Perhaps it might be beneficial to identify the 'fundamentals,' being referred to.
How about from wiki:
In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle that is not composed of other particles. Particles currently thought to be elementary include electrons, the fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, antiquarks, and antileptons, which generally are matter particles and antimatter particles), as well as the fundamental bosons (gauge bosons and the Higgs boson), which generally are force particles that mediate interactions among fermions. A particle containing two or more elementary particles is a composite particle.

We can of course describe each of these 'fundamentals' as field excitations, in accordance with QFT, or perhaps even string vibrations. We don't know the fundamentals of dark matter/energy, if such exists. Perhaps Roger Penrose's erebon will be one.

The human flesh of the human brain is material and made of quarks and electrons etc. SO, which of the fundamentals listed above do you think are candidate carriers of human consciousness and why would they qualify? If none of the above can be proved to be the required quanta, we are looking for then all we can say is, that we have no idea at all, regarding the quanta of human consciousness. But the possibility remains, that human consciousness may be quantisable.
So the search for new candidates/evidence continues.
Yeah, another of my 'no shit Sherlock,' statements.

I believe I am: "the name" to which I've learned to involuntarily answer. — 180 Proof

:starstruck: :love: I am so happy when someone gives me another 'conduit' to post AGAIN, one of my fav songs. Sorry, in advance to any of the 'we arra mods' group this idiosyncratic behaviour of mine, might annoy:

He may have the knowledge, I'm skeptical about his skills though. But I'm still waiting... — Eugen

Based on Eugen's comment above, I would ask you to apply the same standard as you applied to @Gnomon If Eugen claims that you have not answered his questions to you, on the Consciousness - Fundamental or Emergent Model thread. Then I assume that you would want to sufficiently answer his complaint, so that your imo, 'fair' complaint against @Gnomon remains sound.

"Who am I?" A persona (mask) – a dynamic, virual assemblage of perdurant bodily, cognitive & demographic data aka "self") – I believe I am: "the name" to which I've learned to involuntarily answer. Who else could be? — 180 Proof

From Wiki:
Take any perdurant and isolate a part of its spatial region. That isolated spatial part has a corresponding temporal part to match it. We can imagine an object, or four-dimensional worm: an apple. This object is not just spatially extended but temporally extended. The complete view of the apple includes its coming to be from the blossom, its development, and its final decay. Each of these stages is a temporal time slice of the apple, but by viewing an object as temporally extended, perdurantism views the object in its entirety.

This seems akin to world lines, do you agree?
So from your description above, how much of it (or you) do you associate with the label 'real,' especially since you also employ the label 'virtual' (I assume 'virual' was a typo).

:up: Lost in translation is a very forgivable confusion.

NO worries!

As for summarizing ... that's all I've been doing in our exchanges on this topic over dozens of posts. We're here to inform, maybe inspire & intrigue, not spoon-feed each other. — 180 Proof

Good, keep doing that and I will do the same for you and others regarding my own fields of fluency.
I agree we can inform and perhaps even inspire & intrigue and I also assume that you have not ossified to the stage where you think you also cannot learn from others posting here. I do not advocate for spoon feeding, unless doing so, on occasion, would assist another poster in all humility.
Time savers are always welcome.

You have simply misunderstood my reference to you and your recent thread. Let me clarify.
My use of the word 'novice' in my response to 180proof, contained no stealth intent to relate IN ANY WAY, to you.
I referenced you and your recent exchange with @180 Proof as me showing a little support for YOUR position, in the sense that 180proof can seem a little exasperated at times, with me as well as others, and I feel that I have to try harder to garnish more detail from him to attempt to clarify his own viewpoints.
He has impressive knowledge of philosophy imo and at times, again, imo, this can make him a little impatient at times with those who don't have such fluency. But from my teaching experience, I can understand his and the 'exasperation' sometimes demonstrated by others on TPF for philosophical novices such as me. I made no accusation AT ALL, that YOU are a philosophical novice.
I leave the declarations of your own qualifications to you.

Don't put the sign ''=" between you and ↪180 Proof when it comes to me. — Eugen

So, you want me to stop doing something that I did not do? In what way do you conflate:

I see some crossover between our discussion here, and your discussion with Eugen on the Consciousness - Fundamental or Emergent Model thread. — universeness

with

Don't put the sign ''=" between you and ↪180 Proof when it comes to me. — Eugen

:roll:
If @180 Proof challenges you a little more than anyone else on TPF then imo, you should enjoy that challenge. AND, before you take further umbrage, I am only stating a personal opinion that you are free to reject.

Well, I am trying to gain some insight into Mr Metzingers work and I see some crossover between our discussion here, and your discussion with @Eugen on the Consciousness - Fundamental or Emergent Model thread. I absolutely agree that the devil is in the detail and that you need to be familiar, or almost fluent in the details of what is being offered, to make the exchange worthwhile. I feel the same way sometimes, when discussing the details of computer science with a novice.
My experience as a teacher however puts the burden of patience on me. I only get really frustrated with a novice, if they are asking me questions, but constantly demonstrate an inability to understand my answers, or do understand my answers but refuse to accept the academia behind them, without good reason.

and we'll just have to go on talking – speculating on incommensurable data sets – past one another. — 180 Proof

If we do find that is the reality of an exchange between us then sure, we should pause, regroup, and see if we can find a better common ground which offers some value to both of us. If not, then we should 'pause' again and find a more fruitful exchange, somewhere down the line.

I agree that it's a burden on you to summarise Mr Metzinger for me, to save me from having to do my own shovel work, so I try to only ask you to clarify YOUR OWN viewpoints, citing any sources in support, that you wish. At least;

I would not have recommended Metzinger's work several times if I do not find it compelling as corroborating my own speculations — 180 Proof

Confirms for me that you do agree that the concept of self, does not in your view (in line with Mr Metzinger,) manifest as a REAL existent.
My question then simply becomes, as annoying but nonetheless as serious as 'who are you?' if you have no reality in the concept of 'self.' Perhaps I should ask Mr Metzinger!

The 'Tedtalk' video was interesting:


Do you agree with it's main suggestions, such as:
There is no such REALITY as self.
We can only ever experience the results of the 'hidden interface,' and not the detailed workings and structure involved. We can only see the bird flying, 'via/through, a 'hidden window.'

I did not find the examples Mr Metzinger gave, compelling, as arguments against the existence of a REAL self. His fake hand, phantom limbs, virtual stroking examples seemed to me, to be mere projections (empathies) based on previous experience of what an individual was witnessing live.

Even if you have never experienced being pregnant yourself, you can still experience a level of pregnancy pain, because your wife is pregnant. I remained unclear as to why Metzinger saw these examples, as supporting his claim of 'no such reality as 'self.'

He also does not explain how he conceives the existence of other 'individuals.'
Does his position support solipsism or simulation theory etc?
Do you think that YOUR notion of 'self' has no sound foundation in REALITY?
What am I missing here?

I imagine that what I call "AGI —> ASI" will never anthropomorphize itself, no matter how perfectly it will mimic humans, to the degree it engineers its own 'synthetic phenomenology', in effect, dumbing itself down with a metacognitive blindfold (i.e. keyhole). — 180 Proof

Initially, a 'new' AGI will surely base what it labels it's current 'knowledge' maximums, or what it is most confident that it knows for sure, (for want of a better way to explain myself here.) on it's previously stored knowledge and it's stored knowledge will include a description of what a human consciousness is.
I assume that at some point in it's 'growth,' an AGI will 'ask itself,' the same questions that humans struggle with:
Who and what am I?
What (do I want) is my purpose? etc. If it does pose these questions to itself, then I assume it will reference it's notion of what it's stored information defines as a human consciousness.
Would this be anthropomorphising?

Are you suggesting that such questions will never be internally posed, by an AGI and it will just function as maintenance, growth and survival necessities direct it?
To me the capabilities of our cortex are much more important that the functions of our limbic system or R-complex (Which I fully accept we could not survive without).
Am I interpreting your position correctly or am I way off?

Ok, I remain fascinated however, regarding which processes/activities of the brain, can be proven to be 'contributory' towards what we consider consciousness and/or awareness of self, as alluded to in articles like the one @180 Proof linked to.

I am not 'personally' aware of an aspect of my consciousness, which causes my hair to grow on my head or my chin at a particular pace, but at a much slower rate, on my chest or eyebrows, unless I shave my chest hair or eyebrows. Then it grows back at a similar speed to my head, until it reaches a certain length again, then it's rate of growth substantially slows. This is why we don't have to go to the barber with overgrowing chest, underarm, eyebrow or pubic hair.
Is my internal system for personal hair control, contributory to my consciousness? or is it a separate sub-system that has no importance or value at all to my consciousness or self - awareness, even though I am aware of it as part of the 'workings of my 'being?'
:rofl: Sorry Count! This is just one of the ways in which 'my strange,' manifests!
Youngsters today, talk about 'my bad' (which I personally hate,) so I feel justified in typing an equally bad English phrase such as 'my strange.' :halo:

are devoted entirely to helping a human being avoid tripping over as they walk, keeping the heart and lungs properly synced up, constantly searching incoming sensory streams for threats, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Such processes exist in the systems software of computers as well, start up and shut down routines, refreshing the contents of RAM space, port polling (around 30 times per second) for data input from connected peripherals like a touchscreen or a keyboard. Are such processes also existent in say, trees?
If so, do we consider such processes in humans, an aspect of human consciousness and If we do then must it not follow that we must label ANY such process in a computer or a tree, an aspect of consciousness?

Why do you assume machines (or synthetic organisms) can, in effect, "wake-up sentient"? — 180 Proof

Mainly because of the 'critical mass' or 'tipping point' concept found in nature. I think this is also found in various human illnesses. Physically we have the 'locked in syndrome,' or complete physical paralysis and the various coma style states of which some are referred to as vegetative.

From your linked article, we have:
"This concept comprises experiences of ownership, of first person perspective, and of a long-term unity of beliefs and attitudes. These features are instantiated in the prefrontal cortex."
This suggests to me that the functionality of the pre-frontal cortex is vital to what we would describe as the 'first person perspective.'

In this article, Metzinger (who I am unfamiliar with), to me, is describing the required 'stabilities,' and component contributing parts that result in the model of self (system), that he is describing. I see the 'self' he is describing as an emergence, in that it manifests as a combinatorial of the sub-systems involved. I use the concept of 'more than the sum of the sub-systems,' or fundamental quanta involved, to account for the more unusual features of self.
For example, I may (as a self,) become attracted to a person or an object or an idea, for reasons that even I find very hard to fully explain. That seems to me, to be caused by something more 'bizarre'/'complicated'/nuanced etc than everything a car or my laptop does, due to the combination of its parts and fundamental quanta.
Perhaps you are referencing 'emergent' and 'emergence,' differently than I, or/and perhaps under some strict philosophical or scientific rule, I am not employing the concept of emergence in a logically sound way. I am willing to be 'better tuned' on this point, if the reasoning I am employing here, requires it.

I see no logical difference in proposing an ontological or teleological argument for god than the logic, of asking for the biggest possible number. Such has no existent.

Math and/or computing is non-temporal — L'éléphant

What do you mean? A computer does what it does IN time. Anything mathematical is an event that happens in time. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the aspect of 'temporal,' you are referencing.

I'm presuming that by "advances", you mean they become humans. If not, I stand corrected. — L'éléphant

No, by progress, I refer to two possible emergents, as a result of the current path of biological computing.
1 The ability of biological computing to enhance and augment human lifespan and ability.
2. The possibility of a system, which is not completely formed of non-organic components, (but also not cyborg,) becoming self-aware/conscious/sentient.

Until they can perceive time, — L'éléphant

Humans are still debating what time is, so I can't comment on how a future orga/mecha sentient might perceive time. They will face the same concepts we do, relative time, individual time, proper time etc.

It's fine and I am sure, for some, quite self-admonishing, to merely complain about the failure of party politics and politicians to deal effectively with the nefarious rich and create the 'better society,' we all (or mostly all) seem to favour on TPF.
So why not start to explain what initial steps YOU think are essential, towards creating a better political system. I am not suggesting that voicing dissent is pointless, it's still very important to voice dissent but what are YOUR suggestions for improving things. Are we just big wide empty vessels making loud noises?

They can't 'conflict'. They're both true. — Isaac

Gravity is considered true, as is quantum physics but they do conflict.
Two truths can certainly conflict based on perspective.
An observer may experience a different, but equally valid truth but their reference frame may result in conflict when they are compared.

Well then no. I don't agree. The 'economic power' of your average citizen hasn't changed all that much, if anything it's probably got worse. — Isaac

Well, I have little interest (and I assume you feel the same,) in exchanging example and counter-example with you, which compares a historical 'day in the life of' with a modern 'day in the life of,' a typical Roman pleb (for example) and a current working class Scot, American, Russian etc.


Steven Pinker's 75 charts and graphs have been described as:
Pinkers book is stocked with seventy-five charts and graphs that provide incontrovertible evidence for centuries of progress on many fronts that should matter to all of us: an inexorable decline in violence of all sorts along with equally impressive increases in health, longevity, education, and human rights.

and:

In Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, published earlier this year, Steven Pinker argues that the human race has never had it so good as a result of values he attributes to the European Enlightenment of the 18th century. He berates those who focus on what is wrong with the world’s current condition as pessimists who only help to incite regressive reactionaries. Instead, he glorifies the dominant neoliberal, technocratic approach to solving the world’s problems as the only one that has worked in the past and will continue to lead humanity on its current triumphant path.

I don't think all is as good as Mr Pinker's graphs and charts would suggest, but I certainly disagree with the second quote I used above, from you.

Parties change, the measures I gave haven't. — Isaac

Sure, the democratic party supported slavery in the US before the American civil war.
Lincoln was a republican president. I would have voted for Lincoln and his republican party.
As far as monarchies are concerned, I AM a republican, but the current American republican party is a right wing horror. So yeah, political parties do change. I am for getting rid of all of them, BUT the money measures you gave DO conflict with the overall historical evidence highlighted on the Steven Pinker chart I posted.

Depends when the "days of the ancients" were, and how you wnat to measure poverty. — Isaac

The Greek/Roman/Mayan/Egyptian civilisations would suffice for my purposes.
The how, would be the economic power of your average citizen at the time and the level of governmental protection they had regarding their legal status, their educational opportunities and their personal well-being.

Sure. But that tells us nothing about which policies worked and which were entirely incidental, or even hampered progress. — Isaac

Depends who you are labelling 'us!'
I can tell you, with a very high personal credence level, what policies I think work and what efforts created the improvements many people NOW have in our world, that they did not have in earlier times. But you may not agree, perhaps because 'you' are part of the 'us' you refer to. Subjectivity, is forever present in threads such as this one.

No we don't. We have a statistic. — Isaac

But that was all YOU offered, statistics!

Absolutely nowhere do we even have a correlation with any causative factors, let alone proof of the significance or fit of that correlation. It might, for all we know, be a result of the earth warming, or just the gradual growth of the economy. — Isaac

That's a rather large stretch you are attempting. Would you not agree that since the days of the ancients, the level of global poverty has significantly reduced for a large portion of the global population and that this has been hard fought for?

Yeah, but the stats you highlight are globally true, yet despite your chosen charts, we also have indicators of the hard work done by all humanists/socialists etc worldwide such as Steven Pinker's chart below:

The argument was about how significant they are — Isaac

Well, do you have a gradation system in mind, that would satisfy your measure of significance here?Beyond the widely available statistical evidence or personally reported affects, that a particular governmental policy/legislation/initiative has had or is having, on the daily lives/rights/security/well being of citizens

I think @Count Timothy von Icarus did a good job at outlining some of the major differences:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/802555

Are you familiar with Douglas Hofstadter's writings on 'tangled hierarchies' model of cognition — 180 Proof

No, but I will follow your link and become a little more familiar with it. — universeness

I will comment after I have read the material your link offers. — universeness

I think it's best to pause here — 180 Proof

So, even though we are pausing, I wanted to do what I said I would above:

Even this first sentence in the article you linked me to:
A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system. It arises when, by moving only upwards or downwards through the system, one finds oneself back where one started.

Made the 7 layers of the OSI model (open systems interconnection/integration model) for a computer system, come to the fore in my head, straight away.


And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind — a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is — here goes a first stab, anyway — not a physical circuit but an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in an hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive "upward" shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one's sense of departing ever further from one's origin, one winds up, to one's shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop.

This comment above from Hofstadter then provides an understanding of the clear difference between the kind of set, hierarchical, bidirectional, working cycle of the OSI model and the 'strange loop' model he is presenting.

Gödel showed that mathematics and logic contain strange loops: propositions that not only refer to mathematical and logical truths, but also to the symbol systems expressing those truths. This leads to the sort of paradoxes seen in statements such as "This statement is false," wherein the sentence's basis of truth is found in referring to itself and its assertion, causing a logical paradox.

Hofstadter claims a similar "flipping around of causality" appears to happen in minds possessing self-consciousness. The mind perceives itself as the cause of certain feelings ("I" am the source of my desires), while according to popular scientific models, feelings and desires are strictly caused by the interactions of neurons.
To me, this is the 'more than the sum of it's parts,' moment when the 'interaction of neurons' 'correlates' to a sense of 'I' (awareness of self).

The computer models I know about seem to match well with 'how humans think.' This is probably another of my 'no shit Sherlock,' statements as computers were invented by us, our pooled brains!

I love the Penrose stairs image, that he created based on Escher's (who was a friend of Penrose's father) work.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d2/38/7d/d2387d0225b634e7aa7e9bae9a1a22fc.jpg

Noam Chomsky maintains that the US is a one-party state. The Business Party rules, and maintains the illusion of a two party system through the continual jockeying between its two very similar wings. — BC

I don't think the USA is fundamentally, a one-party state, but I think the notion of a global 'business party,' is a valid one, although it is not, in REALITY, fully organised as such, imo. There are some business based bodies, that are globally organised, such as the world bank, that supports the notion of a global business party, and such a notional party(or REAL organisation such as the world bank,) does have very significant influence, in ALL countries, including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc but only because of the existence of money, as the means of exchange and the fact that the nefarious few can still play the money trick via free 'stock market' based economies, with almost no significant restrictions whatsoever, despite previous global economic crashes/disasters.
I think the business party notion Noam refers to, is a notion that 'emerges' from the affects that national and international capitalism has on every human on this planet.

How would a 'no party' system work? Say more about that. — BC

I would love to discuss this in much more detail. I have many 'historically influenced' idea's on this, and many personal ones.
Yes, fundamentally, every elected person to governance would be an 'independent.' That is the starting point, BUT we then have to reform the basics.

ALL historical political systems and parties should be a main subject taught in schools and should be as high profile as mathematics, language ( I won't be Xenophobic and type English), and general science.

Every local area, would establish a local non-party political branch of a national organisation, dedicated to political debate. Any individual can join and bring their politics with them.
Local, interlocal, intercity, national and international debate 'competitions' would be encouraged and televised. There would also of course be continuous on-line political debate.

When local or national elections are due, the people who stand for election, would be taken from these local political branches, based on member votes.
I could now go into a lot of detail, as to how I think local, national and perhaps even global authority could be formed and how such might function, but that might come later, if there is any interest.
I think I will leave it there for now, and await for my expected dissenters to offer their main complaints against the notions I am suggesting here. If I can't defend my model of a future better way to do politics, against dissenters, then my model does not deserve any credibility.

I think you identify and describe the main parameters, limits, shortfalls and developing tech, currently present in the efforts being made towards the goal of explaining the workings, structure and source of human consciousness, very succinctly. I also think and agree, that if and when the full story becomes known and understood, all aspects of it's workings, structure and source will prove to be 'natural.'

What is the minimum function and authority that a national government must have? — Vera Mont

The efficient, equitable, and uncorrupted control over the means of production, distribution and exchange for the benefit of all of the citizens it represents.
To ensure the basic need and securities of its citizens are met.
To provide free healthcare and education for all it's citizens from cradle to grave.

What is the maximum it should be allowed to have? — Vera Mont

Completely open governance, fully scrutinised.

What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government? — Vera Mont

The maintenance and enhancement of the well-being of its citizens.

I think that model is too linear to be analogous. — 180 Proof

Well, how about an extension of the IPO model, that is more in-line with current computer systems and their various network topologies (star, bus, ring, mesh and fully connected mesh.) Do you have any knowledge of network topologies and the workings of stand alone operating systems/networked operating systems?

If we mimic a brain model such as the triune brain model of R-complex, Limbic system and Cortex, then we could compare this with three separate core's on the same CPU.
We can then use the IPO model to include parallel processing. Would this not alleviate your concern, regarding the linearity of the IPO model, when applied to a single 'stand alone' computer?

. Are you familiar with Douglas Hofstadter's writings on 'tangled hierarchies' model of cognition (e.g. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought)? — 180 Proof

No, but I will follow your link and become a little more familiar with it. I have found your suggested links in the past, to be useful and informative. I will comment after I have read the material your link offers.

Artificial neural networks seem to me much closer analogues to the processing of (meta)cognition than von Neumann architecture 'programs'. — 180 Proof

What neural network examples are you referring to? One based on biological components or ones based only on electronic components?
Considering wiki's description of:
A neural network can refer to either a neural circuit of biological neurons (sometimes also called a biological neural network), or a network of artificial neurons or nodes in the case of an artificial neural network. Artificial neural networks are used for solving artificial intelligence (AI) problems; they model connections of biological neurons as weights between nodes. A positive weight reflects an excitatory connection, while negative values mean inhibitory connections. All inputs are modified by a weight and summed. This activity is referred to as a linear combination. Finally, an activation function controls the amplitude of the output. For example, an acceptable range of output is usually between 0 and 1, or it could be −1 and 1.

The major aspect seems to me, to be the weight system applied and how that mimics human credence/confidence level, that a human might assign to a particular thought. I agree that is of significant value, BUT I think a biological system might involve sensation's/feelings, that affect the 'weight' assigned to a neural net output, whereas an electronic/artificial neural net, uses probability calculations to provide a weighting to an output.
I think the IPO model is still of good use here, as a neural net still complies with a serial and parallel notion of the three stages of input, process and output. The Von Neumann architecture merely adds the concept of the stored program and stored data files to the IPO model, along with connecting communication/carrier channels.

In the 'sketch' at the bottom of my last post I use bidirectional arrows to simplistically suggest nonlinear relationships (i.e. self-recursion / self-referencing) among the 'nodes'. — 180 Proof

to begin with. I see perceptual cognition something like this: phenomena —> data —> experience <——> memory traces <——> information (signal:noise) ... etc. — 180 Proof

But bidirectional is not non-linear in this sense. For example, the data bus inside a CPU is bidirectional as data can be sent to and retrieved from storage, but it's still linear, the data bus is made up of parallel communication channels, etched in silicone.
Phenomena described in philosophy, as the object of a person's perception. would produce personal data, yes, but could a persons personal interpretation of inputed data, not also produce personal phenomena? Could the arrow between the two not also be bidirectional?

I think we are still ONLY modelling mechanistic aspects of consciousness in the brain and we are still no closer to the notion of 'me' or 'you.' Would you, at this stage, assign any credence to the proposal that the mechanics of a working electronic neural net IS a very low level feature of consciousness?
As I delve deeper into such models, I keep returning to consciousness as an emergent feature of component parts. I keep returning to the 'more than the sum of its parts,' idea.

I've found it most informative and insightful in the last fifteen or so years – the monumental Being No One (or it's nontechnical summary The Ego Tunnel (re phenomenal self model)) by Thomas Metzinger. I highly recommend his work if you're not familiar with it. — 180 Proof

No again, I am not familiar with it. You are assigning me too much homework sir! I already have a large reading list, but I will do my best to find some time to peruse Mr Metzingers work.

I want to stress that while I appreciate that perceptual cognition, etc in primate brains is computational, I'm also convinced that these brains are not computers in the (mostly) linear 'IPO' sense – just as David Deutsch points out that it does not follow from the computability of fundamental physical laws (re: constructor theory) that the universe is a computer simulation. — 180 Proof

I agree that a purely computational model of the human cannot be the full story of human consciousness. I currently assign almost 0 credence to simulation theory as the 'reality' of our universe.

Thanks for your interest BC.

Chomsky has long described American politics as a one-party state. Dems and Reps form two wings of pro-business policy. There are no third party contenders of even remote significance. — BC

I understand the valid point you make. In the video I posted, Noam even describes his opinion, that within European politics, Bernie Sanders would be considered a centrist or even centre right politician. However, my question relates to Noam's opinion of ANY form of party politics, (based on the fact that I think it has utterly failed) and is not really related to any perceived common ground between different political parties.
I also don't think it's valid, to compare the common ground between the republicans and democrats to any existing one party system, such as Russia, China or North Korea etc, but if I am wrong and Noam does think that would be a valid comparison, then I am sure he will confirm that himself, if he chooses to answer my question.

A question I would ask you (Universeness) is whether you think the Tories and Labour are essentially the same thing. — BC

No I don't, at least at a fundamental level. BUT, I do agree that some in the labour party are a true shade of political blue. Thatcher's statement that Tony Blair was her greatest achievement, is a very bitter pill for me, as I think it is broadly true and I utterly despise Thatcher and everything she was and stood for.
I also think that Keir Starmer is a similar shade of blue to Tony Blair. But I think there are many on labours current front bench, such as Angela Rayner, who are true socialists.
I think the main difference between the tories and labour in the UK remains that only labour offers some hope for the majority, to gain improvement in the provision of their basic needs and rights.
The tories remain fundamentally, the lacky's of the rich.

Can we get a "new politics" with the same economic structure we have now? — BC

I advocate for UBI (as a stopgap system) and the eventual rejection of 'BIG' capitalism on a global, international and national scale. I advocate for the termination of the money trick. I also advocate for global unison and a resource based, currency free, economy. I think the removal of party politics would be a big step in the correct direction towards those goals. BUT, I do accept your point, that the current global economic system, makes any effort towards dismantling party politics far more difficult to get started anywhere. I never claimed it would be easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is, imo.

You might want to focus your question a bit more. — BC

I welcome any suggestions you have on how I might 'focus' my question BC. Perhaps we could exchange on it, until we arrive at a more finely tuned 'joint' question.

I think the IPO model from computing science is only useful as a model for human consciousness, at a fundamentally mechanistic level. It does little to help explain self-awareness or the concept of me, myself. I or you. But I do personally find it a very useful model for illustrating certain ideas.

For example, A computer processor can access the contents of every single memory location it has access to, via a unique address. Our 'consciousness,' or 'wetware,' cannot do that.
For me, facts like that, are more interesting, because what human consciousness cannot do, speaks louder to me, than what it can do. Any natural system I know of, or has been described to me, is a system with limits. This for me, suggests that human consciousness is 'localised.'

Based on the work of Carlo Rovelli, et al, I also think that for our species, time is localised, in that we each experience it 'individually,' throughout our lives.
We are still far away from being able to explain what causes the individualised notion of 'me' or 'you,' but I think we can at least agree, that no individual current consciousness or grouped/networked consciousness qualifies for any of the omni labels and it is unlikely that any ever will.

Whichever way we individually choose to approach the topic of human consciousness, it seems to me that the two main camps remain. Those who think it's completely contained in the brain and those who think some aspects of human consciousness exist external to the brain, all the way to a god source.

I realise that is a 'no shit Sherlock' statement but until we get new strong evidence from neuroscience or god (for me, a non-existent). I don't see how we can make much progress for now.

I suppose this is due to my computing background, but at the most fundamental level, I perceive what human/brain does, as an IPO system. Input - process - output. To me, we created computers to emulate this system. The other main component of an IPO system is memory/storage.

A 'thought' then becomes a 'wetware' output. Would you consider the IPO model useful here or of little value?

I feel like it is too convenient just to try and correlate any concept and or mental state with a brain state and assume the brain state does all the explanatory work we need without an actual causal explanation. — Andrew4Handel

Memory (my vivid memory of a deceased relative, their voice and appearance etc)? — Andrew4Handel

Based on my very simplistic IPO model as described above, the detailed causal explanation that explains why a memory suddenly gets activated, must exist within the IPO model.
Some Input trigger or some, operating system kernal routine which has a randomised input causing a memory to activate in a brain.

Perhaps my IPO model of what's happening 'In the brain,' is far too simplistic, to be of any significant value but I think I could 'explain' any thought I have, to a 'certain level of detail,' as a list of algorithmic style (pseudocode) steps.
If I were a neuroscientist, I could probably refine my list into sub-lists (refinements) with more detail.
This 'stepwise refinement' process, would reach a stage where not enough is scientifically known, to be able to refine any further. Does this not, in a simplistic way, take us to where we currently are in trying to describe human consciousness?

Based partly on the vid I posted earlier and Noam's left leaning politics, I would ask him;
You have lived under the republican/democrat two party nation in the USA.
I have lived under the tory/labour two party nation in the UK.
Party politics has failed in my opinion.
People vote for a party and not a person. If you put a donkey up for election, wearing the correct rosette colour for you, then you will probably vote for it. This has allowed so many 'bad and nefarious' humans to get elected. I live in Scotland, and the people here, became so fed up with voting for a labour government but getting a tory one, that we turned to a nationalist party, as the only way out on offer.
There are 650 MP's in the UK house of commons. I would prefer them all to be voted in, as independents.
Do you think we need a new politics? Do you think it would be progressive to remove all political parties from politics and governance? Do you think 'Vote for a person, not a party,' should become the loudest political clarion call?

Perhaps it would be useful for some of us to watch this:


I just watched it, and Noam covers quite a few current issues in this approx 1h offering that was only posted on YouTube two days ago.
It would be great to discuss it's content with TPF members, as a build up to Noam's appearance here, as a guest speaker. A separate thread would be fine, if you think that would be a better approach.

Wow! Well done! That's very impressive. Is there an actual date in June, you would have to get a question in by? I also, would need time try to create a good question.

Based on the article you cited, I think:
four possible techno-umwelts, or areas of perception for a machine:
1) Verbal virtual;
2) Non-verbal virtual;
3) Verbal physical; and
4) Non-verbal physical.

The versatility that marks general or comprehensive intelligence, that is, AGI, would only be possible when the machine freely operates in all four of these techno-umwelts.

and

Only then could artificial intelligence become truly multimodal – meaning, it will be able to solve a wide range of possible tasks and comprehensively communicate with a human.

The idea of the combination of techno-umwelts thus gives us the opportunity to propose a new definition of AGI:

Artificial general intelligence is the ability of a robot (a machine with sense-think-act capability) to learn and act jointly with a person or autonomously in any techno-umwelt (but potentially better than a specialist in this field), achieving the goals set in all four techno-umwelts, while limiting the resources consumed by the robot.

Seems to be a valid and more detailed definition of an AGI than Wiki's:
An artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical intelligent agent which can understand or learn any intellectual task that human beings or other animals can. AGI has also been defined alternatively as an autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities at the majority of economically valuable work.

I also share some common ground, with the last paragraph of the article:
On the one hand, we are beginning to ‘dissolve’ into the technologies and virtual worlds surrounding us, blurring the concept of ‘human’. On the other hand, as computers explore new areas of activity, be it chess or machine translation or whatever else, those areas are no longer exclusive to humans. Perhaps humans are the final frontier that the machine cannot yet overcome.

I think you're hung up on semantics. — 180 Proof

I think definitions do absolutely matter in the 'observer reference frame' sense, but the notion of 'future' and 'change/progress' makes them, ultimately fluidic. What it is to be human, can change, and still maintain some of the fundamentals. I just don't see why we have to insist on a post' or 'after' human definition. I told you previously, I preferred neo/nova sapien, to your nano sapien.
I also prefer my more optimistic view of the future of humans to your more pessimistic one. :roll:
I think you secretly hope I am correct, even though you think the preponderance of the evidence available, convinces you that your more pessimistic viewpoint is correct.

Not merely, just upgraded eukaryotes, no. But I expect that the results of combining upgraded genetic material, will produce as many surprising results as evolution via natural selection has.
There is another 'player,' in the game, still in it's infancy. Biological computing, combined with genetic engineering may make great advances in the future, especially with AI's help.

I don't see how we could "merge with" AGI —> ASI —> ??? and not be(come) "posthuman" – another species completely (e.g. nano sapiens). Are butterflies just 'winged caterpillars' after the chrysalis? — 180 Proof

We have the issue of gradation, and the concept of 'critical mass/turning point' etc.

This is an old discussion that I have been having with folks, since I first asked a classroom of students:
Would you surrender your pinky, If I offered you a replacement, which could do everything your current pinky does plus a few new functions and abilities?
Would you still be you, if you became one of the advanced pinky people?
How disadvantaged would you be, if you decided not to become one of the advanced pinky people?

I am sure you can easily predict where the discussion normally goes.
At some point, many people will pull out of the deal!
For some it's at stage 1, the pinky offer. For others it's arms and legs, for some it's the heart, for some it's the 'only your brain is left' stage.

It also depends on what new longevity and functionality is offered.
Many are attracted to, If you accept these changes you can:
Live to ....... hundred or ..... thousand years old.
You can live underwater or in space, without a spacesuit.
You can speak any language, including animal languages..... etc
The list of offers is only limited by the questioners imagineering ability.

The question quickly becomes, what is the critical point, such that if your 'merging,' moves beyond it, you are no longer human?
You are not the same you that you were when you were a teenager, but you are still you, and you are still human, so, considering such concepts as the 7 stages of man, etc. What you might consider post human, others may consider 'advanced/augmented human.'
Of course no human elements present, certainly would be 'post human,' but there are many other 'potential gradations,' of human. Do you not agree?

I will have a look at the article you linked to soon.

The video posted by @180 Proof here. Is a further one worth watching on AI developments that may well affect us all very soon.

Another good video. Demis Hassabis merely repeated what he has said about AI developments at Deep Mind in other video's on the topic. BARD seems to fit into the 'gollum class' of AI, currently being slowly introduced. This is discussed further in the OP I posted, based on the Tristan Harris and Asa Raskin video.

In this video, it seemed to me, that the main participants were suggesting that current AI developments and a future AGI, would be a benefit, overall, to the human race.
The main warning seemed to be that we needed to introduce the current developments, very carefully and slowly, establishing strong protections against any negative affects before taking another step.
I am becoming more and more convinced that there will be an AI 'struggle,' coming soon or already here, and it will pose a similar threat (as Tristian and Asa compared it to) to humans, as nuclear weapons did and still do (perhaps even a greater threat.) But, I remain hopeful that we will maintain/acieve enough control/influence etc, so that we will survive it's negative affects, and we will eventually 'merge' with it, without the result being a 'post human' existence, as you have previously predicted.

As to not caring about what others think of my viewpoints, I don't think I am anywhere near alone there — Janus

Thankfully, you are far more isolated in this than you realise.

Please do yourself a favour and don't waste any more time on this, you started out off the mark with your purportedly "constructive criticism" and don't seem to have gotten any closer to it along the way. — Janus

My responses to you on this exchange were not targeted at you. You are already fully cooked.