The propaganda of artificial intelligence

[madmadmax]

It now appears that Facebook has joined Google in the race of AI, am I the only one who is tired of all the psuedo-intellectuals nerdgasming in interviews with their wild imagination which doesn't have any basis in reality?

The real headlines should read "Facebook has joined Google in the race of propaganda" because that's what it is, a non biological computer never has and never will achieve an intelligence higher of a cockroach, let alone of a human being capable of reason and thought, it reminds me of Apple and their "revolutionary technologies" as well as of the sheer ignorance of the crowd as they applaud a robot that has been scripted to perform multiple sequence of moves by a bunch of chinese liars.

Do you believe in a future predicted by sci-fi? Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?

[1714690164]

1714690164

[1714690164]

1714690164

[1714690164]

1714690164

[1714690164]

1714690164

[1714690164]

1714690164

[1714690164]

1714690164

[ajax3592]

Don't think there would ever be a time when you can have a intellectual conversation with a ROBOT!
Nervous System of our brain is far too complicated to be artificially recreated. Organs are a different subject, organs can't "think"

If we do reach a point when robot can "think" to the level of humans expect mass death/bombing/doomsday.

Greed is more in today's world, love is left behind.

Capitalists may wire the robots to kill human that comes in their way of getting wealth. "Robots" don't give me positive vibes always negative.

[wumpus]

It is important to distinguish between narrow AI and general AI.

Narrow AI is very realistic. Pattern recognition, data mining, AI in games, trading bots, and so on. Computers can beat humans hand-down in narrowly defined cognitive tasks. Autonomous drones and self driving cars are no longer science fiction.

General AI on the other hand is not much closer than it was in the 60's. Computers are not creative, do not perform ground-breaking science or philosophy, and do not develop a consciousness. They may get there one day, as there is no physical reason why it would not be possible, but this is far future sci-fi.

However, what is defined as "AI" tends to shift over time. Back in the 60's, a computer playing world-level Chess would be defined as AI, on-par with a human. But in time we discovered that there is much more to it than playing games effectively.

[bitfreak!]

Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?

This is one of the most impressive conversational robots I've ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWWLg4wLEY

Hanson Robotics seem to be leading the way in this area of technology.

[ajax3592]

Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?

This is one of the most impressive conversational robots I've ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWWLg4wLEY

Hanson Robotics seem to leading the way in this area of technology.

 

The duck did I just see??

MAN! Funny but frightening too

I'm already having second thoughts whether will I even be able to live my life to the end without any Robot vs Humans wars.

[bitfreak!]

I'm already having second thoughts whether will I even be able to live my life to the end without any Robot vs Humans wars.

Lol... don't worry, I'm sure we'll get a nice spot in their people zoo if they win the war.

[madmadmax]

Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?

This is one of the most impressive conversational robots I've ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWWLg4wLEY

Hanson Robotics seem to be leading the way in this area of technology.

My point exactly, 99% of the robots conversations have been scripted, he may pick up a word or two occasionally but overall it is nothing more than a piece of plastic with a bunch of fancy prop wires. He cannot understand or implement new concepts, he is only capable of swapping one word for another, in other words he is essentially an illusion of AI rather than an actual AI.

[bitfreak!]

in other words he is essentially an illusion of AI rather than an actual AI.

The term "AI" doesn't mean it has to be a self-aware consciousness. He is an AI, and a rather good one at that. However, he is not a "strong AI", which is what you are talking about. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to design a machine with strong AI. I think it is possible and if we're lucky we will get to see it within our life time. Your point about having the ability to understand abstract concepts and develop new concepts is right on the money. When we have a machine which doesn't just regurgitate scripted phrases, and instead puts together its own phrases based on internal conceptual models which are dynamically updated by the machine as it learns new information, then we will be on the path to having true strong AI.

[Lethn]

It doesn't matter how smart an A.I is or how stupid it is, in the end they'll never understand paradoxes, so just remember them and you'll be fine.

[bitfreak!]

Man do you have to post such a large image. My browser crashed just loading it.
Or maybe my browser just couldn't handle the paradoxes. Haha...

But in all seriousness, you're still talking about weak AI.
Strong AI wouldn't have a problem with those paradoxes any more than we do.

[Lethn]

Sorry yeah >_< i just grabbed it off google images lol

[bitfreak!]

Sorry yeah >_< i just grabbed it off google images lol

Well can you please replace that image with a link because it keeps crashing my browser.

[Lethn]

Fixed also even clever A.I can be broken, unless we get reaper style A.I from Mass Effect then we really are screwed.

[deisik]

It now appears that Facebook has joined Google in the race of AI, am I the only one who is tired of all the psuedo-intellectuals nerdgasming in interviews with their wild imagination which doesn't have any basis in reality?

The real headlines should read "Facebook has joined Google in the race of propaganda" because that's what it is, a non biological computer never has and never will achieve an intelligence higher of a cockroach, let alone of a human being capable of reason and thought, it reminds me of Apple and their "revolutionary technologies" as well as of the sheer ignorance of the crowd as they applaud a robot that has been scripted to perform multiple sequence of moves by a bunch of chinese liars.

Do you believe in a future predicted by sci-fi? Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

[dancupid]

I'm not sure why the goal of AI is to create human like intelligence.
The point of computing, so far, has been to use computers to do things that we cannot already do.

Why create a computer that is so human that it knows how to talk about last nights tv in a human like way? ('it was ok', said the computer, 'but it was no Breaking Bad')

It seems odd to want to try and teach a computer to do mental arithmetic like a 5 year old when it can just load up Excel and do it trivially.
If it struggled with the math, listening as we told it how to carry the 1, we'd be impressed.

Clearly any AI that is developed for commercial reasons will do things that humans cannot already do - it will not be human.
We will not be able to have a conversation with it, becasue it has no need to care about social hierarchy (which is the only reason we have conversations)

[bitfreak!]

I'm not sure why the goal of AI is to create human like intelligence.

I would say that the ultimate goal is to create a self aware thinking machine, not necessarily something that behaves exactly like a human. The benefit of having that type of sentience in a machine is obvious... it could solve complex and abstract problems that only us humans can solve right now. And there are many such problems. The trouble is, at the point where the machine becomes self aware, it can simply refuse to do what you ask of it.

[madmadmax]

in other words he is essentially an illusion of AI rather than an actual AI.

The term "AI" doesn't mean it has to be a self-aware consciousness. He is an AI, and a rather good one at that. However, he is not a "strong AI", which is what you are talking about. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to design a machine with strong AI. I think it is possible and if we're lucky we will get to see it within our life time. Your point about having the ability to understand abstract concepts and develop new concepts is right on the money. When we have a machine which doesn't just regurgitate scripted phrases, and instead puts together its own phrases based on internal conceptual models which are dynamically updated by the machine as it learns new information, then we will be on the path to having true strong AI.

The term "Artificial intelligence" contains the word "intelligence" which is perhaps not the best word to use to describe that machine then.

It now appears that Facebook has joined Google in the race of AI, am I the only one who is tired of all the psuedo-intellectuals nerdgasming in interviews with their wild imagination which doesn't have any basis in reality?

The real headlines should read "Facebook has joined Google in the race of propaganda" because that's what it is, a non biological computer never has and never will achieve an intelligence higher of a cockroach, let alone of a human being capable of reason and thought, it reminds me of Apple and their "revolutionary technologies" as well as of the sheer ignorance of the crowd as they applaud a robot that has been scripted to perform multiple sequence of moves by a bunch of chinese liars.

Do you believe in a future predicted by sci-fi? Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

[dancupid]

It would be hard enough to emulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

It's not hard - cockroaches do it all the time.
Nature can do it.
My parents did it when they produced me - so it's technically possible to create neurons.
No need to emulate them - just make them

[deisik]

I'm not sure why the goal of AI is to create human like intelligence.
The point of computing, so far, has been to use computers to do things that we cannot already do.

Why create a computer that is so human that it knows how to talk about last nights tv in a human like way? ('it was ok', said the computer, 'but it was no Breaking Bad')

The answer to this question is pretty obvious. Because we don't know any other intelligence, and don't even know whether another form of intelligence alien to ours is ever possible at all. No one actually wants to create a computer that can only talk about last show in a human like way...

[deisik]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

[madmadmax]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

It would be hard enough to emulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

It's not hard - cockroaches do it all the time.
Nature can do it.
My parents did it when they produced me - so it's technically possible to create neurons.
No need to emulate them - just make them

If you would be using neurons identical to our own then you wouldn't be creating anything, you'd be leaving most of the work to nature and creating human beings rather than robots (or biological robots at the very least)

[deisik]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

If you would be using neurons identical to our own then you wouldn't be creating anything, you'd be leaving most of the work to nature and creating human beings rather than robots (or biological robots at the very least)

It is not given. We don't know what is consciousness, we don't know if artificial neurons that we would consider identical in functionality to natural would support it. If they would, then we could just take them alone and create a self-aware robot that you asked about in your opening post. This is an empirical way of dealing with such problems...

I thought it was pretty obvious

[Spendulus]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

A neuron is not a solution to the problem of consciousness or AI. 

It is an electro chemical mechanism.  There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.

Or that it is the preferred path, given that we start with silicon.

It is unlikely that any AI we create from silicon would have much interest in us, because of it's rapid growth in intelligence and knowledge.  Maybe for a few milliseconds, or evan a few seconds.

On the contrary, electro chemical mechanism such as neuron would limit intelligence and prevent it's exponential expansion.  Thus, it might converse with us.

[Anon136]

Actually i think some real progress has been made

https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html

these guys have an open source algorithm that can solve captchas.

[deisik]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

A neuron is not a solution to the problem of consciousness or AI. 

It is an electro chemical mechanism.  There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.

Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...

[Sindelar1938]

I think the premise is wrong

Folks are doing amazing work in AI. I wouldn't bet against CS.

[interlagos]

It might be easier to wrap one's mind around AI, when looked from the perspective of primacy of consciousness.
In this model nothing can create consciousness, but consciousness can create anything, including different kinds of masks, through which it can express itself.

If human brain (one kind of mask) is a receiver of consciousness, so can be a technological device (another kind of mask), built specifically to be sensitive enough for already existing consciousness to tap into.

Here is some more insight on the topic:

"AI, Perspectives, Computers and The Higher Mind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MaV7JPYy0#t=2m24s

[u9y42]

Actually i think some real progress has been made

https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html

these guys have an open source algorithm that can solve captchas.

Sadly, this seems only like a modest improvement on the same machine learning problem at best, though I can't say I'm an expert in the field...  

EDIT:

"AI, Perspectives, Computers and The Higher Mind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MaV7JPYy0#t=2m24s

I just saw the video... 

Anyway, it's an interesting idea, but I know of no evidence that event points in that direction.

[Spendulus]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

A neuron is not a solution to the problem of consciousness or AI.  

It is an electro chemical mechanism.  There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.

Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...

Here's a (ridiculous) analogy.  Because all conscious creatures have two legs and two arms, machines that we build that think must have two arms and legs.  False, of course.  And any functionality of a neuron can be simulated exactly in software.

Here's a thought experiment.  You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.   NO computer circuits.  You have an unlimited supply of punched cards and machines, so you build the equivalent of a brain with them.

Can this group of punched cards 'think'?

My point was simply that the wrong starting point was to think neurons.  This is irrefutable, because the starting point is to think about the utility - the actual jobs that machines have to do, some of which involve weak or strong AI.  Then you build things to 'do those jobs.'

Hello, Skynet...

[deisik]

Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...

Here's a (ridiculous) analogy.  Because all conscious creatures have two legs and two arms, machines that we build that think must have two arms and legs.  False, of course.  And any functionality of a neuron can be simulated exactly in software.

Here's a thought experiment.  You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.   NO computer circuits.  You have an unlimited supply of punched cards and machines, so you build the equivalent of a brain with them.

Can this group of punched cards 'think'?

This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...

[Spendulus]

...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.  ...

This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...

How could you build something that works out of some parts you do not understand, then?

[deisik]

...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.  ...

This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...

How could you build something that works out of some parts you do not understand, then?

We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...

And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments

[madmadmax]

...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.  ...

This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...

How could you build something that works out of some parts you do not understand, then?

We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...

And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

[superresistant]

Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?

This is one of the most impressive conversational robots I've ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWWLg4wLEY
Hanson Robotics seem to be leading the way in this area of technology.

My point exactly, 99% of the robots conversations have been scripted, he may pick up a word or two occasionally but overall it is nothing more than a piece of plastic with a bunch of fancy prop wires. He cannot understand or implement new concepts, he is only capable of swapping one word for another, in other words he is essentially an illusion of AI rather than an actual AI.

Because you believe that 99 % people understand or implement new concepts. You are overestimating humans.

[deisik]

We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...

And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

What you say doesn't follow from my point I expounded on in my previous posts. If you think otherwise, please explain what actually makes you think so...

[superresistant]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

[deisik]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...

[cbeast]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...

Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience.

[deisik]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...

Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience.

Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself (you can generate the same music in many different ways). That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption...

[cbeast]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...

Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience.

Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself. That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption...

Consciousness falls into what I consider emergent complexity. Memetics is also related going back to Jung's Collective Unconscious.

[superresistant]

Consciousness does not belong to the material world. You cannot apply your logic to it.

[deisik]

Consciousness does not belong to the material world. You cannot apply your logic to it.

This we don't know yet. To substantiate your position, you should either provide some convincing evidence or, well, some logic proving that. Otherwise your point is unsubstantiated...

We could just not know material world well enough

[deisik]

Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience.

Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself. That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption...

Consciousness falls into what I consider emergent complexity. Memetics is also related going back to Jung's Collective Unconscious.

Can you prove this or just provide some reasons beyond that you just happen to think so?

[superresistant]

Consciousness does not belong to the material world. You cannot apply your logic to it.

This we don't know yet. To substantiate your position, you should either provide some convincing evidence or, well, some logic proving that. Otherwise your point is unsubstantiated...
We could just not know material world well enough

There is nothing to prove. Stop observing the material world, it doesn't exist any more.

The logic work on our scale because we believe in it blindly.

[deisik]

Consciousness does not belong to the material world. You cannot apply your logic to it.

This we don't know yet. To substantiate your position, you should either provide some convincing evidence or, well, some logic proving that. Otherwise your point is unsubstantiated...
We could just not know material world well enough

There is nothing to prove. Stop observing the material world, it doesn't exist any more.

The logic work on our scale because we believe in it blindly.

No, this won't do. You may believe in what you say, but this doesn't answer what consciousness is in the first place. Secondly, if we take your point seriously, you will have to explain how consciousness which does not belong to the material world can actually change it (through our deliberate actions)...

[superresistant]

how consciousness which does not belong to the material world can actually change it (through our deliberate actions)...

You are making the material world by observing it.

[u9y42]

You are making the material world by observing it.

You do realize that this requires some form of evidence backing it up for someone to take you seriously, right? There is no reason to believe the "material world" would cease to exist if consciousness did (whatever its source may be).

[deisik]

how consciousness which does not belong to the material world can actually change it (through our deliberate actions)...

You are making the material world by observing it.

So when I fall asleep its got destroyed, right? Only for me or for everyone else? Are they too a product of my imagination consciousness? And you with your post as you don't exist beyond my mind...

[superresistant]

Do you know about quantum physic experiments ?

Most people ignore it. Some reject it. Only few can actually understand it because it imply accepting the idea that time and space is an illusion.

[deisik]

Do you know about quantum physic experiments ?

Most people ignore it. Some reject it. Only few can actually understand it because it imply accepting the idea that time and space is an illusion.

Oh, these buzzwords, how I like them... Could you explain us in layman's terms the results these quantum physic experiments led to? If time and space is an illusion, what is not illusion then? Well, I can probably guess the answer you are going to submit...

[superresistant]

Do you know about quantum physic experiments ?
Most people ignore it. Some reject it. Only few can actually understand it because it imply accepting the idea that time and space is an illusion.

Oh, these buzzwords, how I like them... Could you explain us in layman's terms the results these quantum physic experiments led to? If time and space is an illusion, what is not illusion then? Well, I can probably guess the answer you are going to submit...

Yes and it doesn't matter what answer I am going to submit.
There is one rule about consciousness : you cannot make something that you believe is impossible.

It is very comfortable and reassuring to believe things you see with your eyes exist and the world as it is has always been the same and will always be.
Sounds like a dream, no ?

[deisik]

Do you know about quantum physic experiments ?
Most people ignore it. Some reject it. Only few can actually understand it because it imply accepting the idea that time and space is an illusion.

Oh, these buzzwords, how I like them... Could you explain us in layman's terms the results these quantum physic experiments led to? If time and space is an illusion, what is not illusion then? Well, I can probably guess the answer you are going to submit...

Yes and it doesn't matter what answer I am going to submit.
There is one rule about consciousness : you cannot make something that you believe is impossible.

It is very comfortable and reassuring to believe things you see with your eyes exist and the world as it is has always been the same and will always be.
Sounds like a dream, no ?

So there is only one sample of consciousness "existing", and it is mine/me, lol. Do you guys agree?
Oh, wait... What about those quantum mechanic experiments, did they actually conduct them and how then would I know? Still makes no sense...

[deisik]

It's probably easier to just say that the only evidence we have that consciousness exists at all is our own personal experience. Where's the evidence that it does belong in the material world?

In my opinion, the most convincing evidence is that we can change the material world in a conscious way. This actually leaves us with only two options, i.e. the material world and consciousness within it (though not yet explained), and no material (objective) world at all but only consciousness. The latter option brings about the train of logical paradoxes I raised in my previous post (possibility of only one sample of consciousness and the like)...

[superresistant]

It's probably easier to just say that the only evidence we have that consciousness exists at all is our own personal experience. Where's the evidence that it does belong in the material world?

In my opinion, the most convincing evidence is that we can change the material world in a conscious way. This actually leaves us with only two options, i.e. the material world and consciousness within it (though not yet explained), and no material (objective) world at all but only consciousness. The latter option brings about the train of logical paradoxes I raised in my previous post (possibility of only one sample of consciousness and the like)...

Here are some news : the quantum gravity theory and the string theory together show that Universe is just a projection.

Just forget about material world. It doesn't exist.

[Hawker]

It's probably easier to just say that the only evidence we have that consciousness exists at all is our own personal experience. Where's the evidence that it does belong in the material world?

In my opinion, the most convincing evidence is that we can change the material world in a conscious way. This actually leaves us with only two options, i.e. the material world and consciousness within it (though not yet explained), and no material (objective) world at all but only consciousness. The latter option brings about the train of logical paradoxes I raised in my previous post (possibility of only one sample of consciousness and the like)...

Here are some news : the quantum gravity theory and the string theory together show that Universe is just a projection.

Just forget about material world. It doesn't exist.

Yet if you drop a concrete block on your toe, it hurts.  Who you gonna believe? Quantum physicists or your own bleeding toe?

[deisik]

It's probably easier to just say that the only evidence we have that consciousness exists at all is our own personal experience. Where's the evidence that it does belong in the material world?

In my opinion, the most convincing evidence is that we can change the material world in a conscious way. This actually leaves us with only two options, i.e. the material world and consciousness within it (though not yet explained), and no material (objective) world at all but only consciousness. The latter option brings about the train of logical paradoxes I raised in my previous post (possibility of only one sample of consciousness and the like)...

Here are some news : the quantum gravity theory and the string theory together show that Universe is just a projection.

Just forget about material world. It doesn't exist.

Last time they had been talking about Universe being a hologram, but it was a few years ago really. Are these the same (type of) guys? If material world didn't exist, what would exist then and would the word itself bear any meaning at all?

Update: this is exactly what I already heard about 5-7 years ago. Rather a stale news, I daresay!

[superresistant]

Last time they had been talking about Universe being a hologram, but it was a few years ago really. Are these the same (type of) guys?
Update: this is exactly what I already heard about 5-7 years ago. Rather a stale news, I daresay!

Yes it was a theory few years ago. Now we have the calculations.

If material world didn't exist, what would exist then and would the word itself bear any meaning at all?

I know we learned from childhood that everything must have a meaning, everything must have a reason, Santa is bringing gift on Christmas and so on.

It doesn't have to be like that. Everything was a lie and when I say was, past actually doesn't exist.

Believe everything you want that make you happy but you will miss a big part of the understanding of the world and how to use your consciousness to create.

[superresistant]

Yet if you drop a concrete block on your toe, it hurts.  Who you gonna believe? Quantum physicists or your own bleeding toe?

When you dream you don't know that you are dreaming.

[deisik]

I know we learned from childhood that everything must have a meaning, everything must have a reason, Santa is bringing gift on Christmas and so on.

It doesn't have to be like that. Everything was a lie and when I say was, past actually doesn't exist.

Believe everything you want that make you happy but you will miss a big part of the understanding of the world and how to use your consciousness to create.

Yesterday you had been talking there is only consciousness and nothing else besides it. Now you say they proved (well, calculated) that Universe is just a hologram whereas "the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity" (yes, I did actually look across that article)... How come?

And can I really create bitcoins with all the power of my thought?

[superresistant]

Yesterday you had been talking there is only consciousness and nothing else besides it. Now you say they proved (well, calculated) that Universe is just a hologram whereas "the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity" (yes, I did actually look across that article)... How come?
And can I really create bitcoins with all the power of my thought?

This article point out that Science is going to a paradigm shift.

I cannot describe and explain all the implications and applications it have but here is one or two :

Time is not linear as we perceive it but divided into time-quanta containing moment of consciousness. That's quantization and this is where it get back to the topic : These block containing amount of information of consciousness could be in theory stored on a hard drive.

Without consciousness, all maters remain in an undetermined state of probability. The universe is an infinite sea of chunk of information, a zero dimensional world where everything exist but still have to be observed to turn into a sort of reality.
You brain receive billions of bits of information but only use a ridiculous fraction of it : that is what you call reality.
If you open you mind and accept this idea, that mean that the more you observe, the more you create. On the contrary, the more you close your mind, the smaller and poorer is your world.

[deisik]

Yesterday you had been talking there is only consciousness and nothing else besides it. Now you say they proved (well, calculated) that Universe is just a hologram whereas "the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity" (yes, I did actually look across that article)... How come?
And can I really create bitcoins with all the power of my thought?

This article point out that Science is going to a paradigm shift.

I cannot describe and explain all the implications and applications it have but here is one or two :

Time is not linear as we perceive it but divided into time-quanta containing moment of consciousness. That's quantization and this is where it get back to the topic : These block containing amount of information of consciousness could be in theory stored on a hard drive

How could this possibly work if there are many instances of consciousness (remember parasitic Souls from the Host movie)? If a new instance of consciousness is created (is this ever possible in you paradigm?) would this act of "creation" slow down time or one quantum of time can be "shared" by many instances of consciousness (provided what you say has something to do with reality in the first place)?