaps my ASI speculations need to take a break! — universeness

I consider this a healthy thinking! :smile:

In your opinion, do you think disorder favors high entropy? Does High complexity implies high entropy? — Nickolasgaspar

Such questions have to be posed very carefully, to achieve crystal clarity regarding what you are asking.
'Favours' for example, is a poor term to include in your question, as it suggests some kind of preference/intent on the part of 'disorder.' I accept that 'disorder' and 'order' are subjective terms and are human notion's.

From wiki, we have:
Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty.

So, I perceive entropy in rather simplistic terms. I perceive the 'start of this universe,' as the beginning of it's 'lifetime,' and as 'proper time' 'ticks,' the universe (via entropy) moves towards it's end. Same for a human, from the instant of conception, it moves towards its end. Same for any other object in the universe, such as a photon or a quark.
Meantime, within any reference frame you choose, large variety will naturally combine in every way it possibly can. In my opinion, this is how humans define disorder into order. Universal entropy WILL however, eventually cause any local order to eventually disassemble, back to the fundamentals that combined to form it (disorder). That's my 'lay persons,' perception of universal entropy and its association with disorder and order. Lay person, as I have only 1st year University physics + some completed on-line courses and my own further readings in physics and cosmology.

I see no association between high entropy and how complex a system is. It would not matter if a complex system was human made or naturally created. Entropy will cause it to deteriorated over time.
From the instant ANYTHING comes into existence, it will start to lose energy under the second law of thermodynamics. The only way to compensate is to add new energy to the system.
The universe is a closed system, no new energy is input. Energy can only be transformed WITHIN the universe. More energy can be added to a local system, but entropy ensures it will deteriorate/dissipate over time.

Thanks, but I'll pass. Shooting fish in a barrel like that ain't fun anymore. — 180 Proof

I understand, BUT, as long as they try to spread their BS, they need to be combated, otherwise, their influence grows. Often, evil grows because good people do nothing to stop it.
I am absolutely NOT suggesting you do nothing to combat theistic or theosophistic dogma. I just mean, such can never just be ignored, in the forlorn hope it will just 'go away' or become impotent, 'naturally.'
I agree, that for folks like yourself, IT IS like shooting fish in a barrel, but most folks don't have your wide knowledge of rational philosophy. I watch such debates, as I want to keep up with any new 'tactics' the creationists are trying to employ, to sell their wares.
If seriously nefarious characters like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ben Shapiro and so many others are not held in check, then we will end up with more and more vile groups such as scientology.

All this is fine. However, I would like more to see a progress in the human sciences too. — Alkis Piskas

perhaps my ASI speculations need to take a break!
— universeness
I consider this a healthy thinking! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

It would still be interesting to push you a little more and ask for more detail about how emerging tech 'affects' your dualism. If science EVER demonstrates that when a system is endowed with certain properties, it will become 'conscious' as we understand the concept. If that does happen, would that end your association with dualism?

It would still be interesting to push you a little more and ask for more detail about how emerging tech 'affects' your dualism. — universeness

What do you mean by "my dualism"? When did you hear me talking about such a thing? :smile:
Also, what do you mean by "dualism" regarfding the current context of the discussion (AI, ASI, etc.)?

If science EVER demonstrates that when a system is endowed with certain properties, it will become 'conscious' as we understand the concept. — universeness

Here too, I would like to know how do you understand the concept so that I can answer based on that. E.g. Science in general uses the term consciousness as a feature of the body. Neurobiolgy talks about the mind, and, lately, from what I have read, it starts to differentiate it from the brain. And so on.

:up:

What do you mean by "my dualism"? When did you hear me talking about such a thing? :smile:
Also, what do you mean by "dualism" regarfding the current context of the discussion (AI, ASI, etc.)? — Alkis Piskas

I am surprised you ask me to explain this Alkis. From the start of our exchanges on TPF, you have suggested that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain.
That is a dualist position. Have I misinterpreted your viewpoints from the start????
This relates to ASI as if human consciousness is not located 100% in the human brain then why would the proposed consciousness of a future ASI be any different?

Here too, I would like to know how do you understand the concept so that I can answer based on that. — Alkis Piskas

The only answer I can offer is that human consciousness is a combinatorial effect of everything the human brain IS and DOES.

E.g. Science in general uses the term consciousness as a feature of the body. — Alkis Piskas

What source are you quoting here? The source of consciousness is cited by the vast majority of neuroscientists as the brain, not the body.

Neurobiolgy talks about the mind, and, lately, from what I have read, it starts to differentiate it from the brain. And so on. — Alkis Piskas

From Wiki:
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence. However, the lack of definitions has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debates by philosophers, theologians, linguists, and scientists. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.
Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.
The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.
Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain.

I have found no compelling arguments that and aspect of 'mind' has an existence 'outside' of the brain.
I am not a panpsychist or a dualist but I thought you did assign a significant credence level to those positions.

From the start of our exchanges on TPF, you have suggested that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain. — universeness

That's true. Ah, so that's why you refer to "dualism" and "dualistic" ... Well, I never use this term --or any other "ism" for that matter-- to describe my views. I don't like labels. And I don't follow any theory.
For the simple reason that if I adopt the term "dualism" --or any other "ism"-- I will have to accept other facets of it, with which I don't agree. I lke Descartes's principle but I find his theory obsolete, in general. So, I'm not a "dualist" or "Descartian" (Cartesian) and I don't have "dualistic" views. See what I mean?

Have I misinterpreted your viewpoints from the start? — universeness

Certainly not. I was very clear, and youself you said I am a WYSIWYG kind of person.
If there's some misundestanding, it is due to the use of terminology. See now why I dislike and avoid "isms"? So, one more time, I am not a "dualist", I don't have "dualistic" views and I'm not known for my "dualism". Because then I could say that you are a "monist", you have "monistic" views and you are known for your "monism". Which I think is silly, isn't it?

if human consciousness is not located 100% in the human brain then why would the proposed consciousness of a future ASI be any different? — universeness

I don't know about the proposed consciousness of a future ASI ...
I could do a research and study the subject, but I prefer not. I trust you and I leave this subject entirely in you hands! :smile:

human consciousness is a combinatorial effect of everything the human brain IS and DOES. — universeness

OK. But, assuming that an individual is identified with his brain, i.e. he is his brain --which is quite a conflicting and paradoxical idea-- can't this be applied also to an individual's personality, behaviour, etc.?

The source of consciousness is cited by the vast majority of neuroscientists as the brain, not the body. — universeness

Here's a good reference:
A Neuroscientist Explains The Difference Between The Mind & Brain
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/difference-between-mind-and-brain-neuroscientist
(I'm sure that you can find a lot of them, if you are interested in the subject.)

Re Wiki — universeness

Yes, I know. That is why I asked you how do you understand the concept of "consciousness", i.e. what does it mean to you.

I have found no compelling arguments that and aspect of 'mind' has an existence 'outside' of the brain. — universeness

I can undestand this. And I respect your views on the subject, independently of whether they are consistent with the overwhelming majority of the scientific and philosophical views or not.

I thought you did assign a significant credence level to those positions. — universeness

If you mean the above mentioned overwhelming majority, then no. There's also a big minority --religious and philosophical-- who think differently and believe other things regarding consciousness and the mind. And, don't forget --unfortunately, we always do!-- that we are talking within the frame of the Western world. But there's also Eastern world --that we usually forget-- in which the overwhelming majority thinks differently and believes other things regarding consciousness and the mind.

Indeed, if we place the the two "groups" on the plates of a weighing scale, I don't know to which side the scale will tip. :smile:

So, I'm not a "dualist" or "Descartian" (Cartesian) and I don't have "dualistic" views. See what I mean? — Alkis Piskas

Well, I accept your refusal, to be labelled a dualist. BUT, if you believe that human consciousness is partly due to the workings of the human brain and some second external source, then my own reason would label such a notion 'dualistic.'

Certainly not. I was very clear, and youself you said I am a WYSIWYG kind of person.
If there's some misundestanding, it is due to the use of terminology. See now why I dislike and avoid "isms"? So, one more time, I am not a "dualist", I don't have "dualistic" views and I'm not known for my "dualism". — Alkis Piskas

I accept that you are in earnest. If you prefer me to state that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain, as opposed to calling you a duellist then, so let it be written.

Because then I could say that you are a "monist", you have "monistic" views and you are known for your "monism". Which I think is silly, isn't it? — Alkis Piskas

I AM a monist when it comes to human conscience but as an atheist monism has no relevance to me when it comes to theism. I have no aversion to folks applying the term to me as long as they get the context correct and if they don't then I will correct them, rather than completely dismiss the label as it does accurately describe my opinion of the source of human consciousness.

I don't know about the proposed consciousness of a future ASI ...
I could do a research and study the subject, but I prefer not. I trust you and I leave this subject entirely in you hands! — Alkis Piskas

:grin: Well, thankfully, it's in the hands of much more capable expertise than mine. But I will keep up with developments in the area, as best as I can.

OK. But, assuming that an individual is identified with his brain, i.e. he is his brain --which is quite a conflicting and paradoxical idea-- can't this be applied also to an individual's personality, behaviour, etc.? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, imo.

Here's a good reference:
A Neuroscientist Explains The Difference Between The Mind & Brain
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/difference-between-mind-and-brain-neuroscientist
(I'm sure that you can find a lot of them, if you are interested in the subject.) — Alkis Piskas

Dr Leaf, does not suggest that her separation of mind and brain means that 'mind' is not located within the brain. She types:
The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. The mind also changes the brain. People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. Yes, there would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions.

I would of-course ask her exactly where she thinks the 'mind' is located as she does not discuss this.
I clicked of some of the links offered in the her article you cited but none of them offered her opinion of exactly where she thinks 'mind' is located? Do you have any quotes from her that indicates her clear determination, regarding my location question?

Yes, I know. That is why I asked you how do you understand the concept of "consciousness", i.e. what does it mean to you. — Alkis Piskas

I have answered this many times. My high credence level goes to proposal that human 'consciousness' and all it's sub-properties, are due to human brain activity. Human emotions/instincts/intuition/imagination etc result from brain activity, and the brain, is the sole source of all such phenomena, IMHO!

If you mean the above mentioned overwhelming majority, then no. There's also a big minority --religious and philosophical-- who think differently and believe other things regarding consciousness and the mind. And, don't forget --unfortunately, we always do!-- that we are talking within the frame of the Western world. But there's also Eastern world --that we usually forget-- in which the overwhelming majority thinks differently and believes other things regarding consciousness and the mind.

Indeed, if we place the the two "groups" on the plates of a weighing scale, I don't know to which side the scale will tip. — Alkis Piskas

Very reasonable Alkis. I don't mean to suggest that my opinion on the source of human consciousness, is completely ossified. I would say it would, 'shock me to my core,' if my opinions on the topic were PROVEN to be completely wrong, but if I was proved wrong, then I would personally, be forced to consider adopting the dualist label.

If you prefer me to state that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain — universeness

I had never maintained that consciousness is not 100% contained in the human brain. That would mean that is is in part physical and in part non-physical. How could I believe that, if I have said so many times that it's nature is non-physical and that even mind is separate from the brain?
(Yet, there is another kind of "consciousness", that of which Science talks about when they refer mainly to the senses. The philosophical literarure --and hopefully all in here-- does not mean and talk about that kind of "consiousness".)

Dr Leaf, does not suggest that her separation of mind and brain means that 'mind' is not located within the brain. She types:
The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. — universeness

Thnk you for reading the article (if you had not read it before.)
I am located in I use my car but I am separate from it. I am not my car.
I have alread talked about the cooperation of the mind with the brain. Consciousness too needs the brain so that perception of the external environment takes place. In short, we can say that the brain is the connection of the mind/consciousness to the physical world.

The mind also changes the brain. — universeness

I wouldn't say that. The brain is an autonomous system based on a stimulous-response mechanism. It works by receiving and sending signals. The mind cannot send such signals. It can only receive and interpret signals. This is how e.g. I recognize a tree --i.e. undestand that what I see is a tree-- when I look at it.

People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. — universeness

Fortunately so! :grin:

experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness

Certainly. Experience can occur and be obtained independently of the brain. E.g. the experience of emotion, which comes from thought (memory etc.)

I would of-course ask her exactly where she thinks the 'mind' is located as she does not discuss this. — universeness

And she does well. No one can talk about mind's "location", since location refers to physical things and the mind isn't one. (But I cannot talk on her behalf. Better ask herself to be sure! :grin:)

Do you have any quotes from her that indicates her clear determination, regarding my location question? — universeness

I don't. It's just an article I have picked up. I also read it for the first time. I fact, not the whole of it. You have much more patience and eagernes in learning new things than myself. I can say even remarkable, in my standards! I take off my hat to you on this! :clap:
And, in the process, I learn myself a lot of things from you! :smile:

My high credence level goes to proposal that human 'consciousness' and all it's sub-properties, are due to human brain activity. Human emotions/instincts/intuition/imagination etc result from brain activity, and the brain, is the sole source of all such phenomena, IMHO! — universeness

Thanks. This is what I wanted to know. I'm sure you have talked about all this many times in this place and elsewhere, but not with me. (At least, I don't remember so. Quite possible. My memory often betrays me.)

I don't mean to suggest that my opinion on the source of human consciousness, is completely ossified — universeness

I know.

I would say it would, 'shock me to my core,' if my opinions on the topic were PROVEN to be completely wrong — universeness

IMO, you ate not wrong. It is that you look the subject from a different angle and use different means --or tools, if you want-- to reach knowledge and truth . From what I have come to know from your posts and our exchanges, you are a Science-oriented person, and by consequence, you are interested and use Science's methods and path, in general. I have said already that 80% of the members --with whom I have "talked" and/or read their topics-- are Science-oriented. It's very rare that I here personal experiences. Personal experience is ignored in Science, if not frowned upon, as far as truth and reality is concerened. Yet, Science forgets that an individual's reality is not formed based on facts and logic, but also from personal experience. I use the word "experiencing", which is a dynamic process, to differentiate it from "eperience", which is a static concept.
So, this is where Philosophy should come in, to explain what science can't. Unfortunately, from what I see, Philosophy, not only in this place but elsewhere too, instead of using Science as part of its amunition in its quest for knowledge and truth, it is devoured by it!
(Note: I use "Science" with capital "S" to mean "conventional" science, in the Western world. And I use "Philosophy" with capital "P" to mean "modern" philosphy, also in the Western world.)

I would personally, be forced to consider adopting the dualist label. — universeness

I would not accept that! :grin:

I had never maintained that consciousness is not 100% contained in the human brain. — Alkis Piskas

Ok, I now understand that your 'significant separation' is with what you are calling 'the human mind' and 'the human brain/consciousness.' My 'quick' interpretation of Dr Leaf's article (I say quick as my interpretation is not based on a deep reading and pondering of her works, I had not heard of her before your link.) lead me to notice that her main separation, was more between mind and brain, rather than mind and consciousness. She types:
For many people, the mind and brain are interchangeable. They use one word or the other to talk about the same thing: the organ in our skull that we use to think.
However, the mind and brain are actually two very different, but interconnected, entities. As a neuroscientist, this reality is the foundation of my life's research and work: The mind works through the brain but is separate from the brain.

She does not mention human consciousness in this opening statement, so does she consider human mind and consciousness, synonymous?

If you follow her sub-links you get a clearer picture of her proposals.
I tried to get more details on the words I underlined above. She typed:
The mind is energy, and it generates energy through thinking, feeling, and choosing.
I followed the link and read:

Bottom line.
What we're doing with our minds, our words, our attitudes, and our beliefs affects the people around us. Have you ever had anyone tell you there's a black cloud hanging over you and it's affecting them? Or that you're creating a toxic work environment by letting your stress affect everyone in the office? There's real energy being emitted from your thoughts and affecting others.

So ok, she seems to be suggesting 'transmitted' aspects of thoughts from your mind, being picked up by other people around you as 'energy packets.' BUT even if this were true, I still don't see how this confirms a 'separation from the brain?'

If you follow her sub-link in this sentence:
Suddenly, you find yourself almost taking a step back, and you feel disturbed. It's almost as if the person is throwing something at you. What you're experiencing is the toxic energy from that person's thoughts—and it's real.

I mean, crystal energy healing! Really Dr Leaf!!!!

and this sentence:
Mental energy sucks others in. Think of hanging out with someone who's constantly depressed or negative and how you feel around them. Fear breeds fear. The fearful mind generates fearful probabilities. The depressed mind generates depressing possibilities. But the same can be said for the positive.

She links to the works of other professionals/quack spiritual healer cons, who work in the field of human mental health.
I think this is her main interest. She works in the field of human mental health and (perhaps ways to generate income streams for herself). I am now suspicious that she is just trying to develop a methodology to help people tackle mental health issues, and make money for herself, rather than contribute to the main debate around 'the hard problem of human consciousness.'

Just a small issue Alkis. Some of the quotes you used in your last post look like they are MY words rather than Dr Leaf's words. I include this sentence in my response, to correct that.

And, in the process, I learn myself a lot of things from you! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

I am learning stuff from you too Alkis, Your treatment of the human 'mind' issue as opposed to the 'human consciousness' issue is interesting. Unlike Dr Leaf and yourself, I cannot see any evidence for treating human mind and human consciousness as anything other than synonymous.
What would your absolute BEST bit of evidence be, that they are not synonymous?

my interpretation is not based on a deep reading and pondering of her works, I had not heard of her before your link. — universeness

I had not heard of her before either nor have I read the whole article myself. It was just an example I brought up --it does not represent me or my views-- to show that there are different approaches on the subject of "mind vs brain" today. That's why I said that you can find more of them if you like.

Besides, there are much more important works about the nonlocality of the mind and consciousness. For instance, Menas Kafatos' (of Greek origin too, who I'm sure you know) "The Nonlocal Universe" and "The Conscious Universe", in which he talks about quantum phenomena, a subject I know you like a lot. Another very interesting person --with a PhD in both Philosophy and Computer Engineering, whom I'm also sure you know-- always within the context of consciousness and quantum Physics is Bernardo Kastrup. I know a little about the work of either of them. I came to know about them during my research on Univeral Consciousness a few year ago. (Their works are still in my long "waiting" list of subjects for a further exploration!)

She does not mention human consciousness in this opening statement, so does she consider human mind and consciousness, synonymous? — universeness

I really don't know.

If you follow her sub-links you get a clearer picture of her proposals. — universeness

Maybe. But I have other priorities for exploration rearding the subject, as I mentioned above.
Again, I don't think you must stick to that reference. There are more important ones, which also involve quantum Physics, a subject you like.

***

BTW, with all that talk --mainly from you-- about quantum Physics, I'm planning to relive my knowledge which I have left behind some 30 years or so!
BTW #2, yesterday, I came across a very interesting view regarding "quantum reality" --from a person with whom we exchange views in another medium. It is he who brought up the subject, not me. Interesting coincidence!

***

Some of the quotes you used in your last post look like they are MY words rather than Dr Leaf's words. — universeness

I'm not aware of this, but I consider it probable. Sorry if I look I'm ignoring your points. But to be honest, and please do not be offended, I sometimes I browse through and even I skip long passages on subjects that I have not good knowledge of, line Physics, as I have mentioned. And this does not refer specifically to you .
Anyway, what are they?

[Re mind and consciousness]What would your absolute BEST bit of evidence be, that they are not synonymous? — universeness

[/quote]
If you refer to the article, again, I really can't say. I mean, it would be unwise from my part if I did.
As for my personal views on the subject. Mind and consciousness are two totally different kind of things. But this subject is a topic of itself! :smile:

You are merely trying to suggest a scenario which YOU think CURRENT automated systems could not deal with. I will leave such issues to the experts in the field. — universeness

I imagine what was once a restaurant will become more like a dorm cafeteria. You just come in and eat what you will of what they’re serving that day. No more wait service. Most of the automation of the place will be like a factory, with machines doing continuous tasks with little more intelligence than today’s toasters. There needs to be an AI presence somewhere, but it will likely be offsite, and using specialized drones for non-repetitive tasks like maintenance of the machinery and the control of the rats.

Yes but bodily autonomy may not be an issue in the future if the whole process is done outside of the body, as I am sure most women would prefer that, to the bodily trauma they currently have to go through.

This goes against the morals of a huge percentage of voters. I mean, contraception is considered a sin by many, and forced sterilizations are not going to be popular with the voters. It also renders the species completely dependent on the baby farms. It hits one’s Nazi eugenics buttons where only ‘better’ people can breed, and only qualified people can raise children, not necessarily their own. Yea, the voters will love that.
That said, I sort of support this sort of breeding control, but only in a global culture. In our current system, any group that implements it will likely be out-populated by groups that don’t, and will thus be bred out.

No abortion as such would be needed just a case of completing a process or stopping it. I imagine, a whole new set of arguments would ensue.

There are those that consider it murder to not bring to term a female egg, whether via in vitro fertilization or via test-tube procedures like you suggest.

How about a future where a man can be injected with a compound which makes him produce the equivalent of a female egg. This could then be removed and fertilised with sperm, from his male partner.

Sounds like a possibility, but it would be probably easier to just combine the DNA of both into a waiting egg from which the female DNA has been removed. Remember that the two women also want to do this and might need one of their gene sets placed into something like a sperm cell. Also remember that the state controls reproduction and might decide that you don’t get to raise your own kids, or raise kids at all, even if you do breed some, so whether the genes of the kids you raise are yours or not might not be something you get to have if we’re implementing this test-tube world.

:lol: I would love to see the theist's react to that one.

Most theists would probably embrace all that. I was one once and wasn’t taught the sort of exclusion that you might get from the more conservative church authorities. There are churches based on love and inclusion instead of the opposite.

Those on the bottom of the social status scale don’t seem to mind their position there, or the social disdain that comes with it.
— noAxioms
You know this for certain? How many have you personally asked?

It isn’t the sort of question that ones comes out and asks, but my son sort of dated somebody from such a family, so I did at some point find myself in their home. The girl’s father certainly put out an air of not minding what I (or my son) thought of his social status.

Do the animals in a zoo have free travel? freedom of speech and protest? a democratic vote?

I don’t think the humans will have complete free travel. Sure, it’s a big zoo, but there’s parts of any zoo from which the tennants are kept out. Yes, the zoo animals can say what they want. No it’s not a democratic system, but I don’t think voters would yield their responsibility completely away to the point of it being a zoo. Who knows. Maybe they would. A zoo is pretty posh compared to the wild, especially when the ‘wild’ is everywhere not in this artificial enclosure optimized for humans. Being outside that would probably require life support.

Free education? A career path of their choice with an ability to change their chosen life path anytime they wish?

Yes, those are all zoo amnesties. But you don’t get to choose to be a zookeeper. An assistant one perhaps.
Career path is pretty sketchy. I mean, everybody can choose to be an astronaut today but very few actually get to go into space. You cannot be an accountant so easily if there’s no money. You probably can be a plumber, but then given ‘toy’ projects, with the projects that matter going to the automated systems actually responsible for the system’s continuing functionality. Maybe some would want to be explorers of ‘outside’ the zoo, meaning they get to wear those life-support outfits and be taken on controlled expeditions to areas outside kind of like class trips in school.
What if I want to do something truly dangerous like be a cave spelunker? Would the zookeepers tolerate a certain level of fatalities from one’s chosen pursuits? As a zookeeper, I would find myself in a position to prevent the occupants from getting killed as much as is reasonable. Where is reasonable?

If they do, then I would love to live in such a world zoo.

So the argument goes. How big you think it should be? Less than a 1-10 million people on Earth? That seems plenty for a breeding population, and is well within the limits of renewable resources without resorting to importing something as dangerous as energy from off-planet. It would need to be spread out over several interesting places. I can’t get enough of mountains, especially since I was raised in a place completely lacking in them.

How is population of a given region controlled?
— noAxioms
Via population education, a better means of production, distribution and exchange, perhaps we can make the deserts bloom, build environmental friendly, cities under the water, and we also have the potentially unlimited living space, that might eventually result from space exploration and development. — universeness

Most of that answer was ‘find more regions’, which didn’t answer the question at all. Better education and whatnot is going on now, and has almost zero effect. No breeding like rabbits is currently considered immoral by many groups. The propaganda isn’t capable of change unless the morals change first.
China had forced controls which, partly due to the cultural pressure of requiring a male heir to each family, resulted in orphanages and morgues full of baby girls. In the end it did sort of help reduce their population, perhaps by shipping many of those orphans off to other countries until they halted that due to the shortage of wives for all those heirs.

Ukraine may well have united with Russia in the same way as countries in the European union united.

They were united with them, and chose to be separate when it wasn’t forced anymore. I don’t think they benefited much at all from the Union days.

What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

A nice sound bite, but mistaken.

As long as what you would consider 'wealthy,' gives such individuals no significant ability, to influence any significant number of individuals

But it does. I have goods worth bartering, and that has influence over those that want those goods that are not otherwise available to everybody.

or can influence the actions of those in authority

It’s not supposed to, but it’s also quite human nature that corruption is likely, at least until you offload that task to the automation just like everything else. Can the automation be corrupted? Is it bound by popular choices? We all want (voted for even) guns so we can kill each other. Should the automated non-corruptible authority deny that because it wouldn’t make anybody’s lives better? Because I assure you, the only reason the USA has guns is due to sanctioned legal corruption.

Yes, I do think long commutes are a waste of resources. — universeness

It was, but not as much ‘cost’ as moving close to my employer. That cost was money, and I suppose that since I had a need, the perfect society would allow me a home near my place of work, but maybe it would be a much smaller home due to the population density there.

I have no idea why you interpreted this as You don’t think long commutes are a waste of resources?

OK, I think I get what you’re saying, but what do you do then with the person who wants to live in a place that happens to be quite distant from his place of work? Some of those jobs cannot be performed remotely (such as one in a lab just to name something). Is this person’s needs to be denied?

The development of an AGI/ASI, has been posited by many, as the technical singularity moment, that will ring the death knell for the whole human species.

Sure, but slowly, not at a specific event like the pushing of a button that let ‘Skynet’ loose. The singularity isn’t like that. By the time we see it, it’s probably been there for quite a while.
I learned a bit about chatGTP lately, and the thing is barely qualified as an AI at all. It really does nothing but regurgitate streams of words that already exist, a sort of pimped-out google search. A true intelligence would be able to come up with new ideas, not just rehashing consensus ones. So fear not, the tech singularity isn’t here yet. You’ll know when all the people like me suddenly lost their jobs. That would signal that the thing actually knows what it is doing.

From that site, we have:
What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?
Artificial superintelligence (ASI) entails having a software-based system with intellectual powers beyond those of humans across a comprehensive range of categories and fields of endeavor. — universeness

Machines have long since done some things better than us. I think the definition needs refinement from this one. Any stupid search engine has faster access to a huge database of answers and can get to them faster. But so far it cannot create new knowledge, and I think that part is critical.

A book contains data, not knowledge. Knowledge is created after you assimilate this data. (Check the term "knowledge".) And it is your mind that process this data, not your brain. The brain can only process stimuli. And stimuli are not data. — Alkis Piskas

I pretty much disagree with every statement here.
As for the distinction between mind and brain, the latter is an organ, a piece of hardware. The former is process that takes place in the latter. I don’t see how hardware that is operating data is not considered to be the processing of data any less than a meat grinder itself is processing meat, and not just the grinding that processes it.

AI can never become self-aware or even just aware. Awareness is an attribute of life (living organisms).

OK, so you seem to be taking the language point of view, a refusal to use a given word to describe an identical process being done by something not on your list of approved categories. This smacks only of religious ignorance. Especially the bit about the suggestion of self-awareness (something that you assert only life can have) existing before abiogenesis (life), which seems to be directly contradicting your own definitions.

As for "Dyson spheres", I don't think so. Artificial black holes would have far more energy density for far less energy expenditure (no planetary orbit-megaengineering). — 180 Proof

Didn’t get this. You want to harness the energy of a black hole? Kind of hard to do that from something from which no energy can escape.
The Dyson sphere thing seems impractical. Nowhere to get the material, to somehow hold it up, and nowhere to dissipate the energy resulting. A lot of work expended to just jettison the waste heat. The ring idea solves a lot of those problems, but it of course doesn’t capture 100% of the starlight.

I imagine you will sleep like an innocent child tonight — universeness

I’ve bred a few innocent children and trust me, they don’t sleep all that well. Imagine how long it took the photographer to get that shot.

I loved assembly code, with all its opcodes and operands and how it accessed and manipulated internal registers, as well as the data bus, the address bus and the control lines. — universeness

I don’t remember assembly code including any details of chip pin details like all those buses and control lines and such.

It could have been worse, you could have been a binary programmer in the days of punch cards or input tape

I did the tape and card bit, but am unaware of binary being input that way. That was mostly done with manual toggle switches. Very tedious, simple, and before my time. There were assemblers by the time I came around, and my punch-card input was typically some version of fortran.

Must have been fun trying to find a code error in a million lines of binary code

I don’t think binary code was every more than a few thousands of bytes. If you can’t bootstrap something more high-level in that amount of space, you’re in the wrong industry.
I still have my Okidata dot-matrix printer. The ink ribbon has doubtlessly gone totally dry by now, but the thing was a workhorse and was totally reliable, unlike the printers today.

A book contains data, not knowledge. Knowledge is created after you assimilate this data. (Check the term "knowledge".)
— Alkis Piskas
I pretty much disagree with every statement here. — "NoAxioms

Who asked you? :grin:
Anyway, if you want to react to what I said, say something useful; a point, an argument, anything. Sometimg that refutes my point. Something that can be discussed.

Just en passant, the body cannot process feelings (emotions). It can only feel their effects and suffer its consequences. The mind is the "place" where feelings are created --i.e they come from-- and processed.

(I just fell on that because you were referred to in a message I received from universeness.) — Alkis Piskas

The light of the light bulb is the result of electricity. Without electricity, there would be no light. Without the light bulb, there would be no light. There must be a body to have both emotional and physical feelings.

Would you accept the free pinky upgrade and become one of the advanced pinky people, or would you stay as one of the current mundane pinky humans? — universeness

:lol: When the dinosaurs walked the earth and I was in high school, I wrote a story about a woman who wanted to die because everyone she cared about was dead. She could not die because she volunteered to have every organ replaced when her own stopped working. To me, that is a kind of hell and I would not choose it.

I was very glad to get my artificial hip. It gave me a new start in life and I hope it will last for the rest of my life. Before I knew more about the artificial hip, I thought how great it would be to be better than nature made me. In reality, nature made us better than artificial parts, unless something goes wrong and we do not develop normally or something has damaged our parts. I was born without a left hip socket and was in a body cast for a year to help nature develop my left hip socket. That hip lasted a little over 40 years before it had to be replaced with an artificial one in. Yes, if I need a new part, I will accept one, but not for something silly and not with the expectation of it not being without problems.

Verse 1:
We are more than just the sum of our parts
Our minds and bodies, intertwined works of art
There's something deeper, something that we can't explain
A quality within us, that we can't contain — universeness

Those are very nice thoughts but also dangerous because they ignore our dark side. They ignore our gun culture and parents buying their sons guns and the sons taking the guns to school and killing people. We must get those silly notions of our divine nature out of our heads and deal with our reality that we can be hateful and hurtful and even killers. We need to understand how that happens and how to prevent it. Only when we understand reality can we make the decisions necessary for good results.

There must be a body to have both emotional and physical feelings. — Athena

Physical, yes.
I'm not sure though what do you mean by "emotional feelings". Emotion is itself a state of feeling.
But a "feeling" can mean different things. When you say "I feel fear" you refer to a mental reaction. When you say "I feel a pain" you refer to a physical reaction. And "I feel guilty", is still another example, referring to conscience.

Mental states can produce changes in the body. E.g. when you are very anxious/stressed, you can feel one or more of various things: adrenaline running in your body, irritability or pain in your stomach, tightness in your chest, increased heart beats, etc. There are also positive emotions which you can "feel", but are very little physical: E.g. When you feel joy a cheerful you feel your body "lighter" and a sense of wellness. The more positive an emotion is, the lighter body feels. And the opposite, the more negativean emotion is, the heavier the body feels.

All these states are produced by the mind. The brain receives automatically signals (stimuli) from these states and sends in its turn signals to different parts of the body (organs, organism) via the nervous system, which in turn react to these signals accorfing to their nature and f\unction. The brain can also get signals from these parts of the body as a feedback. It's a wondrous system! :smile:

Physical, yes.
I'm not sure though what do you mean by "emotional feelings". Emotion is itself a state of feeling.
But a "feeling" can mean different things. When you say "I feel fear" you refer to a mental reaction. When you say "I feel a pain" you refer to a physical reaction. And "I feel guilty", is still another example, referring to conscience.

Mental states can produce changes in the body. E.g. when you are very anxious/stressed, you can feel one or more of various things: adrenaline running in your body, irritability or pain in your stomach, tightness in your chest, increased heart beats, etc. There are also positive emotions which you can "feel", but are very little physical: E.g. When you feel joy a cheerful you feel your body "lighter" and a sense of wellness. The more positive an emotion is, the lighter body feels. And the opposite, the more negativean emotion is, the heavier the body feels.

All these states are produced by the mind. The brain receives automatically signals (stimuli) from these states and sends in its turn signals to different parts of the body (organs, organism) via the nervous system, which in turn react to these signals according to their nature and f\unction. The brain can also get signals from these parts of the body as a feedback. It's a wondrous system! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Well, your last line explains the feedback system. The feelings are in the body. However, more explanation of that may be helpful, since I already replied before reading your last line.

I will argue the body feels and the brain does its best to determine what the feeling is and its cause. :lol: I am a female. I think most of us learn about crazy for a few days of the month. I have days when mentally I am totally miserable and I know I am not being logical. Our bodies are reacting to hormones.
This hormonal control can lead to men and women having relationships that go against their better judgment. The Buddhist talk about us being controlled by our emotions, being like a puppy that is shaken. It is not the brain in control but the feeling body.

I had to use tranquilizers to get through a very hard time in my life, and the tranquilizers did not change my thinking but did change how I felt and the change in my feeling improve my ability to react in a more positive way. Or, years later after doing a lot of daily walking, I noticed I was not as depressed as I had been. Exercise is very important to how feel mentally and physically.

Here is another one. We should not get botox injections that prevent us from smiling, because if we can not smile we can become depressed, or if we force ourselves to smile despite being miserable, we can ease feelings of depression.

The Buddhist talk about us being controlled by our emotions — Athena

I have read a lot of Buddhist material and watched/listened to a lot of talks, from a lot of different sources, in the past, but I don't remember anything about that. In fact, I don't remember even the word "hormobnes" coming i to play. It sounds like what you say is an interpretation of westerners. And not westerners that have been initiated to Buddhism, but who are mixing western with eastern concepts or, better, who are interpreting eastern concepts and principles based on western ones.
My sources where always mainly from Eastern philosophers but also from Western philosophers who were educated and trained in a Buddhist or other Eastern environment, either in the East or the West, and have reached a high level of awareness. The latter is most important because it is one thing to know something in theory and based on concepts, even if these are accompanied with examples of people who have had such experience, and another thing to have that experience yourself, esp. after a lot ot training and exercise.

I deeply believe that if people were based more on personal experience --and learn from that, of course-- and less on concepts and theories, they would be much wiser and nearer to the knowledge they are trying to acquire and the truth they are trying to reach. This is what I call "experiencing". In fact, the essence and nature of some things can be only obtained by experiencing them. Mind and consciousness are among them.

Exercise is very important to how feel mentally and physically. — Athena

Certainly.
ΒΤW, it is befitting here to mention the known saying "a healthy mind in a healthy body". Which, can and is interpreted by people in one or the other direction --as to what affects the other-- but rarily in both, which is my interpretation.

We should not get botox injections that prevent us from smiling, because if we can not smile we can become depressed — Athena

:smile:

BTW, thank you for sharing your personal experiences and I'm sorry to hear that some of them where quite unpleasant ...

Besides, there are much more important works about the nonlocality of the mind and consciousness. For instance, Menas Kafatos' (of Greek origin too, who I'm sure you know) — Alkis Piskas

No, have not heard of him, but I googled him, and read the wiki entry for him. A highly qualified physicist, who has had a very interesting career.

"The Nonlocal Universe" and "The Conscious Universe", in which he talks about quantum phenomena, a subject I know you like a lot. — Alkis Piskas

I have not read either book, but I am interested in any connection science and scientists make between quantum physics and human consciousness. I have read up mostly on the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, in this area.

Another very interesting person --with a PhD in both Philosophy and Computer Engineering, whom I'm also sure you know-- always within the context of consciousness and quantum Physics is Bernardo Kastrup. — Alkis Piskas

I have heard of Kastrup, as he is a very well informed, respected voice, AGAINST the notion that an AI system may become conscious. His main argument seems to be:
"Those who take the hypothesis of conscious AI seriously do so based on an appallingly biased notion of isomorphism—a correspondence of form, or a similarity—between how humans think and AI computers process data. To find that similarity, however, one has to take several steps of abstraction away from concrete reality. After all, if you put an actual human brain and an actual silicon computer on a table before you, there is no correspondence of form or functional similarity between the two at all; much to the contrary. A living brain is based on carbon, burns ATP for energy, metabolizes for function, processes data through neurotransmitter releases, is moist, etc., while a computer is based on silicon, uses a differential in electrical potential for energy, moves electric charges around for function, processes data through opening and closing electrical switches called transistors, is dry, etc. They are utterly different."
All very valid points, but not 'overwhelming,' in their power to convince that 'mecha' based AI consciousness is impossible. He has also said little about the potential of biological computing.
The two scientists you cite here are certainly more credible that Dr Leaf imo but I personally find the work of Demis Hassabis, Nick Bostrom and the Penrose/Hameroff work more interesting.

BTW, with all that talk --mainly from you-- about quantum Physics, I'm planning to relive my knowledge which I have left behind some 30 years or so! — Alkis Piskas

I hope you will find such a sojourn fruitful.

Some of the quotes you used in your last post look like they are MY words rather than Dr Leaf's words.
— universeness
I'm not aware of this, but I consider it probable. Sorry if I look I'm ignoring your points. But to be honest, and please do not be offended, I sometimes I browse through and even I skip long passages on subjects that I have not good knowledge of, line Physics, as I have mentioned. And this does not refer specifically to you .
Anyway, what are they? — Alkis Piskas

No, you have misunderstood my complaint. I am referring to you posting such as:

People choose their actions — universeness

and

experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness

These words are from Dr Leaf, but you quoted them as it they came from me or that I agreed with them.
It was a minor complaint, in other words, I would have preferred, if you had posted something like:
Dr Leaf quote: "experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions." rather than:

experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness

[Re mind and consciousness]What would your absolute BEST bit of evidence be, that they are not synonymous?
— universeness
If you refer to the article, again, I really can't say. I mean, it would be unwise from my part if I did.
As for my personal views on the subject. Mind and consciousness are two totally different kind of things. But this subject is a topic of itself! — Alkis Piskas

No, I was not referring to any article or opinion of anyone else. I was asking, what is YOUR absolute best bit of evidence, that MOST convinces YOU, that the human mind and human consciousness, is NOT the same phenomenon.

I imagine what was once a restaurant will become more like a dorm cafeteria. You just come in and eat what you will of what they’re serving that day. — noAxioms

You are guilty of 'lazy thinking,' Future restaurants are not doomed to offer humans a poor, boring service due to the fact they will be a lot more automated. The problem is your (contrived in my opinion) lack of vision or your continuing dalliance with pessimism.

This goes against the morals of a huge percentage of voters. I mean, contraception is considered a sin by many, and forced sterilizations are not going to be popular with the voters. It also renders the species completely dependent on the baby farms. It hits one’s Nazi eugenics buttons where only ‘better’ people can breed, and only qualified people can raise children, not necessarily their own. Yea, the voters will love that. — noAxioms

:lol: Control that 'crazy horse' you are riding, it's jumping wildly all over the place!. Having the option in the future to create a baby, completely outside of the female body, using donated sperm and eggs from consenting parents, IS NOT against god (catholic god included), as god does not exist. It is NOT a 'baby farm,' any more that the female reproduction system is a 'baby farm.' It has absolutely nothing to do with adding genetic manipulation to either the sperm or the egg nor does my suggestion have any relation to Nazi eugenics! Your tendency to leap towards extreme scare mongering, when I make suggestions about what OPTIONS humans might have in the future, suggests you are very attracted to unwarranted sensationalism!

There are those that consider it murder to not bring to term a female egg, whether via in vitro fertilization or via test-tube procedures like you suggest. — noAxioms

I support bodily autonomy, not irrational anti-abortion groups.

Also remember that the state controls reproduction and might decide that you don’t get to raise your own kids, or raise kids at all, even if you do breed some, so whether the genes of the kids you raise are yours or not might not be something you get to have if we’re implementing this test-tube world. — noAxioms

Which dystopian system are you musing about here? It's certainly not one I would support!

There are churches based on love and inclusion instead of the opposite. — noAxioms

Yeah, sales-folks will say just about anything to get you to enter their tabernacle. Especially when they are losing so many of their 'flock.' As Walter Scott wrote: 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'