Consciousness/AI/Whatever else

The Emperor's Lounge
#21

It is unlikely that the hard problem of consciousness will ever be validated by pure “science,” since classical physics, by its very nature cannot (and most likely will not) explain the rise of life from non-life. And since classical physics and most modern ideas of “science” operate on the concept of measurement, and consciousness itself cannot be measured (because it can’t even be defined), you run into… well, the hard problem of consciousness.

The latest scientific journals I read started delving into the brain possessing “quantum tunnels” which somehow lead to consciousness. The moment you hear the word “quantum,” we are talking about a branch of physics that defies everything we know about the known universe and the way it operates. All traditional logic begins to break down.

When looking at Plato’s theory of forms, you begin to realize that one of the purposes of “death” is the destruction of the old forms to allow the incorporation of the new. In order for us all to understand “consciousness,” we have to gravitate past both materialism and “idealism” and combine them into a synergistic notion – one that embraces both traditional science and the metaphysics of the idealists.

4 Likes
#22

Classical physics is useful to do bunch of stuff on Earth, but this makes sense, because what can’t be measured doesn’t “exist” in classical science.
For some reason these discussions makes me think about Interstellar.

I hope New Limitless can help people think outside the box.

#23

RoM and RoS.

The word “revelation” means “unveiling.” Thus, the name of the title is essentially, “the unveiling of the mind / spirit.” Hence, the nature of the Unfolding Series (and precursor to the NSE). Through your own experiences, you can become aware of the workings of your own mind and thus understand things intuitively, which can be simply defined as: understanding the whole without having to personally experience the constituent parts.

4 Likes
#24

Bit of a ramble incoming…

Perhaps a key to this discussion is:

What is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness? Or perhaps, where does self-awareness begin on the scale of consciousness?

I think it’s easy to see that humans are the most advanced conscious beings on this planet. We’re certainly not the only conscious beings.

But I would go so far as to say we’re the only self-aware beings on the planet (without going into the more mystical/esoteric argument).

My cat is conscious. I don’t know if there have been peer reviewed or clinical studies, but trees have been known to have a form of consciousness.

But, are they self-aware?

What is self-awareness?

“I think and therefore I am” is one quote that comes to mind. But, does this define me as self-aware? What of feelings? I can think about it feelings, I can choose what to do about them. Or not do.

Maybe the fact that I’m able to say “I am…” and choose what comes after that, without outer input, suggestion or programming.

Humans, as has been shown in more and more ways in recent years, can identify themselves in many ways. Whatever our personal argument might be with others self-identification, the fact remains that we have the ability to choose a sense of identity and to change that sense of identity.

By choice.

Do animals? I don’t think so.

I also haven’t heard of any human that has been able to give an animal self-awareness. Mankind as a majority doesn’t even understand what consciousness really is.

I say, if you don’t understand something, how can you expect to give it, bestow it, upon someone or something else?

You can’t.

I believe that the conscious that humanity has will never be seen in a computer.

Not only do we think, do we feel, do we identify…

Can anyone explain to me how they expect a computer will ever be able to manifest/co-create? To reason whether or not this is something they want to see continue in their lives, on their planet, and change?

That, more than anything I’ve said previously, makes me a firm believer that computers/AI will never have the level of consciousness that I or anyone that bothered reading this far exhibit.

I don’t have the science, or research to debate this or that. But I do have the ability to reason.

I don’t think I’ll ever hear of a computer having an intuitive, mystical experience.

Regardless of how advanced a computer can become, it is only as advanced as its creator(s) and their capacities. There will always be a limit to what a computer can accomplish with consciousness.

The same cannot be said of man.

#25

They called it hard problem of consciousness. Way back in college I heard a discussion on neural network and consciousness based on philosophical theories. Intriguing enough based on my own experience I was asking question on how is it possible to create a world of my own in dreamless sleep, how the brain creates that conscious experience. The conscious experience cannot arise from the brain, even from any physical process, and cannot be reduced to some neural activity.

You can have a feeling and the brain can create a pattern of neural activity, but it may not be that feeling. It is simply the pattern of a feeling. That’s why we can’t reduce the conscious experience of what we sense, feel and think to a brain activity.

On a relativistic point of view, where we change our assumption about consciousness and assume that it is a relativistic phenomenon, then we can get some answers.

Let say a different relativistic phenomenon, constant velocity. We have two person A and B, where B is on a train that moves with constant velocity and A watches B from a platform, there is no physical answer to the question what the velocity of B is. The answer is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer.

From B frame of reference, he will measure that he is not moving and A, with the rest of the world, is moving backwards. But from A’s frame B is the one that’s moving and he is stationary. Although they have opposite measurements, both of them are correct, just from different frames of reference. Based on this we find the same situation in the case of consciousness.

Both A and B are in different cognitive frames of reference. B will measure that he has conscious experience, but A just has brain activity with no sign of the actual conscious experience, while A will measure that she is the one that has consciousness and B has just neural activity with no clue of its conscious experience. Just like in the case of velocity, but it could be different measurements, both of them are correct, but from different cognitive frames of reference.

We cannot find the actual conscious experience while measuring brain activity because we’re measuring from the wrong cognitive frame of reference.

But it is still a theory, the brain doesn’t create our conscious experience, at least not through computations. And the reason that we have conscious experience is because of the process of physical measurement.

Different physical measurements in different frames of reference manifest different physical properties in these frames of reference although these frames measure the same phenomenon.

Suppose in a lab B measure’s A’s brain while feeling good. Although they observe different properties, they actually measure the same phenomenon from different points of view. And because of their different kinds of measurements, different kinds of properties have been manifested in their cognitive frames of reference.

In the lab B need to use measurements of their sensory organs. This kind of measurement manifests that something that causes brain activity – the neurons.

As a result, in his cognitive frame A has only neural activity that represents his consciousness, but no sign of his actual conscious experience itself. But A uses different kind of measurements, to measure his own neural activity as feeling good. He doesn’t use sensory organs; she measures her neural representations directly by interaction one part of her brain with other parts. He measures her neural representations according to their relations to other neural representations.

This type of direct measurement manifests a different kind of physical property, A’s measures his neural activity called conscious experience.

#26

You know its getting real hardcore scientific smart level kind of shit when you hear someone use train analogies

#27

Lol. I’ve read the same example in an introduction into Einsteins theory of relativity.

1 Like
#28

That’s so dope…

#29

Fucking love trains

2 Likes
#30

Been thinking about how to best answer this question.
You know how many subs here have this feature where they help you manifest mentors or the right resources appropriate for the goal you are trying to realize for yourself?
Same thing with books or courses in philosophy. Or math. Or any subject, really.
In my case, at some point in my life, I had a dream in which a strange, tiny man appeared out of a hill and shouted a name at me. It was a very strange sounding name. I googled it and after some attempts at spelling it correctly, I found out that it was a very old and massive scripture by the name of Yog Vasistha. When I read it, I realized that it answered most of my questions at that point in time. Much later on, when I did research for my master’s thesis, I came across various contemporary philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup and Thomas Nagel who said similar things, but updated with analogies fit for our time. They were just the right things to read at that time, for me. So what I want to say is that there is no best book or best brand of idealism or any other -ism, but if your thoughts are dwelling on some issue for long enough, you’ll come across things that help you put things together in your mind. Same with math or any other subject. The third edition of Thomas’s Calculus might be the best thing since sliced bread for someone, but a dry bore for someone else, who might have understood the subject much better through Spivak.

That being said, there are basically two branches of idealism. Objective and subjective idealism. Objective idealism is what Kastrup tries to explain and defend, because it has far more explanatory power than current versions of philosophical materialism, and needs less logical jumps to boot. It can also not be confused with solipsism(the world exists in you and basically revolves around you), unlike subjective solipsism.
However, Western philosophers like Kastrup generally do not practice anything and do not strive for what Eastern people might call enlightenment. They are simply concerned with finding and defending plausible theories that have greater explanatory power than those used before. So they’re intellectuals.
There are very good reasons why the Buddhists after Nagarjuna realized that madhyamaka is only good for defeating materialists in intellectual debates and for clarifying some things for yourself to gain confidence, but otherwise useless for transformative practices.
That is the reason why Yogacara became popular among yogis in Tibet and China. Western philosophers would call it a self-centered form of subjective idealism which is difficult to distinguish from outright solipsism. It is sometimes not even logical, but that is not the point, because it exists to serve the yogi in his individual practice, which more specifically means losing the human form and going utterly beyond what you believe about not only yourself, but about the most basic things you can even perceive. That is the beginning of real magic(defined as the attainment of total freedom of perception to the point of practically popping out of this world before you die; look up the rainbow body phenomenon for this) and easily leads to insanity. The advanced practices of Dzogchen preserve this kind of practice.

So if you’re interested in intellectual arguments that attempt to destroy the foundations of materialism, look up objective idealism as championed by modern philosophers or the Madyamaka(the Madyamakakarika by Nagarjun is a tough read but worth the time if you’re also willing to understand all the basic concepts it builds on). If you’re interested in retracing the path of the yogis, look up subjective idealism, or more specifically, their Asian counterparts(Lankavatara Sutra, Dzogchen teachings etc.), because the Western equivalent is weak as hell in comparison, because it contains no practical teachings. Modern Western philosophers have a hard time understanding that philosophy is more than an intellectual pastime and must necessarily be occupied with the transformation of being to truly bring you to the point where you fulfill the very meaning of philosophy(philo-sophia=the love of wisdom, and decidedly not the love of empty words).

1 Like
#31

Never thought about it this way. That you could go for an illogical philosophy that would be useful for growth. (I am paraphrasing). I am saying illogical, meaning a philosophy that doesn’t make sense at all at our current level of understanding.

1 Like