Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 18, 2024, 10:27 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?
#11
Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?
That's rather Teilhard de Chardin.
Reply
#12
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 13, 2014 at 1:42 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: That's rather Teilhard de Chardin.

Better Teilhard de Chardin than the Skynet of the Terminator movies.

Stephen Hawking had some interesting things to say about computer viruses in one of his lectures.

Life In The Universe

Quote:For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on.

Even if computer viruses can be counted as some kind of life there's no evidence, as yet, that they'll result in the internet evolving consciousness.
Badger Badger Badger Badger Where are the snake and mushroom smilies?
Reply
#13
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 11, 2014 at 8:16 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: In the sense that we are all part of the larger Cosmos, perhaps analogous to the cells that comprise one brain, it seems at least that something like a Universal Conscious or Intelligence can be made into an intelligible framework... no?
No. Mind/consciousness/self-awareness (or whatever appropriate term you want to use here) is a product of brains. Brains are a network of interacting components so at very least it would be necessary to demonstrate the existence of the 'Universal network' before we could start hypothesising about the nature of its resultant interactions.

Everything else is baseless conjecture.
Sum ergo sum
Reply
#14
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 11, 2014 at 8:16 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: A lot of times I hear terms such as these thrown around in the context of some quasi-religious, pseudoscientific assertion about telepathy or the placebo effect or the run-of-the-mill con-artist masquerading as a "card-reader" or "healer." I'm not really interested in these silly charlatans. I want to talk about the idea of Universal Conscious or Intelligence in a philosophical context, as a notion that logically proceeds from the realization that there really isn't an external world that is fundamentally separate from the mind. That is because the mind is itself a product of the external world, just another feature that arose from atomic interactions. In the sense that we are all part of the larger Cosmos, perhaps analogous to the cells that comprise one brain, it seems at least that something like a Universal Conscious or Intelligence can be made into an intelligible framework... no?

Do you have in mind some sort of centralized mega-entity comprising us all? If so, do you think that it has intentions and volition? I don't personally believe so in either case.

IMO there may be a universal substrate to each individual's consciousness. But it would be universal in a topological/thematic sense, not in a linked/collaborative way.
Reply
#15
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 11, 2014 at 8:16 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: A lot of times I hear terms such as these thrown around in the context of some quasi-religious, pseudoscientific assertion about telepathy or the placebo effect or the run-of-the-mill con-artist masquerading as a "card-reader" or "healer." I'm not really interested in these silly charlatans. I want to talk about the idea of Universal Conscious or Intelligence in a philosophical context, as a notion that logically proceeds from the realization that there really isn't an external world that is fundamentally separate from the mind. That is because the mind is itself a product of the external world, just another feature that arose from atomic interactions. In the sense that we are all part of the larger Cosmos, perhaps analogous to the cells that comprise one brain, it seems at least that something like a Universal Conscious or Intelligence can be made into an intelligible framework... no?

Sure it can. We know that matter (us) can be conscious so why not assume it is conscious all the way down? This makes perfect sense.
David Chalmers (I donät agree with his strong AI, though) has discussed of "information spaces" that each consciousness must have. Now, it is reasonable to assume that the consciousness is a product of evolution -- it has evolved from maximally simple information spaces; and as Chalmers and so many other highly intelligent persons argue -- and I fully agree with them -- it is totally reasonable to assume that such space (e.g. one bit per time unit -- try to imagine!) is something that elementary particles actually have.

Hamerhoff and Penrose have, btw quite recently (2013) published a new article with new evidence for their Orc-OR theory of consciousness. If they are right, it seems plausible that wherever a wave-fucntion collapses (objective reduction), there is some primitive "consciousness" or proto-consciousness as they call it.

Its not just philosophy: its also real science!

As for "God", "Buddha" or universal C. , not just some primitive flickering of quasi-awareness in the emptiness, a Universal Mind consciouss of its self, perhaps something one could access with contemplation -- why not? I don't think its crazy ... you just don't have the "scientific evidence", but that's no counter-evidence.(and this was not inverse burden of proof: I am not arguing FOR anything here)

(May 13, 2014 at 9:52 am)whateverist Wrote: Do you have in mind some sort of centralized mega-entity comprising us all? If so, do you think that it has intentions and volition? I don't personally believe so in either case.

IMO there may be a universal substrate to each individual's consciousness. But it would be universal in a topological/thematic sense, not in a linked/collaborative way.

I think the idea was simply to assume that materialism (as the claim that matter can subsist without consciousness) might be false view ... such "idealism" does not imply any such view you're talking about ... you can just think universal consciousness like you think universal matter, as an atribute (as SPinoza called it) of the substance or even the substance as such. That view does not imply that it is some mega-entity -- that's theism (as general term including pantheism, deism, etc) The "topological/thematic sense" you're referring is, I guess, the truth in some sense any way, even from materialist viewpoint, but I might not get what you're aiming at with that expression.
Reply
#16
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 13, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Hegel Wrote: Sure it can. We know that matter (us) can be conscious so why not assume it is conscious all the way down? This makes perfect sense.

No, that doesn't make sense. The evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of a complex assemblage of matter, not the matter itself.

Quote:David Chalmers (I donät agree with his strong AI, though) has discussed of "information spaces" that each consciousness must have. Now, it is reasonable to assume that the consciousness is a product of evolution -- it has evolved from maximally simple information spaces; and as Chalmers and so many other highly intelligent persons argue -- and I fully agree with them -- it is totally reasonable to assume that such space (e.g. one bit per time unit -- try to imagine!) is something that elementary particles actually have.

Again, no - that does not follow. You assume far too much on no evidence.

And if you believe matter is conscious, how can you disbelieve strong AI?

Quote: Hamerhoff and Penrose have, btw quite recently (2013) published a new article with new evidence for their Orc-OR theory of consciousness. If they are right, it seems plausible that wherever a wave-fucntion collapses (objective reduction), there is some primitive "consciousness" or proto-consciousness as they call it.

Its not just philosophy: its also real science!

No, that is not science as it is not testable.

Quote:As for "God", "Buddha" or universal C. , not just some primitive flickering of quasi-awareness in the emptiness, a Universal Mind consciouss of its self, perhaps something one could access with contemplation -- why not? I don't think its crazy ... you just don't have the "scientific evidence", but that's no counter-evidence.(and this was not inverse burden of proof: I am not arguing FOR anything here)

Yes, you are making a claim for which you have no evidence.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Reply
#17
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 13, 2014 at 8:29 pm)Chas Wrote: No, that doesn't make sense. The evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of a complex assemblage of matter, not the matter itself.

This isn't right, IMO. The "evidence" we have that some things are conscious is based on their behavior, and our philosophical willingness to believe that objects that exhibit certain behaviors are "really" conscious.

We cannot scientifically test for consciousness. We can only scientifically test for markers that we have already chosen to believe represent consciousness. This is fine when determining if Grammy is conscious, but does not contribute meaningfully to philosophical arguments about whether the Cyberboy 3000 is really conscious, or whether some primitive kind of atomic consciousness is associated with all matter.
Reply
#18
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?
(May 12, 2014 at 10:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Let me take this further-- as devil's advocate only.

We know mind exists, because here we are. Whether we believe in substance dualism or not, it's clear that the minds we have are somehow related the brain, specifically the flow of information among the cells of the brain. Well, we have a complex flow of information among people, especially on the internet. It's possible to think of humanity now as a unified entity in some degree, as we are (almost) all interfaced through the internet-- our ideas, preferences, changing beliefs, etc. are represented in that context. Somehow, the Internet has an identity of its own that transcends our own reality.


So is the Internet a living thing? Does it have its own awareness, somehow greater than the sum of the individual human minds which contribute to it? I think somehow you could say it does. While some individuals contribute greatly to certain causes, there's a kind of cloud processing there which produces actual results that nobody could predict. In that sense, we are tools of the Internet rather than vice versa.

This is why you shouldn't advocate for the Devil; he makes you say silly shit. Wink


Firstly, as you say, our ideas, beliefs, etc., are represented - or rather, encoded - on the Internet. It doesn't have an identity in the sense that we mean when we say an "agent" has identity. The internet is basically just a bunch of web servers connected by massive cables run through tubes all over the planet. But the cables and servers are, for wont of a better term, inert, not responsive to external stimuli, they don't maintain a sort of homeostasis autonomously. It certainly doesn't transcend our reality, it's one entirely of our own creation; I'm adding to it now in fact. :p

Secondly, what are you talking about? We, as you say, contribute to it. We are not a part of it in the way our brains are for us. It's merely a medium of communication; just think of it as a bigger version of the "connect two cans with a string to talk longer distances" thing kids do sometimes. The only real difference is that instead of using the vibration of strings to carry the information of our messages to the connected party, we use webservers to encode and store information via server-side programming languages, to be retrieved as requested.
I'm not really getting what you mean. What does the internet do autonomously that we have no expressly and demonstrably set it up to do? What sort of emergent phenomena can you point to, to show that's the case?

(May 13, 2014 at 8:11 am)Confused Ape Wrote: Stephen Hawking had some interesting things to say about computer viruses in one of his lectures.

Life In The Universe

Quote:For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on.

Even if computer viruses can be counted as some kind of life there's no evidence, as yet, that they'll result in the internet evolving consciousness.

Maybe it's unfair of me to say this since I don't know the full contextm but I don't think Hawking knows what he's talking about there. With the way he presents his argument in your quote, you might as well say that ideas and beliefs are life. After all, they cannot exist without a host, they (especially deeply held ones) get their hosts to spread them to others,

I get the same vibe from that Hawking quote (especially from the end of it) as I do when I hear Krauss say that the universe came from "nothing": It just seems like he's trying too hard to be provocative.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
Reply
#19
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 13, 2014 at 8:45 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Mind/consciousness/self-awareness (or whatever appropriate term you want to use here) is a product of brains...Everything else is baseless conjecture.
The idea that the brain produces the mind is baseless conjecture.
Reply
#20
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 13, 2014 at 10:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
(May 13, 2014 at 8:45 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Mind/consciousness/self-awareness (or whatever appropriate term you want to use here) is a product of brains...Everything else is baseless conjecture.
The idea that the brain produces the mind is baseless conjecture.

.. as compared with what alternative theory?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Good read on consciousness Apollo 41 2395 January 12, 2021 at 4:04 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Machine Intelligence and Human Ethics BrianSoddingBoru4 24 1802 May 28, 2019 at 1:23 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  are aesthetics universal? zainab 15 1216 March 2, 2019 at 7:24 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How could we trust our consciousness ?! zainab 45 4452 December 30, 2018 at 9:08 am
Last Post: polymath257
  dynamic morality vs static morality or universal morality Mystic 18 3474 May 3, 2018 at 10:28 am
Last Post: LastPoet
  The Universal Moral Code BlindedWantsToSee 57 7188 November 2, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Last Post: BlindedWantsToSee
  Consciousness Trilemma Neo-Scholastic 208 54009 June 7, 2017 at 5:28 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis Won2blv 83 13305 February 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  My thoughts on the Hard problem of consciousness Won2blv 36 5438 February 15, 2017 at 7:27 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  A hypothesis about consciousness Won2blv 12 3884 February 12, 2017 at 9:31 pm
Last Post: Won2blv



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)