Philosophy Now Forum

The question at hand I've answered in the affirmative. Consciousness stems from our biology. I've yet to meet a silicon lifeform with consciousness, or a free-form mind either, floating in the aether.

Dalek Prime wrote:The question at hand I've answered in the affirmative. Consciousness stems from our biology. I've yet to meet a silicon lifeform with consciousness, or a free-form mind either, floating in the rather.

I tend to agree, but purely empirically none of us has 'met another consciousness" of any kind, though we assume that other humans share the same quality as our own, but we can never be sure.
We can look at brain scans, but we'd never know if a similar scan of a circuit board and micro-chip (which look pretty interesting actaully) was no also consciousness,

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:The question at hand I've answered in the affirmative. Consciousness stems from our biology. I've yet to meet a silicon lifeform with consciousness, or a free-form mind either, floating in the rather.

I tend to agree, but purely empirically none of us has 'met another consciousness" of any kind, though we assume that other humans share the same quality as our own, but we can never be sure.
We can look at brain scans, but we'd never know if a similar scan of a circuit board and micro-chip (which look pretty interesting actaully) was no also consciousness,

Agreed. Though I've not seen a silicon or free-floating consciousness that even came close to the one I believe you have, or the one I definitely do, at least from my vantage point.

Most astrobiologists are of the view that life on earth began around about as early as it could have anywhere in the cosmos, give or take a billion years or two. This more or less rules out the possibility that it was seeded here by some extra-terrestrial civilisation, a proposition for which no evidence exists whatsoever. To my knowledge neither Dawkins nor Hawking has ever made this claim anyway.

Obvious Leo wrote:Most astrobiologists are of the view that life on earth began around about as early as it could have anywhere in the cosmos, give or take a billion years or two. This more or less rules out the possibility that it was seeded here by some extra-terrestrial civilisation, a proposition for which no evidence exists whatsoever. To my knowledge neither Dawkins nor Hawking has ever made this claim anyway.

Both have said stupid shit. But who hasn't.

Dalek Prime wrote: Both have said stupid shit. But who hasn't.

Both have indeed said plenty of stupid shit but I don't think either is guilty of making this particular stupid claim.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Both have said stupid shit. But who hasn't.

Both have indeed said plenty of stupid shit but I don't think either is guilty of making this particular stupid claim.

Okay lol! I do think Hawking has claimed that there is sentience out there though, so until he produces it, I don't care. But I would pity the poor creatures, should they exist. They have my sympathy.

I don't think any sane person would suggest that sentience is restricted to only our planet in the entire cosmos but to then suggest that life on earth was seeded here by another sentient species is regarded by most astrobiologists as almost certainly impossible. Life has existed on this planet for almost 4 billion years and it's taken that length of time for a species to evolve with the potential capability to perform such a feat. It's impossible to say whether 4 billion years is a long time, a short time or about an average time for such a species to evolve but if we guess that it's about average then the hypothesised planet from where our cosmic gardeners hailed must have had life on it when the universe was only 6 billion years old. This is generally considered to be quite impossible for a host of physical reasons.

But here is the reason I rule the machine and it will not rule me no matter how aware it becomes, no matter how strong is its processing power. My IMAGINATION - the machine can only calculate the future based upon potential possibilities - but the future is mainly a product of the imagination of the mind seeing it. The real weakness of philosophy is it is machine like in its calculations - no imagination. And yet imagination drives the future.

"I think therefor I am" is a trite statement in the the world of today. The statement for today is "I imagine the future, and therefore it exists". And what does philosophy say about the imagination? Does it consider the imagination at all? - One reason why science fiction is more popular than, and makes more money than philosophy is it caters to the imagination - It tries to show why it could be, what it might be, and how it may play out in the future. And what does philosophy tell us? Why we really can't think that way because.....? And sci-fi disregards those limits - I can think that way because my imagination says it is possible - My imagination trumps your philosophy. And if philosophy is to have a future it must begin to imagine the future.

Also consier that "Fictionalism'" {ie. Nietzsche, "Also Sprach Zarathurtra"} is a philosophical term preceding my new concept of "ScienceFictionalism"

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-Arthur C. Clarke

"The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible."
-Arthur C. Clarke

"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him."
-Arthur C. Clarke


So " Does Mind Require a Biological Body to be Conscious? Maybe, maybe not - But what it does require is something that neither a machine nor a philosophy can give it - It requires the imagination.

“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




Central Command Post - "The United Federation of Planets"
{A Hypothetical location of a hypothetical New Dawn of a species that will one day rule the Universe}

"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"
http://universalspacealienpeoplesassoci ... uture.html

Obvious Leo wrote:I don't think any sane person would suggest that sentience is restricted to only our planet in the entire cosmos but to then suggest that life on earth was seeded here by another sentient species is regarded by most astrobiologists as almost certainly impossible. Life has existed on this planet for almost 4 billion years and it's taken that length of time for a species to evolve with the potential capability to perform such a feat. It's impossible to say whether 4 billion years is a long time, a short time or about an average time for such a species to evolve but if we guess that it's about average then the hypothesised planet from where our cosmic gardeners hailed must have had life on it when the universe was only 6 billion years old. This is generally considered to be quite impossible for a host of physical reasons.

I get that. But still I require their habeas corpus in a court as evidence, if only for my perverse pleasure. Oh, and God's, and pixies, and elves... ghosts.... vampires... Yes, I'm taking a piss now lol! Apologies.

It would happen bit by bit. There will surely be an advantage in directly connecting one's brain to the internet and communications systems. Various physical structures can be improved to radically improve our senses being able to employ microscope and telescope vision, see, hear and comprehend atypical frequencies and amplitudes, etc.

The biggest advantage of going synthetic is safety - being able to replace body parts, including brain modules. Bring it on! Mine's wearing out.

Obvious Leo wrote:Greta. Human minds don't have any hardware issues. Intelligence is a software question and humans could become a million or even a billion times more intelligent with essentially the same brain structures as we currently have. We've got the right gear but we've got a bloody long way to go before we learn how to use it properly. As I said elsewhere, we're only just out of the bloody trees.

Human minds certainly do have wetware issues; it's not true that all problems are software related.

The problem with our wetware is it wears out and can't be replaced. Due to its complexity, the brain will be the last biological aspect of advanced beings to be replaced by durable synthetics, but I expect replacing all parts will be attempted.

Obvious Leo wrote:Most astrobiologists are of the view that life on earth began around about as early as it could have anywhere in the cosmos, give or take a billion years or two. This more or less rules out the possibility that it was seeded here by some extra-terrestrial civilisation, a proposition for which no evidence exists whatsoever. To my knowledge neither Dawkins nor Hawking has ever made this claim anyway.

In my view this idea is a solution that has no problem.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Both have said stupid shit. But who hasn't.

Both have indeed said plenty of stupid shit but I don't think either is guilty of making this particular stupid claim.

Okay lol! I do think Hawking has claimed that there is sentience out there though, so until he produces it, I don't care. But I would pity the poor creatures, should they exist. They have my sympathy.

In a universe of a billion galaxies each with a billion stars, many (possible most) stars have more than one planet, the idea that life with intelligence has not occurred elsewhere is a no brainer.

I get the probability. But then, I've not witnessed it, and never will. So it's safe to ignore as an assertion.

Dalek Prime wrote:I get the probability. But then, I've not witnessed it, and never will. So it's safe to ignore as an assertion.

I think its worth keeping in mind for two reasons. To counter the ridiculous claims of humans being a special creation, which is much more absurd than ET life, and two - just in case they sent us a massage at some point we'd need to think it possible before we could recognise it for what it is.

But given the massive limits on space travel imposed by the speed of light I do not think humans, or any other planetary life-form will be in a position to leave their own star systems.
So I'm not holding my breath.
There is a good chance that most other living things are aquatic, and remain unaware of the rest of space.