It's an unfortunate asymmetry.
An intelligent person can play dumb.
A dumb person can't feign intelligence.
I don't know... maybe we can program it without humility, so it is naive enough to try and impress us with how smart it has become...
It's an unfortunate asymmetry.
Belinda,Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm Greylorn Ell wrote:
Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?None of you have an intelligent explanation for human consciousness.
Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?
No, that's not what I meant.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:05 pmSo that's what Greylorn Ell meant.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pmTo speak of consciousness is to speak of the Turing test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ).Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm Greylorn Ell wrote:
Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?
Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?
And it immediately poses a dilemma. If an AI is smart enough to convince us that it is 'human', it's also smart enough to fail the test to avoid the human moral panic that will ensue if it actually passed it!
Only for some.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:38 pmTo speak of consciousness is to speak of the Turing test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ).Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:33 pm Greylorn Ell wrote:
Do you mean waking consciousness of the man whose cerebral cortex is in good condition? Or dreaming consciousness of the same man? Or the consciousness of a brain-mind that is hallucinating? Or the waking consciousness of the experienced meditator ?None of you have an intelligent explanation for human consciousness.
Do you mean an explanation as in how did human consciousness originate and did human consciousness subsequently define the species? Or do you mean an explanation of how human consciousness survived despite the human's inferior physique?
Again, only for some.
That would depend on who the 'us' is that you are referring to here.
What "human moral panic" are you referring to here?
What I meant was that your are probably making the same basic mistake like almost everyone else about this so-called "beginning", that's how we've been programmed to think but you weren't bright enough to see the alternative.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:33 amGood job at being annoying. You've done your job, so go away for a time long enough to elucidate whatever the fuck you imagine that you're talking about. Then explain it, on a thread of your own please.Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:26 pm Just to be annoying
There is also a deeper paradigm here: the illogical idea that things had a beginning. You assume it, and the ones you critize also assume it, almost everyone assumes is.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--
An alternative idea is that spacetime is a closed loop (or something like that, circular), so it's both finite and without a beginning.
G
And you were so bright to see the "alternative" that you have failed to recognise that you've merely replaced one geometric entity for another.
your own thread negates your own post.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--things like the physical universe replete with its mathematically definable physics principles and billions of entities professing to exhibit some form of conscious self-awareness but mostly making a poor show of it, one might consider existing paradigms about the beginnings.
At first glance there would appear to be two major paradigms: the religious (an almighty and omnipotent God who made the physical universe, from nothing, and then made man, body and soul, from nothing). This God is an uncaused entity, having always existed.
The "scientific" paradigm declares that way back when, before anything existed, something called a "physical singularity" spontaneously came into existence. (This is an invention of pseudo-scientists. Singularities are mathematical forms that describe various ways to achieve infinity, such as the tangent of 90 degrees, the secant of 0 degrees, or any finite number divided by zero. Infinity, of course, is not a number and therefore cannot be the solution to any numerical problem. The concept of a physical infinity has not been defined, and is therefore a meaningless item of pseudo-scientific bullshit.)
Science's (to be specific, cosmology's) singularity has no cause, no point or time of origin. Any concept about where it first appeared makes no sense because "where" is a concept dependent on space, and possibly upon time (a.k.a. "when") as well. Neither time nor space could have existed at the instant of the singularity's appearance. Whatever, at some unknown time after its inexplicable and uncaused manifestation, the singularity spontaneously (i.e. without cause or reason) exploded into our universe, complete with energy and matter, plus dark energy and dark matter, and a shitload of "particles" that conveniently interacted to form the atoms composing the universe-- then, without cause, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc.
Ultimately, upon looking closely at either the detailed or superficial versions of the entities responsible for the beginnings of things (God vs. Singularity) they are:
1. Illogical bunk.
2. Functionally identical.
Why functionally identical? Neither God nor the singularity can be explained. They are both, at least from our current perspectives, uncaused.
The existence of either one cannot be verified. God is a spirit, defined to be beyond the detection capabilities of any physical scientific spirit. The singularity blew up, so we can do no better than find sorry traces of it.
Any so-called evidence for either God or the singularity is entirely inferential.
Neither offers a credible explanation for abiogenesis, or any reason for the creation of biological life.
Enough. Perhaps we can kick this around, without thread hijacks, please. (Other crackpots will kindly find the integrity to grind their personal theoretical axes (a.k.a. bullshit) on their own threads.)
Then I can move on to propose an alternative theory for the beginnings which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional), and subject to genuine scientific investigation because most of its hypothetical components (the parts participating in the beginnings of things) still exist and can be investigated by appropriately engineered physical instruments.
One of those parts includes whatever passes for the conscious, intelligent, self-aware human mind.
(A summary, added to the original OP:)
An understanding of the beginnings of things is important because all considerations about the current nature of the things in our perceived reality depend upon beliefs about their beginnings, particularly the question: Did a Creator, a God, make the universe? If so, why? If not, what did?
Atheists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept. Just as religionists believe in an entity that cannot exist, atheists disbelieve in the same entity! Well, good for them, except that they've built their pseudo-scientific nonsense upon the fundamental "all things from one" religious belief, doubling down on their opponents' faulty logic.
The dreadful mistake made by both religionists and atheists is their mutual agreement that a single entity could have possibly created our universe, a cause-effect universe within which two things, or two opposing forces, are required to make something happen.
The point of such discussion is to lay a foundation for a theory of the beginnings that requires at least two things, two opposing yet interactive 'forces. There's no mystery here; the theory already exists in published form. I'll try using this forum to explain it, a little bit at a time, perhaps more effectively expressed.
Put more simply: Current religious beliefs suck. Cosmology is just a variation of King Tut's monotheistic God, and it sucks the more because astronomers are often intelligent. We can do better. But we will not until we can acknowledge that all current theories about the beginnings (except mine, of course) are illogical and non-scientific.
The expected responses to this proposal have already started, in the form of "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?
Kindly focus your objections to this OP upon the OP itself. Thank you.
Greylorn Ell
Gaffo,gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:52 amyour own thread negates your own post.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--things like the physical universe replete with its mathematically definable physics principles and billions of entities professing to exhibit some form of conscious self-awareness but mostly making a poor show of it, one might consider existing paradigms about the beginnings.
At first glance there would appear to be two major paradigms: the religious (an almighty and omnipotent God who made the physical universe, from nothing, and then made man, body and soul, from nothing). This God is an uncaused entity, having always existed.
The "scientific" paradigm declares that way back when, before anything existed, something called a "physical singularity" spontaneously came into existence. (This is an invention of pseudo-scientists. Singularities are mathematical forms that describe various ways to achieve infinity, such as the tangent of 90 degrees, the secant of 0 degrees, or any finite number divided by zero. Infinity, of course, is not a number and therefore cannot be the solution to any numerical problem. The concept of a physical infinity has not been defined, and is therefore a meaningless item of pseudo-scientific bullshit.)
Science's (to be specific, cosmology's) singularity has no cause, no point or time of origin. Any concept about where it first appeared makes no sense because "where" is a concept dependent on space, and possibly upon time (a.k.a. "when") as well. Neither time nor space could have existed at the instant of the singularity's appearance. Whatever, at some unknown time after its inexplicable and uncaused manifestation, the singularity spontaneously (i.e. without cause or reason) exploded into our universe, complete with energy and matter, plus dark energy and dark matter, and a shitload of "particles" that conveniently interacted to form the atoms composing the universe-- then, without cause, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc.
Ultimately, upon looking closely at either the detailed or superficial versions of the entities responsible for the beginnings of things (God vs. Singularity) they are:
1. Illogical bunk.
2. Functionally identical.
Why functionally identical? Neither God nor the singularity can be explained. They are both, at least from our current perspectives, uncaused.
The existence of either one cannot be verified. God is a spirit, defined to be beyond the detection capabilities of any physical scientific spirit. The singularity blew up, so we can do no better than find sorry traces of it.
Any so-called evidence for either God or the singularity is entirely inferential.
Neither offers a credible explanation for abiogenesis, or any reason for the creation of biological life.
Enough. Perhaps we can kick this around, without thread hijacks, please. (Other crackpots will kindly find the integrity to grind their personal theoretical axes (a.k.a. bullshit) on their own threads.)
Then I can move on to propose an alternative theory for the beginnings which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional), and subject to genuine scientific investigation because most of its hypothetical components (the parts participating in the beginnings of things) still exist and can be investigated by appropriately engineered physical instruments.
One of those parts includes whatever passes for the conscious, intelligent, self-aware human mind.
(A summary, added to the original OP:)
An understanding of the beginnings of things is important because all considerations about the current nature of the things in our perceived reality depend upon beliefs about their beginnings, particularly the question: Did a Creator, a God, make the universe? If so, why? If not, what did?
Atheists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept. Just as religionists believe in an entity that cannot exist, atheists disbelieve in the same entity! Well, good for them, except that they've built their pseudo-scientific nonsense upon the fundamental "all things from one" religious belief, doubling down on their opponents' faulty logic.
The dreadful mistake made by both religionists and atheists is their mutual agreement that a single entity could have possibly created our universe, a cause-effect universe within which two things, or two opposing forces, are required to make something happen.
The point of such discussion is to lay a foundation for a theory of the beginnings that requires at least two things, two opposing yet interactive 'forces. There's no mystery here; the theory already exists in published form. I'll try using this forum to explain it, a little bit at a time, perhaps more effectively expressed.
Put more simply: Current religious beliefs suck. Cosmology is just a variation of King Tut's monotheistic God, and it sucks the more because astronomers are often intelligent. We can do better. But we will not until we can acknowledge that all current theories about the beginnings (except mine, of course) are illogical and non-scientific.
The expected responses to this proposal have already started, in the form of "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?
Kindly focus your objections to this OP upon the OP itself. Thank you.
Greylorn Ell
which God? YHWH, Vishnu, Thor, Baal????
instead you post about "god" (which Gods?)
and science - which offers no answers about the Big Bang - only .000000000000001 seconds after.
Instead of just "trying to" introduce a set of ideas, why not just introduce them?Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am
I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form.
Instead of "hoping to" introduce the notion, why not just do it?Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 amI hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development.
It might be time for that. A couple of nitwits had been sandbagging this thread by using it to poop at each other. No point trying to have a useful idea exchange amid a bullshit storm.Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:28 amInstead of just "trying to" introduce a set of ideas, why not just introduce them?Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am
I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form.
Instead of "hoping to" introduce the notion, why not just do it?Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 amI hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development.
Ah look, you have ALREADY 'introduced the notion' that some parts of "our" Universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. So now that that notion has been introduced would you now care to just expand on this a bit further?
The mis-understanding between QM and classicists is that of "cause-end-effect".Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.
In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.
Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.
Given the observer's limitations...surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:09 am The law of cause and effect is based on observation not on presupposition
There is no evidence that it isn't either.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:09 am There is no evidence that effects precede causes or that time is reversible
It's confirmation bias.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:51 am There will always be limitations to observation because technology itself has limited capability
And scientists have therefore no choice but to work within such limitations when doing science
ALL the evidence supports the law of cause and effect with NONE at all supporting the opposite claim
That includes the Second Law Of Thermodynamics which states that entropy only increases over time