Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Lacewing wrote:I don't think there can be a god without there being "others". Yes?

With others I think there no need for a 'God'. No?

What I'm trying to say is that there can be no god, if there's no one for it to be a god in relation to. If ALL is evolving collectively, there are none (no "others") who are viewing THAT as a god... because ALL is THAT.

Arising_uk wrote:Sounds like you're saying a 'God' is being created?

I think it dubious to think there is a 'path' or direction to evolution especially where consciousness is concerned. It could be just as likely that it'll vanish from existence.

Without a doubt. Given the scale of the universe in terms of both content and time, it's inevitable that some life will be godlike by the reckoning of us superstitious apes.

I've long refuted Gould's "evolution is a bush" idea because it flies in the face of all evidence. The history of the biosphere is one of progression with occasional restructuring aka extinction events, events that don't seem wildly different in terms of destruction and reconstruction as insect metamorphosis. The biosphere as a whole, like its inhabitants, appears to be going through its own maturation process. No doubt, like its inhabitants, it's possible that the biosphere can die at any time, and certainly it is doomed in only a matter of millions of years due to the Sun's heating.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: By essence I meant: the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something.

Right, and I mean that there are no such things (unless you simply consider every single property anything has at any given time part of its essence).

Perhaps I need to use another word to explain what I am intended to say by essence. How about "basic element"?

Lacewing wrote:

Greta wrote:Also, human style consciousness is almost certainly not a destination but a byway towards something far more potent than our apelike minds can imagine. A billion years ago automatic reflexes were probably the highest form of "consciousness" in the Earth's biology. Now those reflexes work as "the bits of consciousness", small, modular yes/no units.

There will most likely come a time when each intelligent, conscious entity will form just one bit of immensely larger and more sophisticated "meta-minds". We don't have the words to describe dynamics that encompass our own consciousness so completely because we are "inside" and most of what's going on isn't available to us. Just as the most enlightened microbe can never achieve human-style consciousness, the most enlightened humans can never understand that which operates beyond their perceptual limitations.

You describe this so well, Greta. I really love the way you help give me a sensible visual for that which feels true to me. I tend to think of vast and infinite potential in terms of "unseen" energy and vibrations and frequencies... which doesn't really have a whole lot of visuals to get excited about! Then you come along and describe a potential organic process of evolution that truly continually builds and expands on "itself", on a somewhat unfathomable scale (well beyond the human being), and in a way that most people don't talk about or consider, and it actually makes me feel ecstatic! It's just so freakin' beautiful and natural and sensible!

Yes, it's only logical. The dark side is the level of suffering of organisms leading up to whatever fancy state parts of the universe manage to achieve in the distant future. No sense having an horrible present for the sake of some glorious future so remote from our time, place and experience that we might as well be speaking of airborne pasta beasts. Still, it's interesting.

It seems to me that what we thought of as "nature" was a limited view, certainly in terms of its potentials. There's always this idea that we neurotic apes are unnatural due to our unsustainable level of empowerment, and there I think that the possibilities of nature tend to be underestimated> Intelligence, while emergent, may have, in potentia, been as fundamental as matter based on the physical "laws". Of course, intelligence is much more meanly proportioned.

I always liked Leo's Russian doll universe idea. Most energy in the universe is floating around and only a tiny proportion coalesced into matter. Most matter is plasma and a just a small proportion is rocky (as per the human sense of solidity). Of those rocky chemical masses we call planets and moons, only a small proportion of the chemistry is organic, and only a small proportion of those organic chemicals is biological. Just a small proportion of biology is multicellular and a small proportion of multicellular organisms are intelligent (have brains).

Of those intelligent organisms, only a small proportion are self aware. It's likely that many more planets will harbour microbial life than complex, or self aware, life. A smaller proportion yet will harbour life that can achieve interplanetary travel, and so on.

Based on the above, the very most advanced life that will ever form in the history of the universe must surely transcend boundaries we cannot imagine. If we comical hominids are the best the universe has to offer I'll eat my hat. Maybe on a planet or moon that's even more habitable and bountiful than the Earth, under a longer lived star?

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: By essence I meant: the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something.

Right, and I mean that there are no such things (unless you simply consider every single property anything has at any given time part of its essence).

Perhaps I need to use another word to explain what I am intended to say by essence. How about "basic element"?

The problem isn't terminological. It's that you're claiming something that doesn't obtain, and that's the case whatever you might choose to call it.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:You may need to re-read. I am not talking about a simulation, rather some advanced 3D 'printer' that could build a human - lets say replicating yourself atom by atom...all the molecules are rebuilt precisely as the original you. Do you believe this 'human' would be conscious, would we have a working mind?

Well regardless of the technology would you say that this is what's done through reproduction? If so then yes it would be human and would be conscious.

Sure, via natural reproduction, but i dont believe that arrangement of atoms-molecules identically to that of a human would permit the construction to be alive, i think something vital to life would still be missing.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Its was just indicated to me that you have more doubt in your atheism since our years of correspondence, ...

Was it? How did you get that from a knee-tap? That is, what question did you ask first?

This was one of those times that i didn't purposely pose the question for the answer - when i was about to turn in for the night, i simply considered something to the effect that you have a belief in what i have been portraying and was tapped heavily twice on my right knee.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:keep up the quest_ioning, I hope you find the truth.

You make a mistake about my atheism, there is nothing to doubt as it is doubt but this does not mean I'm not open to some 'God' making an appearance just that the 'God' or 'God's' I've heard about so far appear unconvincing and offer no extra explanation of things to me that don;t also come with even more complications.

I agree. Knowing God\'God' exists complicates the crap out of things.
So to you atheism=doubt. I'm not sure why. Why would you doubt something that science appears closer to comprehending?

attofishpi wrote:You may need to re-read. I am not talking about a simulation, rather some advanced 3D 'printer' that could build a human - lets say replicating yourself atom by atom...all the molecules are rebuilt precisely as the original you. Do you believe this 'human' would be conscious, would we have a working mind?

As long as it's undergoing the right processes, yes. You need the right materials, in the right structures, undergoing the right processes. It should be easy, well or relatively easy, in this scenario to have it undergo the right processes if it's the (nominalistically) same materials in the same structures. You'd just need to jumpstart its heart to get its blood pumping, etc.

Terrapin Station wrote:

attofishpi wrote:You may need to re-read. I am not talking about a simulation, rather some advanced 3D 'printer' that could build a human - lets say replicating yourself atom by atom...all the molecules are rebuilt precisely as the original you. Do you believe this 'human' would be conscious, would we have a working mind?

As long as it's undergoing the right processes, yes. You need the right materials, in the right structures, undergoing the right processes. It should be easy, well or relatively easy, in this scenario to have it undergo the right processes if it's the (nominalistically) same materials in the same structures. You'd just need to jumpstart its heart to get its blood pumping, etc.

Supposedly it's theoretically possible but there's a problem - at quantum scales the act of measurement changes the entity via waveform collapse. So measuring your quantum states would destroy them - and you. So you'd hope that the copy was a good one - but as each measured quantum state is destroyed it would surely affect other quantum states.

Meanwhile there are many warnings about AI, but I suggest that AI is already being accidentally built. The emerging minds are those of our massive (and massively networked) institutions. In these institutions, individual staff, even CEOs, are as expendable and interchangable as cells. These new minds are increasingly asserting themselves, selfishly focused on growth like all young organisms. These institutions, part organic, part machine and part internal rules and information processing are largely beyond human control.

Greta wrote:Supposedly it's theoretically possible but there's a problem - at quantum scales the act of measurement changes the entity via waveform collapse. So measuring your quantum states would destroy them - and you. So you'd hope that the copy was a good one - but as each measured quantum state is destroyed it would surely affect other quantum states.

Even aside from that, as something we actually do, rather than just being a thought experiment, it's not going to be identical to its progenitor anyway--at least not as long as we're nominalists, and I am.

Meanwhile there are many warnings about AI, but I suggest that AI is already being accidentally built. The emerging minds are those of our massive (and massively networked) institutions.

I don't at all buy functionalism/substratum independence yet. It's not that I'd say either are impossible or anything like that, but I don't think there's any good reason to believe the core claims of functionalism or substratum independence yet.

bahman wrote:First definition of mind: Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act.

1) Intellect is utility of mind
2) This means that it is impossible to understand mind because intellect is utility of mind
3) This means that it is impossible to perform an act to create mind

Okay, nice,
but I am rather interested in the impossibility to destruct the mind. Depending on me, it is impossible to imagine a thing as being endless in the past and having an end in the future, (when it is possible to imagine a thing having a beginning with no end).

What do you think of all this?

Greta wrote:Supposedly it's theoretically possible but there's a problem - at quantum scales the act of measurement changes the entity via waveform collapse.

Heisenberg uncertainty precludes the practicality of making a perfect artificial clone (two versions of a person that can meet each other). The scan described cannot be done. The measurements cannot be taken at all, destructively or not.

Meanwhile, if MWI is the correct quantum interpretation, such cloning goes on all the time. Two clones (there is no actual original) simply cannot detect each other (meet). To Terrapin: No need to kickstart the heart. If it isn't already running, it isn't really a clone.

On a side note, Heisenberg uncertainty does not preclude teleportation, and this has actually been demonstrated. An object can be teleported without violation so long as its full state is merely moved, but never known. There is no way to leave the original in such a situation. I don't know if they've demonstrated teleportation of something as complex as a proton.

Greta wrote:Yes, it's only logical. The dark side is the level of suffering of organisms leading up to whatever fancy state parts of the universe manage to achieve in the distant future. No sense having an horrible present for the sake of some glorious future so remote from our time, place and experience that we might as well be speaking of airborne pasta beasts. Still, it's interesting. ...

What's logical about it?

Although I'm a bit confused as you appear to be saying there is no sense in having a horrible present for a distant glorious future?

Sounds all a bit wishful thinking upon the Hegelian scale to me.

It seems to me that what we thought of as "nature" was a limited view, certainly in terms of its potentials. There's always this idea that we neurotic apes are unnatural due to our unsustainable level of empowerment, and there I think that the possibilities of nature tend to be underestimated> Intelligence, while emergent, may have, in potentia, been as fundamental as matter based on the physical "laws". Of course, intelligence is much more meanly proportioned. ...

Who's neurotic and all animals exceed their environmental sustainability(although I'm a touch unsure what this means?) if their natural predators are removed.

Obvious Leo argued for increased complexity, this use of 'intelligence' in these matters is mistaken I think as the cetaceans have more complex brains than us but does that make them more 'intelligent'? Others species have more complex chromosome arrangements, does that make them more 'intelligent'?

I always liked Leo's Russian doll universe idea. Most energy in the universe is floating around and only a tiny proportion coalesced into matter. Most matter is plasma and a just a small proportion is rocky (as per the human sense of solidity). Of those rocky chemical masses we call planets and moons, only a small proportion of the chemistry is organic, and only a small proportion of those organic chemicals is biological. Just a small proportion of biology is multicellular and a small proportion of multicellular organisms are intelligent (have brains). ...

Except that 'Energy' just means, 'We don't know', like 'Force'. So all this 'energy in the universe is floating around' is a bit fanciful to my ears.

Of those intelligent organisms, only a small proportion are self aware. It's likely that many more planets will harbour microbial life than complex, or self aware, life. A smaller proportion yet will harbour life that can achieve interplanetary travel, and so on.

Based on the above, the very most advanced life that will ever form in the history of the universe must surely transcend boundaries we cannot imagine. If we comical hominids are the best the universe has to offer I'll eat my hat. Maybe on a planet or moon that's even more habitable and bountiful than the Earth, under a longer lived star?

How so? As based upon the above most life will be microbial.

Maybe the best we get is self-consciousness and then technology is the transcendence and given the Fermi Paradox I think the Goldilocks Zone appears to be the best explanation so maybe, just maybe, we are at the start with all the other self-conscious life-forms and if so and the Theory of Evolution is correct and Marx's Historical Materialism also then we'd better start hurrying up and colonizing near Space and it's resources else something else might in the Far Future. Of course Bayes and Bostrum point to this being an improbable state of affairs but then their priors are hard to quantify in this case.

Noax wrote:On a side note, Heisenberg uncertainty does not preclude teleportation, and this has actually been demonstrated. An object can be teleported without violation so long as its full state is merely moved, but never known. There is no way to leave the original in such a situation. I don't know if they've demonstrated teleportation of something as complex as a proton.

They can only teleport quantum particles as far as I know. I'm not sure how one can be moved informationally without acquiring the information.

Mind should not be created.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greta wrote:Yes, it's only logical. The dark side is the level of suffering of organisms leading up to whatever fancy state parts of the universe manage to achieve in the distant future. No sense having an horrible present for the sake of some glorious future so remote from our time, place and experience that we might as well be speaking of airborne pasta beasts. Still, it's interesting. ...

What's logical about it?

Although I'm a bit confused as you appear to be saying there is no sense in having a horrible present for a distant glorious future?

Sounds all a bit wishful thinking upon the Hegelian scale to me.

I figure progression is logical because that's what happens with all life, so why not the biosphere/Earth? Turbulent early life, long period of maturation leading to decline and death. The Earth may propagate (panspermia) in an uncontrolled way, via microbes being sent into space by meteor strikes, or it may propagate via controlled space exploration and settlement attempts.

Whatever, barring cataclysm, future humanity or post-humanity (cyborgs, AI), will probably be even more complex and interesting than us, better in a range of significant ways. However, that doesn't help if the march of progress stomps over you personally - the existential equivalent of being retrenched during a corporate restructure. So, while I don't feel the existential despair that many do about "humans destroying nature", the fact is that change hurts, and the Earth is undergoing a period of rapid change. I figure that those embedded in corporations and their affiliates will be the safest as sustainability problems deepen and, as always, the poorest will be most vulnerable.

It all calls to mind George Carlin talking about being a spectator, just watching "the show". The forces behind what's happening today are so huge and individuals are ever less disempowered. Fascinating. Brutal. Almost certainly unfair with no justice being done. All manner of damage and decay. Yet somehow out of all this muck, as has happened after prior extinction events, something even more extraordinary will probably emerge. Personally, at that point I suspect AI but these things are chaotic and no one can be sure.

Arising_uk wrote:

It seems to me that what we thought of as "nature" was a limited view, certainly in terms of its potentials. There's always this idea that we neurotic apes are unnatural due to our unsustainable level of empowerment, and there I think that the possibilities of nature tend to be underestimated> Intelligence, while emergent, may have, in potentia, been as fundamental as matter based on the physical "laws". Of course, intelligence is much more meanly proportioned. ...

Who's neurotic and all animals exceed their environmental sustainability(although I'm a touch unsure what this means?) if their natural predators are removed.

Obvious Leo argued for increased complexity, this use of 'intelligence' in these matters is mistaken I think as the cetaceans have more complex brains than us but does that make them more 'intelligent'? Others species have more complex chromosome arrangements, does that make them more 'intelligent'?

Humanity's neurosis lies in its constant bickering individually and either self deification or flagellation collectively. The problem here, I suspect, is that eusocial species are by necessity complete pains in the arse. Seriously. They are always pushing, prodding and interfering with each other. Ants, bees, mole-rats, humans - busybody bastards the lot of 'em :) Alas, it's this relentless social pressure that drives so much our (and their) success. I agree with you re: sustainability. Humans have long sensed that their empowerment wasn't sustainable, hence every generation's doomsday predictions.

The human/dolphin question is interesting. Marine species can't use fire so they were never going to advance unless they returned to land over millions of years. It would seem that dolphin behaviour is not wildly different to that of nomadic human tribes. Species that live in the wild have proportionally larger brains than their domesticated equivalents, humans included, probably due to the need for fast and flexible problem solving, as opposed to the kind of abstracted rumination that urban humans can do safely.

Given that dolphins engage in deceit and rape like hominids, it would seem that their lack of technological advancement hasn't endowed them with any special spiritual qualities. Not good news for new age "noble savage", back-to-the-roots romantics.

Arising_uk wrote:

I always liked Leo's Russian doll universe idea. Most energy in the universe is floating around and only a tiny proportion coalesced into matter. Most matter is plasma and a just a small proportion is rocky (as per the human sense of solidity). Of those rocky chemical masses we call planets and moons, only a small proportion of the chemistry is organic, and only a small proportion of those organic chemicals is biological. Just a small proportion of biology is multicellular and a small proportion of multicellular organisms are intelligent (have brains). ...

Except that 'Energy' just means, 'We don't know', like 'Force'. So all this 'energy in the universe is floating around' is a bit fanciful to my ears.

True, we don't know what energy is or what preceded it, if anything.

AUK, why do you find the above fanciful? Most of the universe is comprised of gravitational, electromagnetic, nuclear and dark energy that's basically just "floating around". The chaos of "empty" space. However, just a tiny amount of the energy coalesces into matter, and so forth ... Russian dolls.

Arising_uk wrote:How so? As based upon the above most life will be microbial.

Yes. Most life will be microbial, which is the point.

Arising_uk wrote:Maybe the best we get is self-consciousness and then technology is the transcendence and given the Fermi Paradox I think the Goldilocks Zone appears to be the best explanation so maybe, just maybe, we are at the start with all the other self-conscious life-forms and if so and the Theory of Evolution is correct and Marx's Historical Materialism also then we'd better start hurrying up and colonizing near Space and it's resources else something else might in the Far Future. Of course Bayes and Bostrum point to this being an improbable state of affairs but then their priors are hard to quantify in this case. :)

Agree with all of that. There are no guarantees. If it is that the Earth is maturing and developing, gradually achieving the capacity to spawn, there's still no guarantee that it - or any organism - will survive into its dotage.

If one is small and inside of a restructuring larger entity then it may well look like doomsday.