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

originally posted by: AlienView
To those who are truly interested the future this may be of interest:

So I guess you're just going to ignore responses that don't adhere to your view then?

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: AlienView
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]

Not sure I understand. Are you saying that consciousness "picks" a host to manifest itself? Could you clarify this point for me?

Of course the key word here is CONSCIOUSNESS - This is a word Man, that vain animal that is semi-conscious, would like
to claim an exclusive right to own and yet when pressed can not give a definition of it that will satisfy even his own kind
let alone other conscious states that he is only occasionally aware of. Man likes to think he lives in a dead unintelligent
universe and by some miricale [Thieist] or strange magical accident [Atheist] suddenly became aware of it.
CONSCIOUSNESS is as old as the universe and preceeds all exsitence - It did not occur by magic - it is and always was
and always will be - However it changes its manifestations and the intelligence that grows out of consciousness is
always seeking new avenues of exploration and undestanding.

A simle way to see this:

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

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?

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

originally posted by: 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 - DESCRIBE JUST ONE [!] EVENT WITHOUT USING YOUR MIND TO DO IT

Your challenge is ridiculous and adds no context to the argument.

It is based on the false premise that the only way anything can exist is through consciousness, which has already been proven to be a counterfactual claim. The very existence of Objective Reasoning confirms this.

Also, I couldn't help but notice you have continued to ignore responses from me and others that have directly opposed your inaccurate views.

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?

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 !

originally posted by: AlienView
PROVE IT !

We already have, you simply continue to ignore specific comments.

The existence of Objective Reasoning discounts the claim that Consciousness is required of everything else to exist.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: AlienView
PROVE IT !

We already have, you simply continue to ignore specific comments.

The existence of Objective Reasoning discounts the claim that Consciousness is required of everything else to exist.

And you are capable of 'Objective Reasoning' without consciouness

originally posted by: AlienView
And you are capable of 'Objective Reasoning' without consciouness

Nope!

However, that wasn't the argument you were making. You've now moved the goal posts.

Your claims were never stating "Objective and Subjective reasoning cannot exist without consciousness".

Your argument is "Consciousness is a prerequisite for reality". Which it is not.

Sorry, but your inability to understand the concepts within this argument do not validate your claims.

Ghost 147 wrote:

Sorry, but your inability to understand the concepts within this argument do not validate your claims.

No, the only thing I don't understand is your attempt to turn a hypothetical abstract into an argument - for tha sake of argument.

If it is interesting I'll reiply, if not I will not - you have the same option to what I post - the fact that I keep getting flags for
it seem to indicate some find it interesting - not necessarily provable laws of science - And even the provable laws of science have changed. Most no longer believe that the Earth is at the center of the Universe - though for a long time they did. As far as I'm concerned I'm at the center of the universe - and you are an outsider.

originally posted by: 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.

originally posted by: AlienView
If it is interesting I'll reiply, if not I will not

Really? because I've made several comments now that you have completely ignored. They weren't off topic, they were direct responses to your claims. They were all on topic, so you ignoring them isn't because "they are not interesting" but rather that they counter your position.

originally posted by: AlienView
the fact that I keep getting flags for it seem to indicate some find it interesting -

Yes, it is unfortunate for you that popularity doesn't determine validity.

originally posted by: AlienView
And even the provable laws of science have changed.

Yes, that's because science doesn't deal with absolutes, it deals with current available information through observation and is subject to change upon further observation to more accurately depict our description of naturally occurring phenomena.

originally posted by: AlienView
Most no longer believe that the Earth is at the center of the Universe - though for a long time they did.

It is a bad thing to become more accurate, why?

originally posted by: AlienView
As far as I'm concerned I'm at the center of the universe - and you are an outsider.

I am most certainly not surprised at all that you come to this conclusion.

Consider this:

Quantum Theory Proves That Consciousness Moves to Another Universe After Death

A book titled “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe“, published in the USA, has stirred up the Internet because of the notion that life does not end when the body dies and can last forever. The author of this publication, scientist Robert Lanza, has no doubts that this may be possible.

Beyond time and space Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology Company. While he is known for his extensive research on stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species. But not so long ago, the scientist turned his attention to physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since. The theory implies that death simply does not exist. It is an illusion which arises in the minds of people. It exists because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking that their consciousness will disappear too. In fact, consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. That fits well with the basic postulates of quantum mechanics, according to which a certain particle can be present anywhere and an event can happen in several, sometimes countless, ways. Lanza believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. These universes contain multiple ways for possible scenarios to occur. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another it continues to exist, absorbing consciousness which migrated to this universe. This means that a dead person, while traveling through the ‘tunnel’, ends up in a similar world he or she once inhabited, but this time alive. And so on, infinitely.

Multiple worlds: This hope-instilling but extremely controversial theory by Lanza has many unwitting supporters – not just ‘mere mortals’ who want to live forever, but also some well-known scientists. These are physicists and astrophysicists who tend to agree with the existence of parallel worlds and who suggest the possibility of multiple universes, known as the Multiverse theory. Science fiction writer H.G. Wells was the first to come up with this concept, which was proposed in his story “The Door in the Wall” in 1895. 62 years after it was published, the idea was developed by Hugh Everett in his graduate thesis at the Princeton University. It basically states that at any given moment the universe divides into countless similar instances. And the next moment, these “newborn” universes split in a similar way. You may be present in some of these worlds – you may be reading this article in one universe or watching TV in another. The triggering factor for these multiplying worlds is our actions, explained Everett. When we make certain choices, one universe instantly splits into two different versions of outcomes. In the 1980s, Andrei Linde, scientist from the Lebedev Physical Institute in Russia developed the theory of multiple universes. He is now a professor at Stanford University. Linde explained: “Space consists of many inflating spheres, which give rise to similar spheres, and those, in turn, produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. In the universe, they are spaced apart. They are not aware of each other’s existence. But they represent parts of the same physical universe.” The fact that our universe is not alone is supported by data received from the Planck space telescope...........

See whole article here:
www.learning-mind.com...

Hopefully this will clarify the matter for you Ghost 147 - However I must admit to you that even my 'Sciencefictionalist'
imagination does not believe in Ghosts - but with multiple universes out there who knows.

originally posted by: AlienView
Consider this:

Quantum Theory Proves That Consciousness Moves to Another Universe After Death

I fail to see how this substantiates your position. I do not deny that our consciousness could exist after we die, in fact, before I read about Biocentrism, I had already theorized the possibility of it myself. However, the point you made earlier was not that our consciousness continues to exist after we die, but also before, and also nothing else can exist without consciousness. Which is simply false.

Again, you are exhibiting an inability to comprehend the argument at hand.

Try this:

Proof Consciousness exists outside the brain

Proof consciousness exists outside the brain. Given two years ago by Dr. Greyson of UVA, (interviewing him for the next edition of "Flipside") 90 mins of scientific (peer reviewed case studies) evidence the mind works just peachy when our noggin is switched off. In some cases better. Why does it matter? Think about it. And don't shoot the piano player. youtu.be...

As long as materialist scientists rule the allocation of funds for studying this sort of thing, we'll see materialist results. However, scientists like Dr Greyson, Dr Kelly ("Irreducible Mind") or Dr Beauregard ("Brain Wars") neuroscientists, psychiatrists, physicists are allowing the data to lead them in a new direction. Looking for funding outside the box of traditional sources is the way of the future. As Dr Greyson says in his talk, it was xerox founder Chester Carlson who funded his program at UVA. Tons of money gives people access to new ideas, and there are folks who want to help science find the light at the end of the tunnel. If you can, watch the entire talk - it's pretty MIND BLOWING.

Dr. Greyson is pretty much the foremost authority on near death experience, (NDE) and is the foremost scientist studying it. This talk is from his nearly 1000 cases. As he says in the talk:

"this evidence is not accepted or known by most American scientists – nevertheless it is there, and it is reliable and reproducible evidence – we have cases of people whose brains have been deteriorating for years suddenly think clearly on their deathbeds, people who function normally sometimes with high intelligence who have virtually no brain tissue, NDE experiencers who think more clearly than ever when their brains are not functioning, and we have very young children who can barely speak, who talk about their past lives with accurate details. These phenomena, all well investigated by modern scientific methodologies, and building upon decades or centuries of prior research, strongly suggest that under extreme circumstances, consciousness can be produced and can function without the intercession of the phsycial brain."

See whole article here:
richmartini.blogspot.com...

NOTE: THERE IS A COMPLAINT REGISTERED ABOUT THIS THREAD - BY WHO IS NOT STATED - FOR WHAT IS NOT STATED
- IF MAKING PEOPLE THING IS A PROBLEM LET ME KNOW - I'LL POST ON THE MICKEY MOUSE FORUM INSTEAD

originally posted by: AlienView
Try this:

Proof Consciousness exists outside the brain

Both your quotes have nothing to do with backing up your claim at all. The first one is just explaining what this blogger believes the 124 minute long youtube video is about.

The second quote has nothing to do with anything at all in accordance to the thread itself.

Why are you even posting this garbage?

originally posted by: AlienView
NOTE: THERE IS A COMPLAINT REGISTERED ABOUT THIS THREAD - BY WHO IS NOT STATED - FOR WHAT IS NOT STATED

Odd. I haven't noticed anything in this thread that would go against forum rules.

Usually, if you get notified of a complaint, the moderator that notified you tells you what is going on and doesn't simply state "there was a complaint"

originally posted by: AlienView
IF MAKING PEOPLE THINK* IS A PROBLEM LET ME KNOW

Lately you haven't even been able to keep track of this very argument, and you've actively ignored comments (which you still have yet to acknowledge) that counter some of your points. It doesn't sound like it's the audience is having a struggle with this aspect.

originally posted by: AlienView
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]

Very true indeed !

And for now consider this:

What you need to know about artificial intelligence, and the imminent robot future
Sci-Tech
December 22, 2015
by Luke Westaway

As we veer ever closer to the year 2016, my sci-fi-fuelled childhood fantasies of a bot with a "brain the size of a planet" are closer than ever to being realised. 2015 saw drones taking to the skies, while back on the ground artificial intelligence programs are achieving above-average scores on college entrance exams. Artificial intelligence (or AI) is the practice of making a machine behave in a practical, responsive way. It's already changing our world and is, by my reckoning, the most fascinating field of technology right now.

But, as one professor I spoke to for this story put it, the "audacity of the attempt to build an intelligent machine" comes with a responsibility to know what we're meddling with. For everyone who ever thumbed through a copy of "I, Robot", mouth agape, here's what you need to know about AI in the modern world.

Robots are very close to killing us

Mention the phrase "killer robot" in conversation and you'll almost certainly raise a smile, your peers doubtless imagining a glowing blue humanoid cyborg sadly pondering, "What is love?" before its eyes turn red and it self-destructs, obliterating the northern hemisphere.

Deeply ingrained in modern pop culture is the notion that some manner of AI uprising is on the cards -- James Cameron's iconic image of a Terminator stamping on a mound of human skulls is never far from any geek's thoughts.

That playful, cinematic and deeply poetic cultural artifact belies the very real threat humanity faces, however. Not from killer robots overthrowing their human masters, but from intelligent robots following orders.

The immediate threat, experts warn, comes in the form of autonomous weapons -- military machines capable of killing without permission from a human. From unmanned planes to missile defence systems to sentry robots, we've already got military hardware that functions with very little input from a human mind.

Groups such as the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots say we're inching ever closer to closing the loop and letting machines handle our killing for us -- a scenario that's legally, pragmatically, and of course ethically problematic.

The less sensationally named Future of Life Institute recently published an open letter signed by hundreds of AI researchers and famous tech personalities, warning, "If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow."

Robots won't be like us -- they'll be better

From the Terminator series to movies such as "I, Robot", " Chappie", "Ex Machina" and even "Short Circuit", the way we portray AI on screen has traditionally been human-centric. We tend to imagine a being that essentially looks and acts a lot like a person. As AI spreads into every aspect of our life, we should be prepared to broaden our horizons when it comes to imagining the bounds and types of intelligence that can be valuable. After all, we've got plenty of human-grade intelligence already.

"The point can't be just to replicate ourselves," Shadbolt said. "We've got very interesting biological ways of doing that, so why on Earth would we want to do it in silicon?"

From the humble Roomba to Google's animal-like self-driving car, Siri or neural networks that oversee data centres, AI is branching out in ways we couldn't have imagined decades ago. "If you define intelligence in a way that's more machine-centric," Professor Alan Woodward told me last year, in an interview on the fading relevance of the Turing Test, "you'll find some very intelligent machines out there already.".................

See whole article here:
www.cnet.com...

a reply to: AlienView

I can see where this has gone just by this one post.

YOU JUST REPLIED TO YOURSELF.

As for what you're saying? It's false.
What happened before there was life? Planets still formed, stars still went supernova, stuff still happened.

So the whole premise for your argument is flawed from the beginning.

originally posted by: AlienView
Very true indeed !

Are you aware that you're now replying to your own comments....

As for the rest of your comment. Why have your recent replies just been massive quotes without any context on to what you're perceiving the quotes to mean.

Your last three posts haven't contained anything of value for your argument. Some don't even relate at all. Your not commenting whatsoever on other peoples responses.

This topic seams dead.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AlienView

I can see where this has gone just by this one post.

YOU JUST REPLIED TO YOURSELF.

As for what you're saying? It's false.
What happened before there was life? Planets still formed, stars still went supernova, stuff still happened.

So the whole premise for your argument is flawed from the beginning.

"What happened before there was life? Planets still formed, stars still went supernova, stuff still happened"

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, theories which
have changed much over the centuries. What I'm saying is there is no absolute proof of existence without what is
called an 'observer' - without a conscious mind calculating existence no existence can be proven and logic dictates
that non-existence could never exist - Hence the hypothesis that consciousness itself had to always exist.

Any proof you might ask of the so called 'observer' having any significance in the paradigms of reality?
Yes there is some, for example:

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

"REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place........."

See whole article here:
www.sciencedaily.com...

So now ask yourself these question - What did the universe really look like before there was a conscious mind observing it?
What does reality look like without an observer? Prove the existence of a totally unconscious universe and show how it
looked before obsevation began to define it - 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 - And how do you know the past was
always the same? - 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.

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........

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.