It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well fine, let's elaborate on the example and say hypothetically that we've invented A.I. Now the cat in question can travel and act in its virtual world as well as follow instincts through its A.I. Let's also say that we have given it logical reasoning ability and the ability to think for itself. Would you consider that cat a real cat?
In response to: "There's nothing wrong with subjectivity. It is a real and true thing, part of reality and part of how reality is experienced. What I am saying, is that each person's subjectivity arises from a Universal Source that can be accessed & experienced."
You think so? Ask a blind man to describe a building or a deaf person to describe music. I'd bet their descriptions would vary greatly from what you or I would describe.
Then it is up for debate. If there exists a possibility of something not being true then there is ALWAYS room for debate.
I think you know what I meant by god. Notice I haven't been capitalizing the g, I'm using the word as a descriptor. But if that word makes you uneasy, I can always switch to source, infinite, divine, or whatever you prefer. In my eyes they are all the same thing and even then, I could care less what we call it. If you wanted me to, I'd call it an icicle. It's not like the descriptors we give this "thing" do it justice on describing what it really is (if it exists).
In the face of experience, you have to show that the million dollars exists in the first place for me to experience it.
At least we know for a fact that we can discuss the idea of winning the million dollars, but if the money never existed in the first place, we can never experience it. Heck maybe all that existed was 250,000 dollars. The experience of winning 250 grand could be like winning a million dollars, but we both know its not the same because the buying power is a quarter lower.
Yes I know, and I was showing the failings of that view. I can just as easily change the view and those universal traits stop being universal.
Well that goes without saying. But I'm saying that with humans' processing power and awareness of the universe, that absolute truth is unknowable to us.
Even if you did happen to stumble upon it, you could never know if you were 100% correct or not.
That is true, but would we be able to comprehend it if we were to witness it?
I fear eternal damnation basically.
I'm becoming depressed and slightly suicidal,
reply to post by Krazysh0t
A.I. will still lack consciousness, intuition, the ability to Love, an emotional center. If you dig up all the ancient Taoist, Buddhist, Yogic texts, they show how Consciousness arises fro the heart center, and into the brain upon the body waking in the morning. The Heart and the gut, actually have brain based neuron centers within them..... the human being is a lot more complex then most realize. What the ancients have discovered & written about 100'2/1000's of years ago, is just recently starting to be discovered.
No, the A.I. cat, even with instincts, logic, reason, would still not be the same as an actual cat or what we have here.
What I am saying, is that the blind man's subjective experience of being blind, is true. HE can still eventually describe the building by feeling it inside and out. And a deaf person can describe music by feeling the vibrations. The descriptions will be limited, but the fact is, they still experience reality subjectively. You would be hard pressed to find anyone agree that there is no such thing as subjectivity, unless you roll with hard core philosophers.
Sure, you can debate anything for as long as you want. But you can still purchase a ticket and experience the Sunrise in Australia, instead of merely debating whether there is a sunrise and an Australia.
In the face of experience, you have to show me that you read this sentence. Prove to me that you experience reality subjectively.
I'm sure you have had experiences in your life you wanted to share with others, and then realizing the futility of words, simply expressed, "you just had to be there to really know." Same deal. All you have at the end is your description, and you can never again recreate all those circumstances and details that happened on that day, in that experience. Same deal
How can you change the "subjectively experienced by humans", universal traits of the sun? That would be a tough deal without reverting to a change in perspective such as, "Jupiter experiences the sun differently."
That's putting limits & confines & rules on something that may not have any. Perhaps human Awareness itself, is inherently linked to this Absolute Truth.
Then also we can say, we can't ever know anything, and everything we think we know, we really don't.
What is the definition of knowing for sure and can anything me known for sure then?
Perhaps experience yes, but not necessarily comprehend.
I can experience the sun, but I cannot comprehend its magnitude, power, internal force & heat on its surface.
No, I will not resort to atheism. Not when i have had countless personal experiences with the law of attraction, astral projection, telekinesis, etc.
So how does all of that sit with you when discussing the reality is a simulation theory? If that theory turns out to be true, then WE are just A.I.'s existing in a computer, programmed to think and reason. So how can you say consciousness exists for us but not for an A.I. cat in one of our computers?
I never said subjectivity didn't exist. I was saying that due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not.
Yes, because we know that a landmass that we, humans, have named Australia exists on this planet, which experiences sunsets. Therefore we can logically go to that landmass and witness that event. HOWEVER we do NOT know that a god or supremely cosmic being exists. I can't just stroll down the block and go shoot the s# with god. So until that is the case, the concept of god or whatever you want to call it, can only exist in the realm of debate.
First, this is impossible to do by myself. Everything I experience is my own personal experience, without anyone else I could never judge my experiences against another's and know what they think.
When you read a sentence, do you ever have to reread it once or twice so that you can understand it better? That same sentence could be read once by someone else and immediately be understood without rereading.
Oh I'm not trying to argue that what you experienced wasn't truly fantastic. For you. I'm just saying that you aren't leaving room for the possibility that there could be something MORE fantastic out there.
You've already assigned this descriptor of god/infinite/singularity/what have you to it. If there existed a life form that is the size of the Milky Way galaxy and you came into close contact with it, would you be able to adequately describe it? Would you consider it god or infinite since you cannot see the edges of it?
Easy, have a human witness and experience Rigel. Rigel makes the sun look like an ice cube and a dark cave by comparison.
I guess that could be possible. But we certainly don't have the know how, technology, or tools to currently solve this riddle. I'd imagine that we won't have them for some time either (if ever).
Sure you can, here the numbers are listed on the Sun's wiki page: Sun Sure the numbers involved may be massive and hard to imagine, but there are plenty of visual aids you can use to understand what those numbers look like. That's all comprehending is. Being hard to comprehend != impossible to comprehend.
The difference between comprehending the Sun and god is that god is supposedly infinite or everything. In order to comprehend god, we have to be able to comprehend EVERYTHING. That is a much harder feet than comprehending a definite object like the Sun.
Look for the most happy people on the planet, then check what Religion they are and go with that. Gotta go with what is working.
reply to post by Krazysh0t
I actually agree that reality is a simulation, since all the ancient philosophical & spiritual paths like Buddhism, Taosim, Yoga, aspects of Hindusim, and various philosophical aspects of Christianity have all been echoing that we live in an illusion and can climb out of it to see/witness actual reality, via Enlightenment.
The way all these cultures/branches describe the nature of illusion, includes also the nature of reality and the real you that is prior to all illusion, including maps/blueprints on how to find/access this.
You are clearly conscious. Whether you believe so or not, after the body dies, consciousness continues in a bodiless state, and existed prior to being born in a body (at least I remember it to be so, among with a few others here on ATS). Consciousness interacting with physical reality relies on rules, limits, principles. That A.I. cat may not abide by those and therefore would not be conscious.
Some may argue that consciousness is infinite/universal/everywhere. But even then, the A.I. cat may have some semblance of consciousness, but nowhere near in the manner that a living cat has.
So because of "subjectivity" we can't ever know or trust anything in the world knowledge base that is academia and all that it entails, science, philosophy, math, etc? Meaning everything is in limbo as a 50/50 chance?
We can know "correctly" that subjectivity Is, and exists. There's a start!!!!
Whoever does experience an Australian sunset, has to do so via the limits & constraints of subjectivity....something you just said, " I was saying that due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not."
In that case, I can never know whether this landmass you refer to actually exists, or if logic actually exists.
Furthermore, you have the ability to think correct? Thinking is a subjective experience. Everyone thinks. You teach children how to think, children which when born don't know how to. They are taught how to use and experience a subjective faculty.
Same with Love. Another subjective experience. A person born on earth doesn't know Love, and then they meet someone, fall in Love, and experience Love for the first time.
Can we say, "we do NOT know that" Love or thinking exist? Or would this be limited to someone who has not loved, has not thought?
Same thing with God. Can be accessed, and experienced. Even though experience is confined to subjectivity, doesn't mean the experience and what is being experienced, isn't real.
so in that same vein, you can judge your own experience of not experiencing God, against those who are experiencing God. Technically, both are right in their experience and non-experience of this Beingness. However, the non-experiencer has not traversed the steps that it takes to uncover this experience, while the experiencer has.
Plus, throughout history and in all cultures, including in todays world, there are experiencers that have been, and continue to describe this.
What I meant is, the very first time you read it, without any mention of re-reading. That first time you read it, the wind, clouds, dust, sun angle, everything was a certain way which can never be recreated again. It was subjective, and you can't prove it. IF you say you had a witness, that witness's testimony is confined also to their own subjectivity, which you said: "due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not.?
Actually, I have no other choice than to be open to all possibilities, including MORE fantastic. However, accessing this MORE fantastic isn't being offered to me by academia, science, etc. Instead, its being mentioned by experiencers of it, that there is an eternal & infinite joy One can access within that is not relative & dependent on anything.
The experience is truly ineffable and my descriptions are needles in haystacks. They pale in comparison. I understand your take on perspective & size, however you don't understand my take on being prior to and transcending size. IF you can imagine a being that is everywhere & nowhere at once, with no possible definitions because all are transcended, then in that very nature of its own being, limits to size are an impossibility because that would be introducing limits and structure to the limitless and structureless.
Yeah that would require a space ship and safe place/planet to witness this. I meant within the confines of being a human, living on earth, experiencing the sun. Rigel is not the sun, and you wouldnt be on the earth anymore to try & begin to fathom its magnitude.
Certain individuals solve this riddle within themselves and access the answer.
For example, I have directly located and experienced the source of thought within myself. There is actually a focal point within the point, via a nerve channel which thought uses to arise upon waking. I'm guessing you haven't experienced this. Since this requires going within and exploring for hours, how much more may you be missing out on what is within you?
Those visual aids & numbers are pointing at the sun, but they are not the sun. For me to comprehend would require an up close experience, entering into it, feeling it, experiencing the distance from earth. A direct experience of something is always better than mere descriptions.
I never said one can comprehend God, but I do say one can experience God. By its nature, God is incomprehensible since it transcends all the faculties that are required for comprehending.
I don't understand how you can say that we are living in an illusion (which explicitly implies that it was created by something else) but can experience consciousness, but an A.I. cat living in a simulation that we created cannot experience consciousness.
I can tell you that I am alive and thinking. I cannot tell you if I am conscious or not. You said it yourself, humans don't understand consciousness, it may just be an illusion created by our minds to help us understand our surroundings.
Why? I really don't understand this reasoning. You don't think with enough technology and knowledge of how our universe works we couldn't create within a computer another simulation with an A.I. cat that is conscious?
This is why science doesn't deal in absolutes.
Math would be one of the few things that isn't subjective, but only the abstract math you learn in math class without objects assigned to the numbers. That is why science always gives error ranges after its figures.
1 + 1 will always equal 2. When you start assigning numbers to physical objects is when the subjectivity happens.
Philosophy was a poor example by the way. Philosophy by its very nature is subjective since no two people seem to share the exact same philosophy.
Whoa there, thinking isn't taught. Thinking is ingrained into all of us. A baby or child left to their own devices will figure things out. Part of a baby becoming a toddler then a child is it learning to walk then talk then explore and so on. Parents can guide their children to learn these things quicker, but they aren't teaching their children how to think.
I really cannot say on this. I've never experienced love. Or at least love between two lovers, not so much familiar love. Going by high divorce rates, domestic abuse, and other social problems, I could make a reasonable case that even some people who say they have experienced love, actually haven't experienced it yet (possibly what they are calling love, others would call mild infatuation).
Like I said when discussing love, there could be a good argument made that many people who say they have experienced love in the past have actually been deluding themselves when they only felt a bit of sexual desire and infatuation. They don't find that out until much later when going through a terrible divorce though. They cannot tell that what they are feeling isn't love at the time.
That's fine and all, but how do you know that what you are accessing is god?
I'm just questioning that what they experienced was actually what they thought it was.
The reason I keep bringing up size is because humans don't know the limits of their mind, the awesomeness of experiencing an infinite being may be the same awesomeness as experiencing a being the size of the Milky Way because in both cases we cannot perceive its limits.
Let's go a step further. What if the Milky Way itself is alive? What if, what you are experiencing is actually the essence of the Milky Way itself? The Milky Way is between 100,000 to 120,000 light years across. Can you comprehend that distance? I have trouble comprehending 1 light year, let alone 100,000 of them. I can certainly try though, 1 light year is about 6 trillion miles. So given the size of the Milky Way, if you were experiencing its essence vs experiencing the essence of the entire universe, could you tell the difference?
As a 3D being that may or may not travel through the 4D (call it time), I would never be able to imagine anything outside the dimensions I can access. Ever heard of the novel Flatland? It's about a 2D person (in this case a square) coming into contact with a 3D person (in this case a sphere) and how it can see and interpret this information. The book is actually a satire on Victorian culture, but is a great way to get an idea of how a lower dimension entity would see and understand a higher dimension entity. This example also helps bring up another observation, how do you know that what you experienced isn't just a being from a dimension MUCH higher than our own? Ever draw a 4d cube (or hypercube) and look at it? It hurts your head to try to comprehend how all the edges are connected.
You are talking literal witnessing, I'm talking hypothetical witnessing. Let's assume that we don't need to stand on Earth to witness a star. Though I would like to point out that we certainly can witness Rigel on Earth. How else would we know about it?
Looking at all I'm missing out on in the universe, I'd say its not surprising that there is stuff I'm missing out on within myself.
Well as it stands, the only thing preventing you from doing that is your Earthly body. Which could never enter space and approach the sun, and if it did, you'd burn up before even reaching it (the corona is actually the hottest and brightest part of a star and its not even on the star). Though provided that you didn't die of asphyxiation while in space or burn up while approaching and being by the sun, how do you know you couldn't comprehend it?
reply to post by Krazysh0t
Considering science doesn't even know what consciousness is, let alone how to manipulate it fully, how do you expect to create a conscious AI Simulation, without knowing what consciousness is? Its like trying to paint a replication of the mona lisa without ever seeing the painting or ever getting access to it.
*snip* The remembrance and the current are direct knowledge & experience, which has been confirmed by others I have come across. So who is right?
A human being has blood, nervous systems, meridians if you ask the asian philosophies, a heart, a gut, intuition, all of it working in tandem to create a conscious living being. Considering science or programmers do not fully comprehend how all these systems work together for Consciousness to integrate, what makes you think that with current level technology, they can create a cat, and instantly it will be conscious or self conscious?
Yeah, well absolutes may exist, and because science limits itself with rules & regulations they may miss out on areas where they should be looking in the first place
Even if you don't assign number to physical objects, it remains subjectively conceptual
Actually there are tons of people that share the same philosophies.
Reality itself is without labels and thoughts. Children are taught how to superimpose thoughts/labels that everyone is agreeing on, over a naked reality.
My point is, Love is an actual thing, a direct experience of something that is intangible, but nevertheless real.
Thinking is intangible, subjective, nevertheless, thinking happens.
Because its similar to knowing that you're soaked, when you're soaked, or in love when your in love. There is an aspect of direct knowing, just like you know you are. No whatever that "Are" is, can certainly be debated....but there is an aspect of knowing that breathing, seeing, living, reality, existence are all happening.
In this regards, you just wouldn't comprehend me unless you had the experience of a nonlocal simultaneous everythingness which has no boundaries. To create a limit or boundary on this Being, would be like water being unable to fill a cup, or wind that can't move, or finding the end of infinity.
no I cannot comprehend it and I would not be able to tell the difference. But I am directly experiencing the milky way in a subjective limited way.
What I am referring to is completely different. For I am proposing One discovers who the inner experiencer is and what its qualities are. That then gives rise to a source in which you merge with. This merging is a complete different kind of beast than trying to comprehend the milky ways size vs. the entire universe. Still apples & oranges.
What Im saying, is that Being is intrinsically and inherently linked to all beings, all things, all of existence, as its very ground of being & source. When that experience is accessed, even if you fathom multitudes of dimensions with multitudes of Beings, there is this inherent nature in that experience that it would itself still be the ground of being and source of any additional existences, of which it already feels like there are multitudes.
Now for the sake of discussion, could this being be one of many, or another one prior to it......like I said, that would be like trying to find an end to the Cantor's slices between 0 & 1.
Well that happens to be one of the precursors to accessing the source, is to go within and kind of figure out whats what, what is real & illusion. Though NDE's still come to mind, as due accidents which trigger access to this Being. There is an ATS'er on here named Bluesma who even accessed it accidentally (though for me it was fate & synchronicity) and she didn't like anything about it and would never want to return to it, lol......but that's more so to do as an attachment to relative/subjective existence and all it has to offer.
So you say, but there may yet be an undiscovered method to get there externally too.
There are methods, blueprints, maps that teach one how to free consciousness from the body for travel to witness such celestial bodies for one's self, and since there is no physical body around consciousness when it leaves, there is no worry about being burned & killed. I've popped out spontaneously a few times and seen some things.....but that's niether here nor there....
You can witness celestial bodies outside of our planet by leaving your body? Quick question, what color is our sun?