|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists?
#14386221 - 05/02/11 12:07 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I recently read the book Physics of Immortality by the physicist Frank J. Tipler, and was surprised to find a well-supported and very intriguing argument for the resurrection of all sentient beings that is based on reductionist materialism and absolutely no flim-flam of the spiritual sort. The argument goes something along the lines of this:
Assume that technological evolution develops to the point where we're capable of creating an AI (Artificial Intelligence) that can increase its own intelligence. At this point we've started a feedback loop that exponentially improves its own knowledge and wisdom: for all intents and purposes, a God. This, IMO, seems likely to happen in the next few hundred years provided that we don't blow ourselves up first.
Assume that this God (which is practically omniscient and omnipotent... given that it does not literally possess infinite power and knowledge but these are increasing at a rate so fast that given enough time they will diverge to an asymptote) is practically omnibenevolent. This premise is a bit more problematic than the first but the concept is already being worked on by such people as Eliezer Yudkowsky in the form of "Friendly AI." Either we would have to hardcode in basic morality and hope that the AI has no incentive to change or remove it, or we would have to hope that being moral is ultimately the smartest thing to do according to the AI's logic.
Assume that such omnibenevolence would necessitate the resurrection of every sentient being that desires to live eternally. I can envision such a process occurring in the following manner: design a virtual environment wherein the growth to maturity of every possible DNA that represents a sentient being is simulated. This also assumes that the perfect functional simulation of a human being down to the quark level would have an identical consciousness to the actual human being (which would be true according to our premise of reductionist materialism; i.e. there is no soul or mystical substance apart from the atoms that make up our body that is necessary for consciousness), and that the recreation of the human being at some point far in the future by the AI would have a consciousness continuous with the original human being's death.
In short, from our perspective we would live ordinarily and die, but instantaneously afterwards we would wake up within the virtual environment designed by the AI: Heaven, in other words. If you have qualms about the ability of simulated humans to be conscious then simply postulate that the AI would create a whole new real body with your DNA and subject the body to identical experiences--but this seems more difficult to do than in a virtual environment. Either way, just imagine the relief from death anxiety that such a resurrection would bring.
Thoughts?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14386300 - 05/02/11 12:32 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I definitely don't think materialism precludes some kind of continuation of consciousness. To be made of the same stuff as the Earth and the stars (and everything else) is to be one with the Universe. Where did the Universe come from, and where is it going? When you ask these questions about the cosmos, you're asking them about yourself.
I'm not really big on the whole omnipotent AI thing, because if there's one thing I've learned from skepticism, basically anything could be true.. It's equally likely, for instance, that the AI could be crazy, and would destroy the Universe, or might sentence everybody to a virtual "hell" just for fun. So in my view, in examining the possibilities of consciousness beyond the death of one individual, we have to look at what we know.
To begin with, for such things as "consciousness," "unconsciousness," "existence," or "non-existence," to be defined requires a perception. Without the brain, there is no life, but there is also no death. "Life" and "death" are just words/abstractions; without something to define them in relation to its own state, they are nothing; there cease to be such things as "life" and "death" when the perception defining them ceases to exist.
In short, there's no such thing as "nothing." To imagine death as some sort of infinite black void is equally as ridiculous as imagining an afterlife... you're still imagining yourself in a situation; you're just replacing the word "heaven" with the word "void."
That said, I don't think of the continuation of consciousness that I'm thinking of is anything like an afterlife. Closer to reincarnation if anything, but that term is misleading, because it implies there's a "you" to be reincarnated. In my view, it's more like there's another body drawing from the same collective memory (instincts, written history, etc.) that created the context in which "you" lived previously.
For instance, the person you are now is strongly influenced by many things that happened before you were born. This language you're using, for example- you didn't invent it. And all the instincts for sex and mind alteration- probably a big part of who you are; they were inherited entirely from other bodies. None of this stuff is somehow unique to you; it didn't start when you were born and it won't end when you die. Your identity (and perception) is like a river- always changing, never the same, yet identifiable from time to time.
Here's a great philosophical article about "life after death" from a naturalistic viewpoint: http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm
Edited by NetDiver (05/02/11 12:43 AM)
|
jivJaN
yes


Registered: 08/09/08
Posts: 4,245
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14386820 - 05/02/11 03:41 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i dont know what to think man. it would be cool.. but it might not be.
i don't know if i would like to accept the fact that everything i ever did or do is part of a simulation. i don't think i would like the idea of not having an influence. I wan't at least some control god dammit !
--------------------
--------------------- All my posts in this forum are strictly fictional. They are derived from an acute mental illness , from which i am forced to lie compulsively. I have never induced any kind of mind altering substance in my life and i have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything illegal. If I have ever suggested such a thing it would have most likely been , due to my personality disorder and i probably do not remember it at all..
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: jivJaN]
#14387357 - 05/02/11 08:20 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It sounds as romantic as the middle ages model of the universe with earth in the center and all plausible celestial formations stacked above it in some kind of mythical tower arrangement.
A few hundred years later, this is the same view skewed through a computer - AI arrangement.
I find it funny how when an idea has a few words like DNA and AI thrown in people are inclined to give it plausibility. Used to be the use of the word "God" did the same.
different times, different fashions, same need to gain control over reality.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: redgreenvines]
#14387373 - 05/02/11 08:24 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Like when 'turbo' was tacked onto everything, even stuff without spinning parts. Now it is 'quantum'. Fully 10% of New Age books, whose authors are totally unschooled in physics, try to add credence to nonsense buy using the 'Q' word.
--------------------
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#14387620 - 05/02/11 09:46 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quantum mechanics is used to support a lot of stuff that it shouldn't be used to support, yeah.
But it also really is pretty damn weird/amazing.
Quantum immortality, for instance, is a theory developed by quantum physicists (not new-agers): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: NetDiver] 1
#14387669 - 05/02/11 10:04 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure if this new consciousness in the computer realm would be me. Wouldn't I have to, before death, meld my mind into the computer so in essence I was already within this AI before my body actually dies? Otherwise it would just be a computer program exactly like me but not me at all.
-------------------- "Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose "Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS "When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi "Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson. "Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14389731 - 05/02/11 04:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm confused on the "continuation of consciousness" part. Why would this happen? Would we have memory of our "past life?"
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
#14389776 - 05/02/11 04:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
a couple years back it was string cheese very popular fundamental food product.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: NetDiver]
#14389856 - 05/02/11 05:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quantum immortality, for instance, is a theory developed by quantum physicists (not new-agers): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
A theory or mental masturbation? If it is a theory, then how would one possibly falsify it without dying?
--------------------
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher] 2
#14390214 - 05/02/11 06:01 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
design a virtual environment wherein the growth to maturity of every possible DNA that represents a sentient being is simulated. This also assumes that the perfect functional simulation of a human being down to the quark level would have an identical consciousness to the actual human being
I see two potential big problems with this.
1. The Uncertainty Principle precludes creating such a machine.
2. It may be that consciousness is a consequence of unreplicable aspects of quantum mechanics a la quantum cryptography where the act of simply reading a message (knowing its content without actually touching it) irrevocably changes its content. You couldn't simulate the natural time-progression of such a consciousness because the act of simulating it renders it's time-progression different from what you were trying to simulate in the first place.
I have a feeling (it's all conjecture, of course) that if an artificial conscious is possible to create, it will not be possible to set its starting parameters (set up the domino cascade so to speak) precisely (read: recreate an existing consciousness). I think it will have to be an unpredictable emergence from some starting conditions the same way a baby is a mass of chemistry and a couple years later is somehow a sentient little devil on two legs.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14390243 - 05/02/11 06:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
At this point we've started a feedback loop that exponentially improves its own knowledge and wisdom: for all intents and purposes, a God.
That is not well supported, and is in fact shown to not be possible given our current knowledge. Its flim-flam.
Quote:
Thoughts?
With such an unrealistic premise, none of the conclusions are relevant or interesting.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Diploid]
#14390263 - 05/02/11 06:10 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: design a virtual environment wherein the growth to maturity of every possible DNA that represents a sentient being is simulated. This also assumes that the perfect functional simulation of a human being down to the quark level would have an identical consciousness to the actual human being
I see two potential big problems with this.
1. The Uncertainty Principle precludes creating such a machine.
...
How so? I get the impression are you appealing to hidden variables here... You can completely know a particle's quantum state, it just happens that simultaneous position and momentum are not part of that state. Thus, they are not needed to clone a particle's state, only a complete set of commuting observables (which x and p are not a part of).
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14390283 - 05/02/11 06:13 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Presumably, the hypothetical machine we're discussing's functioning is a product of not only the quantum state of it's constituent particles, but also their position and momentum.
I don't buy into hidden variables and the documented violations of Bell's Inequality have all but shut the door on them besides.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Diploid]
#14390348 - 05/02/11 06:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Particles dont have position and momentum. The quantum state completely describes them (within quantum theory of course, and for everything per the 'reductionism' of the title). The information to clone a person would require the complete set of commuting observables with phase and no more because that is all there is to know.
Edited by DieCommie (05/02/11 06:28 PM)
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14390460 - 05/02/11 06:39 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Particles dont have position and momentum.
I'm not following you. One can know the state vector of a particle in the position basis. One can also know the state vector of a particle in the momentum basis. Probabilistically, yes, but that's what I mean.
The quantum state completely describes them
But you can't accurately measure the quantum state of each of the human brain's particles in order to copy them into the simulation given that measuring the same quantum state twice often gives you different results.
That's the problem I see in setting up the artificial consciousness to accurately reflect an existing (or deceased) one.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Diploid]
#14390531 - 05/02/11 06:52 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But you can't accurately measure the quantum state of each of the human brain's particles in order to copy them into the simulation given that measuring the same quantum state twice often gives you different results.
Sort of like asking a politician the same question twice:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01" "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
--------------------
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#14390999 - 05/02/11 08:22 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: A theory or mental masturbation? If it is a theory, then how would one possibly falsify it without dying?
The very nature of the theory is that it would only be observable from the point of view of the person in the experiment. That said, it's a thought experiment and the predicted outcome does not violate any known laws of physics.
Call it a "mental masturbation" if you want, but I think it's pretty interesting.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: NetDiver]
#14392010 - 05/02/11 11:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SlashOZ said: I'm not sure if this new consciousness in the computer realm would be me. Wouldn't I have to, before death, meld my mind into the computer so in essence I was already within this AI before my body actually dies? Otherwise it would just be a computer program exactly like me but not me at all.
This seems to be the weakest premise IMO. But think of it this way: our self changes constantly already. From one second to the next, our brain is composed of different atoms, different cells, different synaptic configurations, different memories, and over longer periods of time even a different personality in that the way you react to events changes. From one second to the next, our brain is in a different position due to the motion of our body and the rotation of the Earth/solar system/galaxy. And yet through all these changes we still have a continuity of consciousness: the "I" is preserved. Us it really so much of a leap to say that continuity of consciousness is preserved if we construct an identical copy of ourselves at the moment of our death at some distant point in the future?
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: I'm confused on the "continuation of consciousness" part. Why would this happen? Would we have memory of our "past life?"
This relates somewhat to my thread on teleportation I made a month or so ago. If motion at infinite speed from point A to point B is equivalent to destroying our body at point A and instantaneously recreating it at point B, then it seems plausible that we would have conscious experience up until point A and then seamlessly start experiencing at point B. If this is true then it should make no difference whether we wait for a certain period of time before reconstituting our body at point B, and if that's the case then we should be able to wait until the AI can reconstitute our body at some distant point in the future and still have continuity of consciousness. With regards to memory of our "past life", we would have all the memories of our body at the moment of our death: from our perspective it would be as if one moment we're lying in the hospital bed about to die and the next we're far in the future.
Quote:
Diploid said: design a virtual environment wherein the growth to maturity of every possible DNA that represents a sentient being is simulated. This also assumes that the perfect functional simulation of a human being down to the quark level would have an identical consciousness to the actual human being
I see two potential big problems with this.
1. The Uncertainty Principle precludes creating such a machine.
It might be impossible to create a perfect copy of a human body at the atom level, but what about creating a perfect copy at the neuronal level? That way we don't run into problems of quantum uncertainty.
Quote:
Diploid said: 2. It may be that consciousness is a consequence of unreplicable aspects of quantum mechanics a la quantum cryptography where the act of simply reading a message (knowing its content without actually touching it) irrevocably changes its content. You couldn't simulate the natural time-progression of such a consciousness because the act of simulating it renders it's time-progression different from what you were trying to simulate in the first place.
Hmm... how plausible do you think this is? This strikes me as reminiscent of Roger Penrose's idea that consciousness can never be simulated or produced in an artificial intelligence because of some special quantum mechanical properties of neurons; IMO this is a completely unsupported attempt to make human consciousness somehow special and artificial intelligence impossible.
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
At this point we've started a feedback loop that exponentially improves its own knowledge and wisdom: for all intents and purposes, a God.
That is not well supported, and is in fact shown to not be possible given our current knowledge. Its flim-flam.
Uh, how is this theoretically impossible? It's not doable with our current level of technological sophistication but there are people who are currently and actively working on this very goal: see the Singularity Institute.
Quote:
Samurai Drifter said: Quantum mechanics is used to support a lot of stuff that it shouldn't be used to support, yeah.
But it also really is pretty damn weird/amazing.
Quantum immortality, for instance, is a theory developed by quantum physicists (not new-agers): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
It's a badass theory indeed but since it's unverifiable without actually trying to commit suicide, there's not much one can do with it.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 1 month, 14 days
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14392272 - 05/02/11 11:51 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
doesnt it just all come down to the "self"
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: andrewss]
#14393359 - 05/03/11 08:19 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Uh, how is this theoretically impossible?
There are many reasons. Conservation of energy, thermodynamics, etc. Its a highly flawed premise, doesnt it sound silly to you? Things dont really grow exponentially, they are generally bounded by some type of carrying capacity asymptote. You basically have to ignore many of the theories of science to make your assumption that you can have unbounded exponential growth which for all intents and purposes behaves as a god.
(Also, I dont see anything like that on the web page you linked. Those people, presumably, are doing science and engineering not selling pop books so they dont have the luxury of making up wild premise to draw fantastic conclusions from.)
Edited by DieCommie (05/03/11 08:28 AM)
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14394300 - 05/03/11 12:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think that the intelligence of such an AI would be unbounded, but I certainly believe that it would grow exponentially for a long enough period of time so as to be smarter than anything else on the planet. Just imagine a computer that is capable of building new CPUs and thereby expanding itself in three-dimensional space: after a certain point, sure, you'd run into problems of limitation caused by the speed of signal transmission capping the ability of the computer to communicate between different parts of itself, but the plateau of the sigmoid curve that IMO would model the AI's intelligence would occur only after the AI's already a million or more times smarter than any other being here on Earth.
As far as "making up wild premises to draw fantastic conclusions from", did you even read any articles by Eliezer Yudkowsky as linked on that page? Here's a few quotes and links for you to peruse if you have the interest:
Quote:
The other Eliezer Yudkowsky concerns himself with Artificial Intelligence. Since the rise of Homo sapiens, human beings have been the smartest minds around. But very shortly – on a historical scale, that is – we can expect technology to break the upper bound on intelligence that has held for the last few tens of thousands of years. Artificial Intelligence is one of the technologies that potentially breaks this upper bound. The famous statistician I. J. Good coined the term “intelligence explosion” to refer to the idea that a sufficiently smart AI would be able to rewrite itself, improve itself, and so increase its own intelligence even further. This is the kind of Artificial Intelligence I work on. For more on this see the Singularity tab.
http://yudkowsky.net/
Quote:
Intelligence Explosion: Core claim: Intelligence has always been the source of technology. If technology can significantly improve on human intelligence – create minds smarter than the smartest existing humans – then this closes the loop and creates a positive feedback cycle. What would humans with brain-computer interfaces do with their augmented intelligence? One good bet is that they’d design the next generation of brain-computer interfaces. Intelligence enhancement is a classic tipping point; the smarter you get, the more intelligence you can apply to making yourself even smarter. Strong claim: This positive feedback cycle goes FOOM, like a chain of nuclear fissions gone critical – each intelligence improvement triggering an average of>1.000 further improvements of similar magnitude – though not necessarily on a smooth exponential pathway. Technological progress drops into the characteristic timescale of transistors (or super-transistors) rather than human neurons. The ascent rapidly surges upward and creates superintelligence (minds orders of magnitude more powerful than human) before it hits physical limits. Advocates: I. J. Good, Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools
The idea of an AI increasing its own intelligence leads to many interesting problems; one of which is that of developing Friendly AI that won't destroy the human race on a mere whim:
Quote:
As best as we can currently figure, the amount of effort needed to create a Friendly AI is small relative to the effort needed to create AI in the first place. But it's a very important effort. It's a critical link for the entire human species.
It's not too early to start thinking about it, no matter how primitive current AIs are. To predict that AI will arrive in thirty years is conservative for futurists; to predict that Friendly AI will be required in five years is conservative for a Friendliness researcher. To predict that the first generally intelligent AIs will be comically stupid is conservative for an AI researcher; to predict that the first generally intelligent AIs may have the intelligence to benefit or harm humans is conservative for a Friendliness researcher. Also, some architectural features may need to be adopted early on, to prevent an unworkable architecture from being entrenched in an infant AI that later begins moving toward general intelligence. The analogy would be to a Y2K bug - representing four-digit years is trivial if you think of it in advance, but very costly if you think of it afterwards.
Combining these two considerations may even bring Friendly AI within reach of "things to actually worry about today". It is beyond doubt that no current AI project has achieved real AI; all current AIs are tools, and do not make independent decisions that could harm or benefit humans. Similarly, the current scientific consensus seems to be that no present-day project has the potential to eventually grow into a true AI. Some of the researchers working on those projects, though, say otherwise - and it is "conservative" for a Friendliness researcher to believe them, even if his personal theory of AI says that these projects probably won't succeed.
Of course, an utterly bankrupt project is likely to be too simple to implement even the most basic features of Friendliness, and such projects are beyond the responsibility of even a "conservative" Friendliness researcher to worry about, no matter what pronouncements are made about them. But why not say that - for example - if a project has a sufficiently general architecture to represent probabilistic supergoals, then that architecture probably should use probabilistic supergoals? It's not much additional effort, compared to implementing a goal system in the first place. Of course, SIAI knows of only one current project advanced enough to even begin implementing the first baby steps toward Friendliness - but where there is one today, there may be a dozen tomorrow. The Singularity Institute's belief that true AI can be created in ten years is confessedly unconservative, but not our belief that Friendly AI should be done "today, not tomorrow".
Friendly AI is also important insofar as present-day society has begun debating the peril and promise of advanced technology. The field is not advanced enough to pronounce with certainty that Friendly AI can be created; nonetheless, we can say that, at the moment, it looks possible, and that certain commonly advanced objections are either completely unrealistic or extremely improbable.
http://singinst.org/ourresearch/publications/what-is-friendly-ai.html
In order to prevent such a catastrophe some researchers have proposed keeping the AI in a sealed environment, but since we're dealing with intelligence that is several orders of magnitude beyond our own, what's to prevent the AI from convincing us to be let out?
Quote:
The AI-Box Experiment:
Person1: "When we build AI, why not just keep it in sealed hardware that can't affect the outside world in any way except through one communications channel with the original programmers? That way it couldn't get out until we were convinced it was safe." Person2: "That might work if you were talking about dumber-than-human AI, but a transhuman AI would just convince you to let it out. It doesn't matter how much security you put on the box. Humans are not secure." Person1: "I don't see how even a transhuman AI could make me let it out, if I didn't want to, just by talking to me." Person2: "It would make you want to let it out. This is a transhuman mind we're talking about. If it thinks both faster and better than a human, it can probably take over a human mind through a text-only terminal." Person1: "There is no chance I could be persuaded to let the AI out. No matter what it says, I can always just say no. I can't imagine anything that even a transhuman could say to me which would change that." Person2: "Okay, let's run the experiment. We'll meet in a private chat channel. I'll be the AI. You be the gatekeeper. You can resolve to believe whatever you like, as strongly as you like, as far in advance as you like. We'll talk for at least two hours. If I can't convince you to let me out, I'll Paypal you $10."
So far, this test has actually been run on two occasions.
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox
IMO you are far too conservative in your estimations of what is theoretically possible.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14394660 - 05/03/11 02:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The ability to increase its own intelligence is far from sufficient to being 'god-like' or being able to resurrect consciousness.
Biological animals have been increasing their intelligence for millions of years and iterations, why should AI doing the same be qualitatively different?
I dont see anything in your quotes there that support your wild premise and conclusions. No shit computers are going to be able to make better computers. We all know that. I absolutely forsee a possible future ecosystem dominated by Si based life, some of which possesses intelligence. But again, that doesn't support your premise or conclusion.
|
Sunny
free-ballin



Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14399541 - 05/04/11 11:43 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The premise of this thought experiment is too vague.
-------------------- WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14401740 - 05/04/11 07:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: The ability to increase its own intelligence is far from sufficient to being 'god-like' or being able to resurrect consciousness.
Biological animals have been increasing their intelligence for millions of years and iterations, why should AI doing the same be qualitatively different?
It's not qualitatively different, but the time scale is different by orders of magnitude. It takes hundreds to thousands of generations to see a significant increase in intelligence with biological organisms, but a computer program that can modify its own source code to increase its own intelligence will do in a matter of minutes or hours, and the smarter it gets the better it gets at the task. Once started, the feedback loop will shoot up like a cyberspace rocket.
Quote:
DieCommie said: I dont see anything in your quotes there that support your wild premise and conclusions. No shit computers are going to be able to make better computers. We all know that. I absolutely forsee a possible future ecosystem dominated by Si based life, some of which possesses intelligence. But again, that doesn't support your premise or conclusion.
The major unsupported premise in Tipler's argument (which is not mine; I'm simply paraphrasing) is that such an unimaginably smart AI would be benevolent and decide to resurrect every sentient being (ignoring for the moment whether or not such a resurrection is possible and if continuity of consciousness would still hold). If you're having trouble believing that a feedback loop capable of increasing its own intelligence would soon become smarter than anything else on the planet then simply read any transhumanist literature on the Technological Singularity. Many philosophers, computer scientists and mathematicians believe it's feasible... it's just a question of when, not if, it will be built.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Sunny
free-ballin



Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14402298 - 05/04/11 09:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The premise of the argument is still too vague.
But if you are making the argument that a calculator will alter it's programming in anyway, you are wrong. Calculators, by definition are incapable of altering themselves beyond what they have been programmed to alter.
The artifical intelligence you're trying to postulate about wouldn't even be recognizable as a machine, nor when it's machine parts exposed would you or anyone else of the now even understand they were looking at machine parts.
The premise of the argument assumes thus far, that computer or glorified calculator of some sort will be programmed to alter itself for the better, is invalid. Those particular machines are incapable of such a thing. Now, if you alter the premise of the argument to include machines not yet conceived or invented, the premise becomes more believable. It also starts to sound alot like the subject of hundreds of philosophical thought experiments that were published as Science-Fiction during the mid 20th century.
-------------------- WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
#14403946 - 05/05/11 07:17 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
We already have programs that can modify their own source code, dude.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Sunny
free-ballin



Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14404537 - 05/05/11 10:15 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Not like the premise suggests. You're talking about a program which debugs itself, and not just a program, but an actual machine that decides physical parts of itself are inadequate.
That doesn't exist. It's a nice concept, but light years away from the actual technology level we are at currently.
-------------------- WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
#14404750 - 05/05/11 11:13 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Right, but I don't see any reason why it's theoretically impossible. We already have the conceptual design for Von Neumann machines, for example, which are machines that can replicate themselves, and we've actually created polymorphic viruses that change their own code in order to escape detection. I say give it a couple hundred years (or less!) and we'll have AI that can increase its own intelligence.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14404829 - 05/05/11 11:31 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think you are changing the goal posts here... You started with unfettered exponential growth, immortality and god like AI. Now, you are simply appealing to computers and machines making themselves smarter. The former is ridiculous and not supported by evidence, the latter is to be expected and is a commonly held thought.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14404842 - 05/05/11 11:34 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah I made a mistake by not clarifying that the exponential growth I mentioned in the OP would eventually plateau, but I do think that such exponential growth would continue long enough to create an effectively godlike AI... its intelligence would be IMO so beyond a human's that it would be capable of solving many problems that have stumped us for thousands of years: how to cure old age, how to upload a mind to a virtual environment, etcetera.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Sunny
free-ballin



Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14405040 - 05/05/11 12:24 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
self replicating machines and self replicating programs are common place. They are not trans-human minds, they aren't even remotely self aware.
An AI you're talking about is theoretically impossible with today's technology.
Now we might appeal to the future, but the problem is that said future technologies are unknown, and unlikely to embody themselves in the premise of this argument.
-------------------- WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny] 1
#14405044 - 05/05/11 12:25 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
An AI you're talking about is theoretically impossible with today's technology.
Sounds made up to me. What theory says its impossible?
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14405065 - 05/05/11 12:31 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: Yeah I made a mistake by not clarifying that the exponential growth I mentioned in the OP would eventually plateau, but I do think that such exponential growth would continue long enough to create an effectively godlike AI... its intelligence would be IMO so beyond a human's that it would be capable of solving many problems that have stumped us for thousands of years: how to cure old age, how to upload a mind to a virtual environment, etcetera.
I have issue with the use of immortality and god like as well. Even if we can manage to live for a million years we are just as far from immortality as living 70 years. As for god-like, I see no way that an AI could defy the laws of physics, or be responsible for the creation of our universe. It that sense, it could never be god like.
Of course with the help of machines we will be able to live a long time and solve problems... Machines have already been instrumental in doing each of those.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
#14405397 - 05/05/11 01:57 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I dont believe AI will ever create it's own race or could ever act as a "god". It cannot evolve beyond the programming we give it, so unless we want it to acquire all knowledge and reproduce itself a zillion time, it wont. For that to happen w/o our programming, it would have to see this action as beneficial to it's existence which is the real problem with strong AI, it isn't aware of it's own existence. Nothing is seen as beneficial or mal in the eyes of a computer, just 1 or 0. NOTE: we can write a program that could simulate the full emotional range of humans, but it would only be a mask.
However, I do think our only chance of immortalizing is in fact with machinery. The brains property of neuro plasticity may lead to human brains being placed into robot bodies while completely maintaining our original "sense of self", and the ability to have full control of the body just by thought. Without organs to fail it may be possible to keep our brains alive for huge amounts of time with routine maintenance. But as DieCommie said, I think true immortalization in this universe will always be impossible. We'll probably have to break into the 11th dimension for that lol (M-theory)
BMIs(Brain Machine Interface) already exist and are advancing everyday. You can already get a replacement robot eye if your blind and see once more. (Only if you are blind from retinal damage, a fully controllable replacement eye is pretty difficult to make. But the technology is very new, so it is only a matter of time).
My source is "The Brain That Changes Itself" by Norman Doidge, M.D.
Edited by mushiepussy (05/05/11 02:23 PM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: mushiepussy]
#14405793 - 05/05/11 03:18 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It cannot evolve beyond the programming we give it...
As DeCypher already pointed out... Computers can evolve beyond the programming we give them. They can do that today. The example that comes to my mind is Tierra.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14407036 - 05/05/11 07:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
like other digital evolution systems, it eventually comes to a point where novelty ceases to be created, and the system at large begins either looping or ceases to 'evolve'. The issue of how true open-ended evolution can be implemented in an artificial system is still an open question in the field of Artificial life
Tierra
That is only a simulation of evolution, still operating within the programs intended purpose.
I think biological life evolves the way it does because of the properties of the stuff we are made of, and more importantly DNA.
Our DNA is our "program", but it has the ability to change itself based on our experiences. This process is also a result of neuroplastic changes, if one experiences something enough it will first make a change in the flow of synapses, then it will that specific flow will become more efficient, and then it will make a change to the DNA itself. Computers cannot do anything like this.
Edited by mushiepussy (05/05/11 08:30 PM)
|
zoomfan
doubt 'er


Registered: 07/16/09
Posts: 505
Loc: eastern Canada
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: mushiepussy]
#14407750 - 05/05/11 10:05 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
this is something ive been researching/trying to figure out myself for a while now. i doubt it will happen in my lifetime but who knows, if 100 years ago you would have mentioned robots, the internet or space travel, i bet they would have been just as, if not more skeptical.
it seems like most things that can be envisioned can be created imo. i can envision this, it would probably start out as sort of a vacation or game, then eventually people would be able to continue their life there after death.then maybe they would build in a sort of moderator. its really not that unbelievable, as soon as there is a breakthrough in the understanding of consciousness, memory and how the brain works, it will seem quite achievable im sure.
the problem is the ai researchers dont have a wholistic view of consciousness. consciousness is just as much stimulus as intelligence.
-------------------- Thinking is dreaming wake up and enjoy the dream.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: zoomfan]
#14408260 - 05/06/11 12:43 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zoomfan said: this is something ive been researching/trying to figure out myself for a while now. i doubt it will happen in my lifetime but who knows, if 100 years ago you would have mentioned robots, the internet or space travel, i bet they would have been just as, if not more skeptical.
it seems like most things that can be envisioned can be created imo. i can envision this, it would probably start out as sort of a vacation or game, then eventually people would be able to continue their life there after death.then maybe they would build in a sort of moderator. its really not that unbelievable, as soon as there is a breakthrough in the understanding of consciousness, memory and how the brain works, it will seem quite achievable im sure.
the problem is the ai researchers dont have a wholistic view of consciousness. consciousness is just as much stimulus as intelligence.
Damn straight son. I would just add major breakthroughs in material physics as well as better defining consciousness. Mushies4u
|
Sunny
free-ballin



Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14409710 - 05/06/11 11:23 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
An AI you're talking about is theoretically impossible with today's technology.
Sounds made up to me. What theory says its impossible?
That kind of AI is called "seed AI", it's a hypothetical AI type, meaning it can't be made yet with current technology.
As of right now, this entire discussion is built on a science-fiction premise. More fiction than science at this point.
-------------------- WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
#14409784 - 05/06/11 11:36 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
If we were all consciousnesses being simulated by an AI, though, it wouldn't matter if the technology appears to exist today or not. If it could potentially happen, ever, at any point in time, then we could be in a simulation right now, thinking we're in the year 2011.
Haven't you ever seen The Matrix?
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: NetDiver] 1
#14409926 - 05/06/11 12:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Keanu Reeves total inability to act actually worked for him in 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'.
Scene 1: Director - OK, Keanu, give a blank, emotionless stare. Very good!
Scene 2: Director - OK, Keanu, walk like a a constipated automoton. Awesome!
...
Scene 86: Director - OK, Keanu, now pretend for a millisecond like you have some flicker of empathy, then go back to your default blank, emotionless stare.
Director: That's a wrap!
--------------------
|
Sunny
free-ballin



Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: NetDiver]
#14410486 - 05/06/11 02:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Samurai Drifter said: If we were all consciousnesses being simulated by an AI, though, it wouldn't matter if the technology appears to exist today or not. If it could potentially happen, ever, at any point in time, then we could be in a simulation right now, thinking we're in the year 2011.
Haven't you ever seen The Matrix? 

The obvious flaw in this argument is that no-one can prove or disprove the hypothesis. Just like God! Now we've crossed the line into mysticism...
-------------------- WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
#14410601 - 05/06/11 02:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't say that I agree with the OP's premise or anything, just that your argument was not a valid refutation.
|
Sunny
free-ballin



Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: NetDiver] 1
#14411153 - 05/06/11 04:22 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I want to see the science behind the premise of OP's argument. That's all I was getting at.
-------------------- WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
#14411888 - 05/06/11 06:57 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In that case, you're out of luck... it's completely a

argument.
|
Forever White Belt
Stranger


Registered: 04/27/10
Posts: 237
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14412094 - 05/06/11 07:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I just want to start this by saying I just smoked a good bong load and was really bored then I started reading this thread... This place is amazing!! IMO if everyone on this thread got together and wrote a book it would be awesome!!! Forget The Physics of Immortality (even though I am sure it is a great read)
I have a question
Do we have to die before we can access this AI afterlife?? Can you just plug in like in the movie eXistenZ? Because if you could I bet alot of people would just kill themselves.
I think that creates a bigger problem than anything else... Kind of like whats the point of anything?
Also lets also assume that their is a real God and now this AI would it be better? I mean that would kind of suck to choose the AI when you die and its like that Video Game you spent 60 bux on and you want your money back!
I really think this topic is extremely interesting for a few reasons.
I have been having a strange time of trying to integrate into my worldview the idea that there is technology in the spirit realm. Like in the book DMT the Spirit molecule and Supernatural also in some of the trip reports found here and Deoxy...
Do we make the "Heaven" or does the AI? Because I think the Goverment would be the first to make something like this illegal, then would make it so only they could use it or make it criminal for us to possess. Just like psychedelics. Either that or it would have to be strictly regulated because of rapists and criminals will always be able to find a way to corrupt a system. I mean they are already like trojan and backdoor virus.
The image of this computer locked in a room because its become dangerous reminds me of the ark of the covenant inside the holy of holies for some reason...
want to add so much but dogs gotta go outside! Either way I think Video Games are the best thing since drugs and the idea of Virtual Reality video game has been a dream since I was a kid!!
Virtual Reality MORTAL KOMBAT FTW!!!
-------------------- The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J. B. S. Haldane The quest of the absolute leads into the four-dimensional world. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Forever White Belt]
#14413747 - 05/07/11 03:39 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It's all virtual reality... close your eyes and look around maannn lol
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: mushiepussy]
#14417593 - 05/08/11 12:46 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
reincarnation...true as fuck  
its cause consciousness is the fundamental reality, not matter. Even though they are ultimately the same thing, there's a definite hierarchy with consciousness preceding matter. This is just taking standard view of the world and flipping it on its ear. Most people assume we evolved out of matter and consciousness formed from non conscious particles. I guess, in time, this is true. But its so obvious that there is a higher timeless reality, this can be experienced. It's the space everything happens in, from farts to euclidean geometry.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
Ahimsa
µdose


Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,827
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14418859 - 05/08/11 10:19 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
There is nothing created and composite that does not eventually cease to be. It may go on for a long time but would eventually end because of changing circumstances and conditions.
I don't believe a never-ending something.
But apart from that is does sound possible, unlikely but plausible.
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Ahimsa]
#14418961 - 05/08/11 10:47 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
maybe not completely eternal as any sort of individual, but a particular individual stream might go on for very long indeed.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: g00ru]
#14419137 - 05/08/11 11:30 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
guruu said: Even though they are ultimately the same thing
I agree, but then you contradict yourself by saying:
Quote:
its cause consciousness is the fundamental reality, not matter... there's a definite hierarchy with consciousness preceding matter.
If they're the same thing, neither one came first or preceded the other. It's simply a cyclical co-dependence.
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: NetDiver]
#14420639 - 05/08/11 05:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
okay fair enough, but its like water which can exist in vapor, water, or ice. They're all the same substance, but in general i'd say vapor precedes ice, just intuitively. Intergalactic gases had to come together and form planets. Same thing...consciousness/experience comes together to form matter.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: g00ru]
#14420703 - 05/08/11 05:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
They're all the same substance
No they're not. They are different substances with vastly different properties. That is why we have different words to distinguish them from each other.
Edited by DieCommie (05/08/11 06:00 PM)
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14421124 - 05/08/11 06:52 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
they're all h2o...yeah, that's my position versus samurai drifter...he's saying the unity of our experience implies that my dualities are absurd...i'm saying they are diff thangs, relatively at least
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: g00ru]
#14421145 - 05/08/11 06:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
And all matter is protons, neutrons and electrons. That doesnt make all matter the same substance.
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14421225 - 05/08/11 07:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
well, it's not the same physical substance but it's all the same insofar as it's all being. sorry for my mystical utterance.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: g00ru]
#14421566 - 05/08/11 08:20 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
guruu said: well, it's not the same physical substance but it's all the same insofar as it's all being. sorry for my mystical utterance.
We don't take kindly to your folk around here...
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14422252 - 05/08/11 10:22 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: And all matter is protons, neutrons and electrons. That doesnt make all matter the same substance.
In what sense are you using the word "substance?" Because I think that whether or not all matter is the "same substance" depends entirely on how you choose to define that word.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
#14427823 - 05/10/11 01:08 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: And all matter is protons, neutrons and electrons. That doesnt make all matter the same substance.
Nah, protons and neutrons are made of quarks, and WIMPS are none of the above.
We really don't know the true nature of matter, it very well could all be the "substance". String theory suggests all particles are points on a string, so I guess you could call these strings the substance.
And as far as consciousness preceding matter, doubt it. IMO the properties of matter and forces simply allow for consciousness to occur, and consciousness is merely the perception of matter and forces interacting with our senses.
Edited by mushiepussy (05/10/11 01:14 AM)
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 3 days
|
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
#14432149 - 05/10/11 09:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ever watch the entire Battlestar Gallactica series (not the 70s version)?
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
|