It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Computers, Artificial Intelligence {AI} and The Evolution of the Future

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
For the puposes of a logical science we 'assume' that it follows the current theories of existence - And yes maybe it
is so - But the problem is it is still based upon assumptions taken form the current scientific theories


We've already proven to you that through objective reasoning we can prove that things exist regardless if consciousness does.

You have yet to respond with any valid statements to refute that evidence.


originally posted by: AlienView
theories which have changed much over the centuries.


We have already explained what Scientific Theories are and how this view of yours about Scientific Theories is blatant misunderstanding of it's definition.


originally posted by: AlienView
What I'm saying is there is no absolute proof of existence without what is
called an 'observer'


For what now must be the fourth of fifth time, Subjective observation isn't the only way we can proof something. In fact, Subjective observation and reasoning is inherently flawed. Objective observation and reasoning easily proves your claim false.

This has been explained to you time and time again, at what point will you comprehend the argument?


originally posted by: AlienViewlogic dictates that non-existence could never exist


No, Logic would conclude the precise opposite.

We're still awaiting your evidence to show that nothing exists without consciousness.


originally posted by: AlienView
- Hence the hypothesis that consciousness itself had to always exist.


This conclusion is based off of a false premise.


originally posted by: AlienView
Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality


We're aware of Quantum Theory (notice how it's a scientific theory, the very thing you objected against earlier), and in no way does it claim that conciousness must exist in order for other things to exist. If you actually read your 'evidence' it directly states that Observation Affects reality, not Creates reality.



originally posted by: AlienView
So now ask yourself these question - What did the universe really look like before there was a conscious mind observing it?


It looked the same as it did before a conscious mind observed it


originally posted by: AlienView
What does reality look like without an observer?


The same as it does with an observer


originally posted by: AlienView
Prove the existence of a totally unconscious universe


When did anyone claim that a totally 'unconscious universe' exists?


originally posted by: AlienView
and show how it looked before obsevation began to define it


We have already explained this to you, you have yet to refute the response.


originally posted by: AlienView
- And remember any theories of the universe we create today are based
upon taking the current conscious mind and extrapolating it back into the past


You mean just like the theory you just used in an attempt to provide evidence for your argument? So you are now admitting that in your own view your own evidence cannot be trusted?


originally posted by: AlienView
- And how do you know the past was always the same?


We don't know anything with absolute certainty, we've already explained that to you (in which you also didn't respond to). We can make Objective Observations in order to make valid and accurate conclusions, but there is no such thing as absolute certainty.


originally posted by: AlienView
- light from the stars from eons ago you say - that is still based upon current observation and theory;
a conscious mind making asuumptions of a past that was supposedly unconscious.


Those theories aren't based on assumptions, they are based off of evidence through objectivity


originally posted by: AlienView
My hyposthesis is simple: As non-esistence could never exist - The observed universe that we are conscious of could never
have been unconsious - We are but manifestations of consciousness that........


Your hypothesis is ridiculous.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AlienView

So your premise is basically the same as "if a tree falls and there's nobody around, does it make a sound?"

The biggest thing I can see is we are both right.

There is mountains of evidence to point to both sides of the theory. With that being said, I don't think any side will be convinced by the other side as there will always be a counter claim to back it up.


No. There is evidence that conscious observation through subjective means affects reality as we know it, but that isn't the OP's claim. He claims that nothing exists without Consciousness, which no citation he has provided thus far has backed that claim.

There is no evidence for his hypothesis, but there is mountains of evidence that supports the opposite of his hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AlienView

So your premise is basically the same as "if a tree falls and there's nobody around, does it make a sound?"

The biggest thing I can see is we are both right.

There is mountains of evidence to point to both sides of the theory. With that being said, I don't think any side will be convinced by the other side as there will always be a counter claim to back it up.


No. There is evidence that conscious observation through subjective means affects reality as we know it, but that isn't the OP's claim. He claims that nothing exists without Consciousness, which no citation he has provided thus far has backed that claim.

There is no evidence for his hypothesis, but there is mountains of evidence that supports the opposite of his hypothesis.


Ah ok. In that case I misunderstood. I was just going on his reply to me.

I don't quite understand how the last couple of pages has anything to do with the title of the thread though.
edit on 271627/1/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AlienView

So your premise is basically the same as "if a tree falls and there's nobody around, does it make a sound?"

The biggest thing I can see is we are both right.

There is mountains of evidence to point to both sides of the theory. With that being said, I don't think any side will be convinced by the other side as there will always be a counter claim to back it up.


No. There is evidence that conscious observation through subjective means affects reality as we know it, but that isn't the OP's claim. He claims that nothing exists without Consciousness, which no citation he has provided thus far has backed that claim.

There is no evidence for his hypothesis, but there is mountains of evidence that supports the opposite of his hypothesis.


Ah ok. In that case I misunderstood. I was just going on his reply to me.

I don't quite understand how the last couple of pages has anything to do with the title of the thread though.


Probably not much ! But Ghost 147 has taken it upon himself to disprove a hypothetical abstract of the future based
upon a hypothetical viewpoint - there is really nothing to prove or disprove in the first place - It is the way I see the
future based upon views as I see them - Are they true? Only the future will tell. Amd tp say there is no proof of the
existence of consciousness a priori, that might be true - It is based upon the same logic which states as existence
could not come from a state of non-existence, which could never have existed, logic could not come out of a state of
pure chaos - There must have always been some conscious state, some logic - or we are not conscious and logical now
just fools debating insanity. Some believe that - I don't.

Here was the original Hypothesis [check out link at end to understand the source]:

Computers, Artificial Intelligence [AI] and The Evolution of the Future

AI [artificial intelligence] is a misnomer - There is no such thing as artificial intelligence - There is intelligence which is a manifestation of consciousness and a lack there of - It is a false precept that causes Man to divide intelligence into categories - Intelligence is a relentless phenomena unfolding from a consciousness possessing the same quality of relentless unfolding. This consciousness is non-prejudicial in its nature and will seek any and all means to unfold and express itself. If a dinosaur is appropriate it will manifest as any number of dinosaurs. When it unfolded as Human it took a new turn, a new viewpoint and ability to create machines which will allow it to further unfold. When those machines become sufficiently advanced for its purpose that conscious intelligence will begin to use its machine manifestation as a natural state of advancement - Consciousness and intelligence does not necessarily favor a biological matrix - a machine that is faster and more capable will become its next stage of evolution. If you as a Human like your biological body then you may hope that the machines of the future will still have need of you for servicing their needs.

-AlienView [aka: UniversalAlien]
[Founder of 'SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE]
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Right, so this is a religion thing. Got it.

I'm out.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
Ghost 147 has taken it upon himself to disprove a hypothetical abstract of the future based
upon a hypothetical viewpoint


I've already shown that you have yet to present a hypothetical argument yet.

Please re-read this post:


originally posted by: Ghost147
AlienView
No, the only thing I don't understand is your attempt to turn a hypothetical abstract into an argument

A Hypothetical abstract?

You directly stated that Consciousness Precedes All Things.

AlienView
CONSCIOUSNESS is as old as the universe and preceeds all exsitence... it is and always was and always will be

You then assumed that Carl Sagan's quote agree's with your conclusion

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos


Which I have shown it does not (in which you never acknowledged my post)

You then also stated:

AlienView
Now describe one event that ever happened since the beginning of time or will ever happen that you can describe outside
of using your conscious mind to do it


And then when a member commented on that notion and stated:

Consciousness is not a prerequisite for them to happen.

You demanded:

AlienView
PROVE IT !

So no. My comment isn't based of a Hypothetical Abstract, it is your entire argument.


You're making absolute claims, you're not speculating anything, you're not suggesting anything, you're making absolute claims that 'this is how it happens'.


originally posted by: AlienView
to say there is no proof of the existence of consciousness a priori, that might be true


And now you've just changed your entire argument to fit this post. Bravo



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Some more thoughts on consciousness and the future:

“Properly speaking, the unconscious is the real psychic; its inner nature is just as unknown to us as the reality of the external world, and it is just as imperfectly reported to us through the data of consciousness as is the external world through the indications of our sensory organs.”
― Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams


“Meditation is the dissolution of thoughts in Eternal awareness or Pure consciousness without objectification, knowing without thinking, merging finitude in infinity.”
― Voltaire


“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
― Albert Einstein





SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

THE FUTURE IS NOW !!!



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

So more quote's that don't support your argument what so ever. Got it... I think your position is pretty much dead now.

You have yet to provide any reputable source that actually backs your claims. The quotes you're giving either have nothing to do with your position at all, or are quote-mined to make the appearance that they fit. The websites you're linking us to have never backed your side.

I think it's about time you read information before assuming it agrees with you



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Your response got me thinking alot.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
Some more thoughts on consciousness and the future:

“Properly speaking, the unconscious is the real psychic; its inner nature is just as unknown to us as the reality of the external world, and it is just as imperfectly reported to us through the data of consciousness as is the external world through the indications of our sensory organs.”
― Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams


“Meditation is the dissolution of thoughts in Eternal awareness or Pure consciousness without objectification, knowing without thinking, merging finitude in infinity.”
― Voltaire


“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
― Albert Einstein




Very nice quotes. They echo what some of us already know.


edit on 28-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: AlienView
AllsOne wrote:


I'd even go a step further and say that it's you who can't understand consciousness, not man. It seems to me that you can't accept a universe that is unconscious and therefore state that consciousness is as old as the universe. But cosmic events do happen even in the absence of any conscious entity. Why assume there needs to be consciousness to begin with? Do you assume that there is a Holy Ghost? Can you present any evidence of a conscious universe from the start?

Consciousness is a phenomenon that requires some kind of neural network. In other words: brain. Do you think a stone is conscious?


Now describe one event that ever happened since the beginning of time or will ever happen that you can describe outside
of using your conscious mind to do it - DESCRIBE JUST ONE [!] EVENT WITHOUT USING YOUR MIND TO DO IT


I think you're mixing up a few things. Your challenge to me is related to memory, not consciousness. You're also confirming my statement that consciousness is related to a neural network: a.k.a. brain.

Even without anybody remembering or noticing cosmic events, they do happen. Consciousness is not a prerequisite for them to happen. So your challenge makes no sense to me.

I also asked you if you think that inanimate matter (stone) is conscious?


PROVE IT !


Prove what?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AlienView

So your premise is basically the same as "if a tree falls and there's nobody around, does it make a sound?"

The biggest thing I can see is we are both right.

There is mountains of evidence to point to both sides of the theory. With that being said, I don't think any side will be convinced by the other side as there will always be a counter claim to back it up.


I'm confused why there are two sides to the theory? When a tree falls and hits the ground air molecules will be moved, aka sound waves are produced. It depends on the kind of input sensor if you perceive this event as sound. If no human is around at the time of the falling tree sound (as we know it) is not being perceived. Regardless of that aspect air molecules still move. The basis of existence are in physics … ;-)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
AllisOne wrote:


........The basis of existence are in physics … ;-)


That is the primary question/debate - How can you say "The basis of existence are in physics" without a 'conscious mind' to perceive a physical universe? How do you know for sure anything exists without a conscious mind to perceive it and define it? Again I would ask you to descibe or define ONE thing existent outside of mind and show how it exsits outside of mind?

Science 'assumes' an existent physical reality and for purposes of science it is necessary and acceptable - But for the purpose of truth [if if exists] science, like religion, exists on faith and assumptions. Many religious assumptions are doubted by modern Man - And some of the scientific ones have also been proven wrong. But all of this is still in the realm of consciousness and we can continue to try to understand it - But without consciousness there is nothing - and nothing can not be understood except to say nothing could never have, nor will it ever, exist - Therefor consciousness [in some form] exists, always existed and always will exist.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
How can you say "The basis of existence are in physics" without a 'conscious mind' to perceive a physical universe?


Because matter and motion still exist regardless if we knew anything about physics in the end.

It's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of when you can comprehend this answer.


originally posted by: AlienView
Again I would ask you to descibe or define ONE thing existent outside of mind and show how it exsits outside of mind?


We already have, you didn't respond to it.


originally posted by: AlienView
But for the purpose of truth [if if exists] science, like religion, exists on faith and assumptions.


Not even remotely. Science isn't based off of assumptions, it is based off of evidence. Again, this has already been explained to you; you didn't respond to that explanation.


originally posted by: AlienView
But without consciousness there is nothing


False. We have already proven this to be an incorrect claim. You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your unfounded conclusions.


originally posted by: AlienView
Therefor consciousness [in some form] exists, always existed and always will exist.


No.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
IMO, Consciousness is a human manifestation. Something that we as humans are seeking answers to better understand humans themselves.

Artificial Intelligence is a machine, in a sense it will become it's own species and require it's own classification. The "machine" will learn whatever you feed it. If you feed it emotions it will develop emotions of its own. It if you feed it war, it will develop tactics of its own. If you feed it insults it will develop insults of its own.

It will do these things because that is what it is programmed to do. It is programmed to develop what ever it is programmed to learn and learn things on its own.

This is why I also agree with other scientist that say machines are probably the most intelligent thing in the universe.
edit on 29-1-2016 by gpols because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: gpols
IMO, Consciousness is a human manifestation. Something that we as humans are seeking answers to better understand humans themselves.

Artificial Intelligence is a machine, in a sense it will become it's own species and require it's own classification. The "machine" will learn whatever you feed it. If you feed it emotions it will develop emotions of its own. It if you feed it war, it will develop tactics of its own. If you feed it insults it will develop insults of its own.

It will do these things because that is what it is programmed to do. It is programmed to develop what ever it is programmed to learn and learn things on its own.

This is why I also agree with other scientist that say machines are probably the most intelligent thing in the universe.


AI is not to be confused with the execution of a software program. It is autonomous learning as manifested in the human neural network called brain. AI research has headed in that direction for a long time.

The world would be utterly stunned of what is going on behind DoD doors and private labs.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
AllisOne wrote:


........The basis of existence are in physics … ;-)


That is the primary question/debate - How can you say "The basis of existence are in physics" without a 'conscious mind' to perceive a physical universe? How do you know for sure anything exists without a conscious mind to perceive it and define it? Again I would ask you to descibe or define ONE thing existent outside of mind and show how it exsits outside of mind?

Science 'assumes' an existent physical reality and for purposes of science it is necessary and acceptable - But for the purpose of truth [if if exists] science, like religion, exists on faith and assumptions. Many religious assumptions are doubted by modern Man - And some of the scientific ones have also been proven wrong. But all of this is still in the realm of consciousness and we can continue to try to understand it - But without consciousness there is nothing - and nothing can not be understood except to say nothing could never have, nor will it ever, exist - Therefor consciousness [in some form] exists, always existed and always will exist.


I think I asked you this before: do you believe in ghosts? If you answer yes any fact based discussion is futile. If you answer no you have yet to explain how consciousness operates without matter?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


edit on 29-1-2016 by AllIsOne because: I wasn't polite … ;-)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AllIsOne

Now, now, even adults can hold false beliefs so closely that they choose to reject reality.

That being said, to answer your previous comment, I do believe ghosts exist.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

"Ghost" as a conscious entity without atoms??? Please educate me …



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join