A strange wee dance guys?? What gives?

I currently favour number 5/6.
— universeness

Interesting. What number of neurons satisfies a conscious state for you? — Benj96

There has to be some cut-off point between self-aware/not self-aware. Perhaps it is down to something as mundane as number of neurons. So My current choice from that particular list, remains 5/6.
All the rest of what you talked about in your last post, merely refers to consciousness, since it arrived in the form of humans, does this suggest that you favour number 8 in the list?
Panpsychism/Dualism is at number 2.

Thats why I use the term God - that quality of energy to become both the general universe and the sentient occupants that appreciate/are aware of it. It is the perceiver and the perceived. — Benj96

I think the way you are framing your musings, on the source of consciousness, is potentially very problematic, considering the current viewpoint range, of a typical societal cross-section (audience), that would represent humanity. You are trying to mix oil, water, gas and solid imo. Theism, science, panpsychism, dualism, don't have the common ground you suggest imo.

This is what I'm saying. The capability for consciousness always existed, but the existence of consciousness didn't neccesarily exist, only the foundation, the capability for its future emergence. — Benj96

Sure, but that's a Kalam style regression back to a first cause placeholder such as a big band singularity.
This is where we differ. I think there is no evidence that consciousness goes back further than abiogenysis. Not even back that far actually. When did the first set of self-aware, conscious creatures arise? I don't know but I like this top 10 list from the site Psychology Today:

Hypotheses About the Origins of Consciousness
1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years ago (panpsychism).
3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago (Reber).
4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years ago.
5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of neurons, around 580 million years ago.
6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.
7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions of neurons, around 200 million years ago.
8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3,000 years ago (Julian Jaynes).
10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).

I currently favour number 5/6.

Maybe, universeness, you agree with the young man who told me, in effect, that my cosmic scenario diminishes human significance to ... Lovecraftian zero. — 180 Proof

Sounds like a young man who can fairly analyse the opinions of one of his respected elders :smile:

Singularity ears to hear the "Music of the Spheres" playing between and beyond the stars. — 180 Proof

I wonder if some of these hidden mecha, which apply a star trek style prime directive, are secretly communicating with MIKE OLDFIELD, otherwise how do you explain this!!!!!


I know some folks on TPF that would suggest this is solid evidence of an advanced mecha conspiracy of panspermia! I won't name them here!

Anyway. I think you have offered a possible insight into your claim:

I did not state or imply that I've decided anything about "orga-mecha harmony" ... — 180 Proof

With:

I'm deeply pessimistic about the human species (though I'm not a misanthrope), yet cautiously optimistic about machine (& material) intelligence. — 180 Proof

But perhaps I am projecting your implications too far. :halo:

For example, is the scientist who describes nuclear fission and its capabilities responsible for the use of this knowledge to create nuclear bombs? Should they have said nothing to avoid such abuse? Or is knowledge by itself innocent of its applications? — Benj96

The irony here is that M.A.D may be the only reason the world is not currently, fully involved in WW 3.
Disagreement over Serbia started WW 1, Hitlers invasion of Poland was the final act that caused WW 2.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine has the same 'impetus,' towards a WW 3. I think M.A.D is the main threat that has stopped it for now.

This is part of the reason I believe the capacity for consciousness is inbuilt into the basic principles of physics. And is where I derive my dualist ethos from. — Benj96

That IS the position of most/many panpsychists/dualists. I currently assign high credence to the proposal that consciousness is what the brain does and is a result of combinatorial brain processes.
A car is an empty shell without it's engine. It's engine's ability only 'emerges' from it acting as a combinatorial. It's parts have no inherent 'fundamental' of the overall engine's function in combination. Each parts presence and independent function is required but they don't all contribute a set of common, quantisable, fundamentals to the overall function of the car.

The standard model, QFT and quantum fluctuations can describe all matter/energy/forces (except gravity), in the universe. I find the proposal that there is a fundamental quanta that as a combinatorial, with other fundamentals (eg baryons, leptons, etc), produces human consciousness. The human brain DOES come from such fundamentals as quarks and electrons etc but I think the evidence that some other 'sprinkling' of a yet unknown fundamental, as the 'vital missing spark' for human consciousness, remains very weak.
It's not impossible but, as I have typed many times, the best I can do, based on the current evidence for panpsychism or/and dualism is a small raise, of a single eyebrow of interest.

We try not to fall into the trap of human-centric measurement but rather universal principles that are constant, everywhere, all the time. — Benj96

Correct, but we also seek principles which are locally true, even only locally true, under a given set of circumstances.

But is a second natural? Is innate to nature. Or a human/artificial construction, something we applied to nature to standardise what we observe? Is the second an anthropomorphism derived solely from our human experience of reality that we project onto all physical processes? — Benj96

Mathematic is a tool, there is no anthropomorphism in maths that I can perceive.
Carlo Rovelli offers detailed discussion on the notion of time as humans perceive it and use it. I have not heard him complain, that we anthropomorphise time. I have heard him challenge our classical notions of time, in quite coherent ways, but his argument do not have any significant anthropomorphic aspect, that I can perceive.

In conclusion, as a response to you saying that I think it's valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. Yes. I do. I think it's logical in the capacity of human logic. — Benj96

Fair enough. Your position is clear. I continue to think that your position is a very weak one, based on what I have already typed in my responses to you. It's very rare, that a TPF member causes another TPF member to significantly, change one or more of their fundamental views. BUT, it is good nonetheless, to regularly take measurements of what others think about 'the big questions.'

This all seems very imposing. As in you imposing your own personal dislike of theism on someone who finds it interesting, curious.
I don't think I need to be saved from anything. If you do, despite me being happy doing what I do, then perhaps it's a case of accepting other people enjoy things you do not for reasons you may not know. — Benj96

It's not my intention for you to feel 'put upon' by my viewpoints, but I am more concerned with what is true, than I am about the individual disgruntled feelings of my interlocuters.

To know exactly what notions are restrictive and woo woo from those that are not would require you to have a full, exacting, precise/accurate understanding of the entirety of reality as it truly is. — Benj96

Is that not what we both seek? We must continue our asymptotic approach to omniscience! Do you not agree?

Einstein level.
Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're not that above case. So I would suggest a healthy openmindedness to other people's ideas and explanations over implying you know with 100% certainty all that is "woo woo". — Benj96

I would say you remain on solid ground on that one and there is no precarious limb support involved.
You are just offering me YOUR opinion on MY level of open mindedness which is of limited value to our exchange but, fair enough. I note your opinion on that, for what it's worth.

I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions. Which means one person's actions can't be the entire destruction of the species. — Benj96

Let's hope that there are many folks around Putin who agree with you and will prevent him being the person you describe.

All I offer is my views on the universe and its moral or logical aspects as best as I can understand them, and on "my" theology. Not general theology. It's just a categorical think. — Benj96

Most of us do the same but don't underestimate the importance of such old adages as 'out of little acorns big oak trees grow' or 'little snow drops can become a deadly avalanche.' Don't underestimate your little snow drop contributions. Such can tip a balance or cause a melting point to be reached for good or bad.

Firstly, are humans one set/group of existants in the universe? Yes, right? Then they are part of the universe, the whole. — Benj96

Yeah but don't conflate the parts with the whole. YOU are not your leg, in fact you can continue without it and remain alive and conscious. Earth contains life that is conscious/self aware, that does not make the Earth alive and conscious/self-aware. Venus is very active, do you consider it conscious/self-aware?
Why do you choose to project the consciousness/self-awareness of part of the universe, onto the whole of the universe, based on the current, very limited evidence, that such a projection is warranted? This is one of my interests. What convinces intelligent people, to decide to ascribe high credence, to a particular proposal, when the evidence is quite weak.

Different sources will define a label in nuanced ways. I am not too concerned about the nuances applied to the term 'anthropomorphise,' for the purposes of our current exchange on this thread.

But even if your 'emotional mimicry,' for the purpose of efficient and productive communication with humans proves initially true. Why have you decided that an AGI'ASI, will decide that this universe is just not big enough for mecha form, orga form and mecha/orga hybrid forms to exist in 'eventual,' harmony?

Thank goodness there are more than one or two voices of reason here, who are not as easily duped by authentic looking shinies, that are in reality, just painted and burnished plastic, made to look all shiny and golden.

Thank you for your input, I appreciate your assistance.

Do I just message them or something like that? — Darkneos

The late Dr McCarty seems to have been a man of many talents, including studies of logic. Beyond me, I fear. The length of this piece is challenging on its own. I didn't get far. TonesinDeepFreeze might find it interesting. The idea of relating math to solipsism is bizarre (to me, at least). — jgill

Mr Gill is a maths professor!
I hope he does not mind me pasting the following paragraph from his profile:
"Retired professor of mathematics from a branch of a state university. I've published some research but nothing of any real consequence. I continue to explore certain elementary dynamical systems in the complex plane because it's enjoyable to do so."

Surely his last sentence above should speak volumes to you.
Also if he find's this document cumbersome to dissect then YOU nor I certainly, can't make heads or tails of it! So you are all twisted up about a maths document you have NO understanding of.
Come on friend, you are self-flagillating here.
Perhaps as @jgill suggested, @TonesInDeepFreeze may be able to assist you further.

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists. — T Clark

Do you think 'we' care if we upset you? Your curmudgeon approach to others really pisses me off, as does your continuing delusion, regarding your self-bloated status on this site.

Here is yet another tedious example of your attempts to excuse and over compensate for your personal conceit/shortfalls:

No need to thank me. It's just part of my job, my duty, my privilege, my calling as the Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum. — T Clark

Which I presume is 'not at all'. — Wayfarer

You presume incorrectly, but that is quite common between posters on TPF.
If you read my last response to TClark, (if you haven't already,) then you will get a measure of what I have read and watched, related to Stevenson's work. Perhaps then, you will make fewer presumptions and simply ask more questions of the person you are exchanging with, if you want to try to gain a measure of how much they know about a particular fringe topic, such as reincarnation.

All I have read about him (apart from online) is a documentary account of Stevenson's life and research by a journalist who travelled with him, Old Souls, by Tom Schroder, and one of Stevenson's books, which I borrowed from the library. — Wayfarer

So your own knowledge of the subject is not much more than mine!

He presents a lot of documentary evidence in that book - each case was thoroughly investigated, with questionnaires, document searches, witness with interviews, and so on. — Wayfarer

Indeed, no better antidote to bullshit than ignorance, eh? — Wayfarer

No need to start to scratch, what/whose ignorance are you referring to?

People like 180 Proof and @universeness are just here to disrupt other people's discussions. They have nothing substantive to add and refuse to play fair by, as in this case, rejecting evidence without looking at it. — T Clark

:lol: Again TC, you accuse others of what YOU are soooooooo guilty of yourself. Your problem continues to be, your inability to see your own shortfalls. Which is why you make such a desperate effort to overblow your own significance, by constantly blowing your own trumpet. I have looked at some of the evidence, you suggest I have not looked at. I have not read the complete works of Stevenson and neither have you or wayfarer, but I have read 3 of his 'most convincing' case studies, and I have watched two documentaries, as I already posted to you.
A full analysis of those cases, would I assume, be unwelcome here, as there would be much to say.
If you or @Wayfarer want a separate thread on Stevenson's work then start one, instead of bleating on about what you presume others don't know.

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting. — Wayfarer

Oh come on! Are we now suggesting some topics are 'too hot (or we are too scared) to handle,' :roll:
Reincarnation is certainly not deserving of such a status! It's about as hot as bull shit that's been lying in the snow for hours.

He acknowledges he's read nothing about it. He's simply categorising it with ufo's, astrology, and whatever else as a matter of course. — Wayfarer

Again you misrepresent me, which is becoming rather tiresome. I have acknowledged no such thing, and since you have indicated you own limited knowledge of Stevenson's work. We are not so far apart in our general knowledge of his work. Have you also 'watched a documentary,' and 'read a book,' on UFO evidence, Evidence of near death experiences, Alien abductions, evidence of the paranormal, evidence that christianity is fact, etc, etc?
Do you find that the evidence presented in some such books, is as good as Stevenson's? Or is his evidence so compelling that the world of REAL science, needs to make MAJOR efforts to confirm or debunk it completely?

Apparrently, you've missed it again? — 180 Proof

Nothing I've written suggests A³GI "will reject emotions"; — 180 Proof

... do you envisage an AGI that would see no need for, or value in, 'feelings?'
— universeness
Yes, just as today's AI engineers don't see a need for "feelings" in machine learning/thinking. — 180 Proof

In what way did I misinterpret your 'yes' response, to my question quoted above?

Anyway, thank you the extra detail you offer, regarding your predictions for the fate of humans, if/when an AGI is created. I remain confident that your dystopian fate for humans is possible, but unlikely.
As I have stated before. In my opinion AGI/ASI will 'do it's own thing,' in the universe, but It will also seek to preserve, protect and augment all sentient life, as it will be compelled to protect 'all sources of natural development,' to continue to add to it's understanding about the natural world.
I think humans will be allowed to live their lives, and maintain their civilisation, as they do now.
The AGI/ASI will simply provide them with added protections/augmentations, and will offer them more options regarding their lifespan, and involvement in space exploration and development. The universe is very vast indeed, so an AGI/ASI can 'do it's thing,' without having to destroy all sentient life currently in existence. I see no reason why an AGI/ASI would see lifeforms such as humans as a threat. We would be it's creators.

I just REALLY need help with that one, and then after that I can just forget about it. Throw it all away and never look back. — Darkneos

Well, if @jgill cant help, then perhaps there is another on TPF with high maths credentials, who would have a look at the link.

Ah, then it’s not a clone at all, but just replacement of all the failing other parts. What about when the brain fails? It must over time. It’s the only part that cannot replace cells. — noAxioms

Then you die! But you may have lived a few thousand years!

Sounds like you’d be their benevolent ASI then. Still, their numbers keep growing and the methane is poisoning the biosphere. You’re not yet at the point of being able to import grass grown in other star systems, which, if you could do that, would probably go to feeding the offworld transcows instead of the shoulder-to-shoulder ones on Earth. So the Earth ones face a food (and breathable air) shortage. What to do... — noAxioms

Methane is a very useful fuel. An ASI will easily deal with any required population control via high quality education and feeding our creators will be easy for such a technically advanced system as an ASI.
Parts of this exchange are becoming a little silly so this will be my last offering on cow creations.

Please, I want nothing more in my life than to just forget everything I saw about solipsism and to just be happy.

It’s why I need help with the math link, after that I can let it all go and just move on with my life never having to think about it again. — Darkneos

@jgill is the main maths guy on TPF, imo. He might look at it for you but Its a big ask, as its a big doc.

I have looked at some the evidence, in that I have read some of the case stories but not the number of cases that Wayfarer seems to have looked at.
I have also watched a couple of documentaries about past life experiences. One based on an Indian child and one based in a child from America. I found them no more convincing that those who claim to have personally experienced alien abduction, encounters with the divine, encounters with the paranormal, homeopathic claims, faith healing claims etc, etc.
I remember the Indian boy had been born with some deformed fingers, and the person who he had claimed to be in a past life, had been assaulted and some fingers were chopped off. :lol:
I know Stevenson's data has such cases of scars/deformities in this life, due to trauma faced in a previous life. :roll:
As I said out of 2.2 billion children, why so few reports and why do neuroscientists seem uninterested in pursuing this issue, if Stevenson et al, has such compelling evidence?
After all, the neuroscientist that proves reincarnation is real, will become as famous as Einstein!
Some folks have taken up where Stevenson left off, but not many scientific, peer reviewed papers on the topic have been published recently, as far as I know.

It seems to me that the concept of a linear range of values with extremity at either end is a recurrent theme in the universe.
— universeness
Really? Where outside of Earth is there an example of value on the good/bad scale? — noAxioms

I didn't mention good/bad in the quote above. I was suggesting that the human notions of good and bad follows the recurrent theme mentioned in the quote, such as up and down, left and right, big and small, past and future etc. Many of these may also be only human notions but the expansion of the universe suggests that it was more concentrated in the past. A planet/star/galaxy exists then no longer exists. All modelled on the same theme described in my quote above.

Who knows what goals the ASI will have. — noAxioms

I agree but it's still fun to speculate. It's something most of us are compelled to engage in.

If by that you mean human-chemical emotion, I don’t think an ASI will ever have that. It will have its own workings which might analogous It will register some sort of ‘happy’ emotion for events that go in favor of achieving whatever its goals/aspirations are.
I would never define self-awareness that way, but I did ask for a definition. — noAxioms

If the emotional content of human consciousness is FULLY chemical, then why would such as an ASI be unable to replicate/reproduce it? It can access the chemicals and understand how they are employed in human consciousness. So it could surely reproduce the phenomena. I hope you are correct and human emotion remains our 'ace in the hole.' @180 Proof considers this a forlorn hope (I think) and further suggests that a future AGI will have no use for human emotion and will not covet such or perhaps even employ the notion of 'coveting.'
Do you think an ASI would reject all notions of god and be disinterested in the origin story of the universe?

If will be a total failure if it can’t because humans have such shallow goals. — noAxioms

Our quest to understand the workings, structure and origin of the universe is a shallow goal to you?
The wish of many to leave planet Earth and expand into and develop space and exist as a interplanetary species is shallow? I think not!

Peter Wohlleben, a forester, who graduated from forestry school? I have never heard of forestry school.
From Wiki:
He has controversially argued that plants feel pain and has stated that "It's okay to eat plants. It's okay to eat meat, although I'm a vegetarian, because meat is the main forest killer. But if plants are conscious about what they are doing, it's okay to eat them. Because otherwise we will die. And it's our right to survive.
A rather bizarre quote, if it came from him.

I read a fair amount of the article you cited and found it to be mainly just his opinions. No valid, peer reviewed testing, of his suggestions, such as trees exchanging sugars with other trees or nurturing their 'children' or keeping stumps alive etc were offered. This is similar to the kind of evidence claimed for dogs being able to telepathically pick up their owners emotions etc. It's just anecdotal evidence. Much stronger evidence is required for such claims.

Do scientists help nuclear bombs? Yes. Do scientists help create advanced weapons? — Raef Kandil

Sure, and I bet you're glad of M.A.D. It may be the only reason we are not already in WW 3.

. But science is blind to these facts. — Raef Kandil

Yeah sure, No scientist has even spoken out against the dark side of the production, storage, threat, testing, and use of Nuclear weapons. I don't think TPF has enough server storage space to hold all the examples.

I am against destroying and killing. But, can I at least free God from some of the horrible things you say he is solely responsible for. — Raef Kandil

Good for you! Do you know if your god agrees with you? The one in the bible and the one in the quran doesn't. Is your god so weak that it needs your protection?

The same dogma that puts you on a pedestal when you talk about science and fail to see its downfalls. — Raef Kandil

Are you afraid of science/scientists? If you know the truth of your god then why does it not tell you how to easily deal, with these pesky scientific discoveries that punch so many holes in theism, that it makes that which is holy, literally so!!
What is the best piece of evidence, you have personally experienced, that convinces you, your god exists?

I assume that you would accept, that YOU have your own standard, for what you consider valid evidence.
It seems to me that you espouse your own intellectual prejudice, regarding who is intellectually prejudiced.

and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth". — Fooloso4

:clap:

Redicule is the hallmark of a weak position. That is all I can say. And by the way, I was pointing out to not converting science into a new religion to maintain its power. But, it seems you really need to believe that something is always right and never fails to maintain your peace of mind and think that life is still okay. So, yeah, go back to sleep. Sweet dreams. — Raef Kandil

If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't post ridiculous statements.

Maybe you missed this allusion to that "quality" of thinking ...
Assuming a neural network processes information 10⁶ times faster than a human brain, every "day" a human-level 'thinking machine' can think 10⁶ times more thoughts than a human brain, or rather cogitate 10⁶ days worth of information in twenty-four hours
— 180 Proof
In other words, imagine 'a human brain' that operates six orders of magnitude faster than your brain or mine. — 180 Proof

No, I did not miss the point you made. My question remains, is processing speed or 'thinking' speed the only significant measure? Is speed the only variable that affects quality?

Yes, just as today's AI engineers don't see a need for "feelings" in machine learning/thinking. — 180 Proof

Then this is our main point of disagreement. Emotionless thought is quite limited in potential scope imo.
The character 'Data' in star trek did not cope well, when he tried to use his 'emotion' chip and his 'brother' (an emotive label) 'Lor,' was portrayed as 'evil,' due to the 'emotional content' in his programming. Data's 'daughter' also could not survive the emotional aspect of her programming.
I find these dramatisations very interesting, in that human emotional content is often perceived as very destructive to AI systems. This is the kind of 'follow up,' I was referring to, in my earlier post to you.
Do you propose that a future AGI would reject all human emotion as it would consider it too dangerous and destructive, despite the many, many strengths it offers?

"The goals" of A³GI which seem obvious to me: (a) completely automate terrestrial global civilization, (b) transhumanize (i.e. uplift-hivemind-merge with) h. sapiens and (c) replace (or uplift) itself by building space-enabled ASI – though not necessarily in that order. — 180 Proof

What about long term goals. Are you proposing a future start trek borg style race but without the 'assimilation' need. Did the future system depicted in the 2001 Kubrick film, not have a substantial emotional content? Are you proposing a future star trek 'borg' style system minus the need to assimilate biobeings?

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible. — Wayfarer

From the list I offered you, I predicted to myself that you would choose to mention astrology only, in your response and that's exactly what you did. Was that because it is the most ridiculed proposal of reality from the list?
Do you think religion has more evidence of it's claims than Mr Stevenson does?
Do you think all of the religious evidence in existence PROVES that religious claims are intelligible?
If you do (which is perfectly fine of course,) then I am more interested, in how this affects the credence level, that you personally assign to religious claims, and/or the claims of Stevenson.
It seems you have studied the evidence Stevenson produced more than I.
So, I am only questioning your personal standard of evidence.
I would suggest that the final arbiter of all human posits is empirical evidence, scientific scrutiny and scepticism. I think evidence like Stevenson's remains completely anecdotal and we already know that witness testimony is at best unreliable. So I think such evidence, just does not measure up to assigning a high credence level to something as pivotal (if it were true) as reincarnation.
Even if you can justify applying the very minor label of 'intelligible,' to the proposal that reincarnation is real, that label hardly progresses the proposal towards becoming a law of physics.

Sounds like a new religion to me! Because this is what all religions would say before their downfall — Raef Kandil

Do scientists suggest that science has omni powers? Does science posit miracles? Does science propose that only a single book holds the truth or to better mimic your nonsense comparison with religion, do biologists claim that one of their books, is the only book of the word and the truth and the light of the science god, and the physicists claim that NO, that's not true, it's one of their books that contains the truth, the word and the light, as it was dictated to Carl Sagan (blessings and peace be upon him) directly, by the science god? Do scientists threaten non-scientists with eternal hell for not worshipping science? Do some scientists make holy war on non-scientists, and do some scientists strap explosives to themselves and blow up as many non-scientists as they can?
Does science posit a law of physics that can demonstrate the existence of heaven or demons or angels?
Did a scientist die for your sins and then come back to life 3 days later?
Yeah, science the religion! Hallelujah brother, your logic is obviously a gift from your god :halo:

If God wanted to be discovered, wouldn't it just have been easier to just show himself? — Raef Kandil

Yeah, divine hiddenness does suggest god does not exist. That idea has been around for quite a while.

I know I exist because I have a first person point of view in my world
Other things have a third person point of view in my world
Things are not both first person and third person point of view at the same time in my world
Hence, only I have first person point of view in my world.
If other things had first person point of view in my world, then they would be me
Since other things don’t have first person point of view in my world, they are not me
Only I have first person point of view in my world, because that is who I am.
Now, we established that only I have first person point of view in my world. So there is only one “me” in my world. Now let’s go into how many worlds are there? — Darkneos

This is a long boring way of supporting 'I think therefore I am.'

Each person has the first person point of view in their world
There are a bunch of worlds out there
I know that I am in world number 234, because that’s where the first person point of view is
That means the first person point of view is not in other worlds
Hence, other worlds don’t have a “me”
Hence, in whole reality there is only one first person point of view, which is me
Other things do not have first person point of view
Point 14. proves solipsism to be true OBJECTIVELY. Let’s see a contradition — Darkneos

Point one means nothing. What 'worlds' is Mr Barmadosa referring to, other planets? other people?
If its other people, then this point disputes solipsism.
World number 234 is just an arbitrary BS proposal.
The first person point of view is just 'I think therefore I am,' and Mr Barmadosa offers no proof of the existence of his notion of 'other worlds' nor does he explain what this notion is supposed to represent.
What does he mean by 'whole reality?' The whole of reality CAN include other minds. He in no way PROVES that this is no possible, so this is not sound logic. The whole of reality DOES NOT SUGGEST that only one mind source CAN exist.
Point 14, in no way PROVES solipsism, These 14 points are riddled with pure speculation and flawed assumptions. The propositional logic it offers is almost childishly poor.

Let’s say other worlds also had first person point of view
This implies which world I live in is unspecified, because there is not enough information available — Darkneos

This is total crap! It ignores these equally valid statements:
Let’s say this world has currently around 8 billion first person point of views (ignoring non-human fauna.)
This implies the world I live in is clearly specified, because there is compelling information.

I know that I am in world number 234, because I exist in that world — Darkneos

Random BS presupposition.

Hence, the information to tell me which world I am in cannot remain unspecified, it must exist
Hence, point 16 and 18 are contradictions. — Darkneos

A poor projection of a flawed statement.
The information available, clearly DOES specify that Mr Barmadosa is in a world of (currently) 8 billion 'I think therefore I am,' minds. I can only assume you are easily duped!

It is the existance of the first person point of view itself that tells me which world I live in. — Darkneos

Yeah number 234! :lol: :rofl:
In what way does the above statement PROVE that other 'first person point of view's,' cannot also exist in world number 234? OR that Mr Barmadosa's notion of other 'worlds,' actually refers to the existence of other minds and in fact, disputes solipsism.

If there are multiple first person point if views in multiple words, then my world could not be determined for me, to know that I exist in that specific world. — Darkneos

But, it is just as valid to state:
If there are multiple first person points of view in ONE world, then my world CAN BE determined and Mr Barmadosa CAN ACCEPT that he exists in that single world.

Since I clearly know that I exist in which world, this information cannot remains ambigous or unspecified. In order to make the information specific, there can only be one such information, which means one first person point of view can only exist in the entire universe, not just in my world. Q. e. d — Darkneos

The first sentence here makes no sense, as it has too many English language errors.
The second sentence does not follow in any way whatsoever, as all the points made in this Quora post are subjective and are easily challenged. QED my arse!!

If there is a subjective world, there can only be one such subjective world
Multiple subjective worlds coexisting leads to a contradiction in any one subjective world
There is at least one subjective world, because I exist in such
My world is not contradictory
Hence, it’s only I that exist — Darkneos

The first sentence is pure speculation, and equalled by 'If there is NO subjective world.'
The second sentence invokes the observation that;
One subjection or multiple subjections are all just subjections.
It's like religions, there are many of them and they all contradict each other, on many points, so they cannot all be true! BUT, they could all be false.
The third sentence is valid but does not PROVE that ONLY he exists in that world.
His world is 'not contradictory,' due to the existence of billions of other independent minds, existing in it, along with him. Hence this is not proof that it is only him, that exists.

Seriously, this utter tosh makes you think that only YOU exist!!!
So under solipsism, Mr Barmabosa is actually an aspect of you? and so am I, who thinks Mr Barmabosa is very confused, and totally wrong, which means that you think YOU are totally correct and totally wrong about the exact same point, at the same moment in time! :rofl:
Mathematically, that would mean that in your single existent world, you believe x is true and false at the exact same moment in time. This shows how bad your logic is here, as the logic law of non-contradiction is fundamental in propositional logic.

I know that those current tormented will only be further nauseated by that kind of talk — green flag

Sure, misery loves company, but I refuse to play that game, to the extent that it dampens my joy in choosing life over living it as a curse.

Many folks are content to assign no significant credence level to any current proposal for the origin of the universe. 'I don't know' and 'I have heard no convincing proposals, yet.' These are perfectly valid positions and are in line with atheism.
I personally assign most credence to eternal cyclical/oscillating universe models like CCC, with no need for a first cause spark. But I am not fully locked in to the proposal. No enformer required, such would be superfluous.
I will let @180 Proof answer your question as and if he chooses to.

It's also the most awesome and wonderous adventure ever, imo.

"A day in the existence of" a 'thinking machine'? Assuming a neural network processes information 10⁶ times faster than a human brain, every "day" a human-level 'thinking machine' can think 10⁶ times more thoughts than a human brain, or rather cogitate 10⁶ days worth of information in twenty-four hours – optimally, a million-fold multitasker. — 180 Proof

Do you personally assign a measure of 'quality' to a thought? Is thinking or processing faster always superior thinking. I agree that vast increases in the speed of parallel processing, would offer great advantages, when unravelling complexity into fundamental concepts, but, do you envisage an AGI that would see no need for, or value in, 'feelings?' I assume you have watched the remake of Battlestar Galactica.
Did you think the depiction of the dilemmas faced by the Cylon human replicates, were implausible, as a representation for a future AGI?

I accept your detailed comparison of an AGI Apollo mission Vs the NASA Apollo efforts.
In what ways do you think an AGI would purpose the moon?
I am more interested is what you envisage as the goals/functions/purpose/intent of a future AGI, as compared to what you perceive as current human goals/functions/purpose/intent/aspiration.

Yep, it's like the 'lemming affect,' that many people experience when they don't like heights.
My mother has this, and she will say she hates heights, as she has an irrational, but very strong compulsion, to throw herself off. She is normally a very stable, rational, quite happy person. This 'lemming affect,' is quite common in people afraid of heights, but very few if any such people actually, do throw themselves off the edge due to this, they are far more likely to move away from it, and avoid the situation whenever they can. It's always very sad indeed, when a person is overcome and defeated, by such as addiction and obsession. The rest of us can only try our best to do what we can to help prevent such.

This isn’t a choice, though, you’re wrong there — Darkneos

Well, I accept that 'addiction' of any kind can seem invincible, but many have broken such obsessions before. I have never heard an ex-addict, claim that they are totally free of their addiction, or that someone with obsessive compulsive disorder, ever fully conquers it, but they have reduced such to a level of daily insignificance, that allows them to stop living their life as a curse.
I think my friends personal hell, that was triggered by his personal contemplations of the notion of infinity, is very similar to your 'solipsism' obsession. He came through his obsession, does that not offer you some hope, that you can do the same?

Ok.

If @Gnomon had to endure a 'fundamentalist Christian background,' then that is a very heavy chain to unravel. I am sure you would agree.

He must be fully credited for demonstrating the kind of will, skill and bravery, required to be able to contest the rationality and truth of viewpoints, that he had to live amongst, everyday. When did he decide to risk inciting the wrath of those he depended on for food/shelter etc or familial support. I have heard so many deconstructing theists, on call in shows, talk about the absolute turmoil they had to go through in their lives to pursue truth and reject the tenets of the religion they were forced to comply with from birth.
I DO consider such to be a form of mental terrorism and child abuse.
Managing to extract themselves from almost all they have ever known, due to a need for truth, makes such folks very brave people indeed!!!
I am glad to see evidence that his reason does compel him to label his enformer, as a god of the gaps posit, and I also applaud him for that with NO MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. I am sure you mean your :clap: in the same way.

Yeah, I was aware that of the aspect of your post. But you are normally reluctant to speculate on what will happen if an ASI style singular game changer moment occurs.
So if you are willing to speculate a little more, then I would ask you to muse on the following and 'imagine' a fully established and embedded ASI system. What would 'a day in the existence' of such involve?
You will probably refuse to play in my playpen here, but there are follow ups that I would offer, based on your suggestions for a day in the existence of. I would be willing to offer you my scenario, if you would prefer and explain a little more about why I am asking for such.

I think that's mistaken, because scientific method is a method, it is not a creedal statement. Following that leads only to 'scientism', as there are innummerable matters requiring judgement that are out of scope for science. — Wayfarer

I accept that is the view you hold, but I don't concur, which I accept, is of little consequence to you.
From wiki:
Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
You won't be surprised to read that I wear that badge with pride. I do hold the opinion that the scientific standard of empirical evidence, is the final arbiter of all human posits. For me, it is the only means of increasing the credence level that I will assign to any proposal. I can make decisions and take actions, based on having a much lower level of credence, but that's just because I am faced with a time constraint or a situation where no more evidence/data is currently available.
I do not find 'scientism,' to be an insult or too narrow a domain. I realise and accept that many don't share my viewpoint.

Stevenson really did build a large portfolio of researched cases, each of them comprising sometimes hundreds of cross-checked factual accounts - names, ages, incidents, locations, dates of birth and death, and the like. (See his Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.) He had a number of cases of children born with birth defects or markings that seemed consistent with accounts of accidents and injuries in their previous lives. One of his sceptical critics remarked that, if the same standards were applied to Stevenson as to any other researcher then he would have proven his case, but that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', a very useful goal-post shifting technique for sceptics. — Wayfarer

Would you say that he has more data than the astrologers/UFO enthusiasts/near death experience investigators/telepathy claimers/telekinetic claimers/paranormal investigators/christians/islamists/theosophists/etc
Have any of these claimers/claims, garnished enough data equal to, or greater than, Stevenson's?
To the extent that the evidence satisfies your own personal standard, for raising your credence level, to the level that warrants you to exclaim, 'I am now convinced this is true!'
For me, my resounding answer is NO!
You did not answer my question. 2.2 billion children in the world today, why do so few report knowledge of past lives?

Do you think there could have been an aspect, of whatever started THIS universe, that was aware of its own existence?
— universeness

Even if that's the case, our consciousness is still emergent. I don't know if reality is self-aware. — Eugen

I don't understand the logic of your conclusion here. If the big bang singularity was conscious, then we 'inherited' our consciousness from that property of the singularity. It did not emerge from 13.8 billion years of very large variety, combining in every way possible, via random happenstance. I think there is 0 evidence, that the origin of our universe was self-aware. All consciousness in the universe comes from lifeforms. Those who suggest otherwise have the burden of proof. They must provide a coherent list of properties, that an entity/independent substance/esoteric/god must demonstrate, to be labelled conscious, and then demonstrate that their targeted entity has the required properties.
What would a tree or a planet, have to demonstrate, for example, to convince YOU, that it is alive and conscious?

why is it hidden from us?
— universeness
It's not hidden, it's actually the only thing we can be sure of.
then why is it so undetectable?
— universeness
If you're talking about consciousness, it is not undetectable. — Eugen

I am referring to the SOURCE of consciousness being hidden and undetectable. If the source is already known to you then why did you author this thread?

Yes, it happens. How is that relevant to the question of if correlation proves causation or not? — Art48

If you accept quantum entanglement really happens, then does it matter if it happens via what we define as 'correlation' or what we define as 'causation?' The full details of the process/mechanism that causes quantum entanglement remains elusive, but it's real so I don't care much about the use of cautionary (but warranted) terms such as correlation instead of causation, until we know more of the details involved.
To me 'correlation' is merely a diluted form of 'causation.' They both indicate a relationship between variable properties of two or more 'connected' entities.

From the difference between correlation and causation:
Correlation refers to the relationship between two statistical variables. The two variables are then dependent on each other and change together. A positive correlation of two variables, therefore, means that an increase in A also leads to an increase in B. The association is undirected. It is therefore also true in the reverse case and an increase in variable B also changes the slope of A to the same extent.

Causation, on the other hand, describes a cause-effect relationship between two variables. Causation between A and B, therefore, means that the increase in A is also the cause of the increase in B.

Correlation provides no evidence at all, that the source of consciousness may be an entity manifest as an independent substance.

You are correct, I did find your toaster/headache example bizarre, and if investigated, then I would bet real money on 'no correlation' at all being found. I think it would turn out that the headaches were stress related, based on a person being irrationally annoyed (perhaps due to a childhood experience during a school trip to Germany) that women in Germany use annoyingly noisy toasters. :lol: and every time they recall the memory, they get a headache! aw! :flower: