# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Only That Which Came About By Itself Is Real

## desiresjab

_Only That Which Came About By Itself Is Real_, is a definition I accept. If something exists and is not real, then that thing, by necessity, is artificial, as in artifice.

If I do not believe the universe itself is real, then I must believe in a creator. Because I think, does not mean I am real, and it does not prove the universe is real.

If we are created, we are not real, by the definition above. All things we have built are artificial, of course, because they came about at the hands of creators. They have the reality of recognition, but not the reality of origin required to be fully real. Anything created did not "come about," but was made.

To believe we and the universe are _real_, I must also believe that all properties required to produce matter and then life, also _came about_ unaided by anything, remember. These properties must have been intrinsic, then, to nothingness itself, which can have no such properties. This contradiction is undeniable. Since nothingness could have no such properties, we were created.

QED

----------


## YesNo

Does that mean you are a theist?

My only problem is that this seems to imply a dualism between what is "artificial" and what is "real". The dualism seems too sharp.

----------


## desiresjab

> Does that mean you are a theist?


I do not know if there is an s on the end of creator or not. In one scenario, I see future societies running staggeringly advanced ancestor-simulation software. Such software might be formed inside their brains directly rather than be periphreal. We have no idea what it might be.

In another scenario, I see something like the traditional God we think of, who made this thing called the universe for reasons I can only guess at. God may have had experiential limits. In order to fully experience its creation, the God needed some sensitive fingertips. We are one of the more sensitive nerves on its feeling pad. We may be here to experience its creation so it can experience through us. The same for mosquitos and dolphins. That may be our purpose.




> My only problem is that this seems to imply a dualism between what is "artificial" and what is "real". The dualism seems too sharp.


It is sharp, but it has to be. A thing was either made or came about by itself, there is no in between. If our race advances to where they are indistinguishable from God, they could become identical to the real, except for origin. You cannot change origin. Without a start from nothingness, you are not real, by the definition I accept.

The reason for Descarte's dualistic philosophy was to separate those things the church would hang you upside down for from those that were safe to investigate and discuss, and to give it a rational basis.

I do not have to worry about the church, and I do not believe that dualism is inherently some kind of mistaken, poison view. My dualism is not the dualism of Descartes anyway. We see and feel objects as solids. We know they are not solids, but fine mists of particles. Isn't that a dualism we accept? Every philosophy is trounced by those that follow, those that trounced dualism were in their own turns trounced. Nothing new there. Dualism is not a fallacy. We live with it everywhere. Is dualism real? Hmmm...part of it came about and part was created. Perhaps too tough to answer right now. It could not be there without its "came about" part (God), so I would probably judge dualism real in effect, though the concept is, of course, our creation.

----------


## desiresjab

There is, I believe, a third argument to consider. That the universe, ourselves, dolphins and mosquitos and, by Jove, God itself, were all churned up out of nothingness.

Whoops! This means all those properties still had to be intrinsic to nothinginess, which we know is logical fallacy.

God as eternal works much better than God was churned up by the distribution of properties in the Big Bang. Only this type of creator has to be real, I remind you. If our creators are our distant descendants running ancestor-simulation software, that means they are mortal, still trapped by the arrow time.

Man tries to break or thwart the arrow of time, his jailer. That is what archaeology does, and biology, and my friends, what literature does. Without literature from the past we would be not only prisoners, but in solitary confinement. Instead, we know our ancestors were just like us, the violent bastards. We have their stories to prove it.

----------


## YesNo

I don't think anything can be churned up out of nothingness without even the will to start the churning.

The descendants as our creators does have the problem that they are also mortal. So I agree with you that that is not a solution if it were possible, which I don't think it is.

Is time a jailer? 

Part of the problem might be believing that what we see outside ourselves is "objective". Certainly, it is objective to our specific perspective. And it behaves in predictable ways that we can have order in our lives. I think it is another form of subjectivity like the kind we participate in. What I am trying to do here is get rid of the dualism of there being some artificial vs real stuff. It is all subjectivity, but not all subjective from my perspective.

----------


## desiresjab

To make a long story short, since I believe our universe is artificial, I am forced to believe in a creator or creators of our universe. 

I am not forced to concede that the creator is plural or singular or that the creator is eternal. Who says you have to live forever to keep an artificial universe going?

I do not know if the creator/s of our universe is/are the ultimate creator/s of everything. It/they may not be. But this universe we experience ourselves to be in, I believe is artificial. I carry no religious, proselytizing fever or fervor with this belief.

To reconstruct how one arrives at a belief in an uncertain universe is a torturous path always, I think, except for religious ephiphanies, which I profess no belief in. The statistical connotations of a distant future happening now instead of later opposed to how we experience time, and able to run real-seeming ancestor-simulations and universe-simulations trillions of times, was a big factor. The probability that we are experiencing the real universe as opposed to an artificial one is infinitesimal.

Remember, artificial only means it was created, it is artifice, it is not real by our definition, because it did not come about by itself. That is what it means, functionally.

By my belief and definitions:

1 If some traditional God created the universe, it is artificial, and we may be artificial, as well. That is what to be created means.

2 If our distant descendants created our universe, same as above.

3 If the universe came about by itself, it is real, and we may be real, as well.

It is a 50-50 standoff between 1 and 3. We could be artificial beings living in a real universe, or real beings living in an artificial universe. We would not know the difference.

The numerosity of possible artificial universes in number 2, wins me. It is a statistical decision. It is more likely by far that we are experiencing an artificial universe. We could still be beings who came about by ourselves and were placed in this artificial universe, either by ourselves or by a different "breed" of beings which came about by itself, since nothing forces me to believe all beings who might come about by themselves are equal in power.

What people really care about is an afterlife. Interest in God is incidental to that passion. Neither 1, 2 or 3 precludes the possibility of an afterlife. If everything came about by itself, an afterlife theoretically could, too. Nothing says it couldn't. Nothing says the afterlife is not going on right now without us, or even with us. Except the Bible, I guess, which says the afterlife will happen later, which I profess no belief in.

Now. Why would the creator/s provide us with an afterlife? I look for the word empathy. _The creators, too, must have a greatest fear, And for us tremble as death frolics near_, to pen a spontaneous rhyme.

Whether the creator made us in his image, as claimed in the Bible, if the creators provided an afterlife for us, I deduce they at minimum have enough familiarity with fear to empathsize with us in our greatest fear.

There is nothing that forces me to believe a creator would have enough empathy to provide an afterlife for us. I wish there were.

For we may be no more than nerve fibers on God's fingertips through which it experiences its own creation, handy tools, so sophisticated we became or were meant to be independently conscious, but not worthy of a God's empathy, aye?

Is a limited God/creator more likely to have empathy?

----------


## YesNo

> To make a long story short, since I believe our universe is artificial, I am forced to believe in a creator or creators of our universe.


That makes sense to me.




> I am not forced to concede that the creator is plural or singular or that the creator is eternal. Who says you have to live forever to keep an artificial universe going?


I think the creator has to be outside the universe which would be bounded by our universe's time and space. That would be how I would define "eternal".




> I do not know if the creator/s of our universe is/are the ultimate creator/s of everything. It/they may not be. But this universe we experience ourselves to be in, I believe is artificial. I carry no religious, proselytizing fever or fervor with this belief.


That sounds like "maya", but I have no religion to offer either. I just pick and choose whatever seems to work at the moment.




> To reconstruct how one arrives at a belief in an uncertain universe is a torturous path always, I think, except for religious ephiphanies, which I profess no belief in. The statistical connotations of a distant future happening now instead of later opposed to how we experience time, and able to run real-seeming ancestor-simulations and universe-simulations trillions of times, was a big factor. The probability that we are experiencing the real universe as opposed to an artificial one is infinitesimal.


I think the idea of future generations creating us through some sort of time travel to be dependent on a belief in a sort of spacetime determinism. Quantum physics would likely require that gravity be quantized as well which I suspect would destroy the original idea of spacetime.




> Remember, artificial only means it was created, it is artifice, it is not real by our definition, because it did not come about by itself. That is what it means, functionally.
> 
> By my belief and definitions:
> 
> 1 If some traditional God created the universe, it is artificial, and we may be artificial, as well. That is what to be created means.
> 
> 2 If our distant descendants created our universe, same as above.
> 
> 3 If the universe came about by itself, it is real, and we may be real, as well.
> ...


I agree that (2) is unlikely with probability about 0%.




> The numerosity of possible artificial universes in number 2, wins me. It is a statistical decision. It is more likely by far that we are experiencing an artificial universe. We could still be beings who came about by ourselves and were placed in this artificial universe, either by ourselves or by a different "breed" of beings which came about by itself, since nothing forces me to believe all beings who might come about by themselves are equal in power.


I agree that not all beings are of the same power.




> What people really care about is an afterlife. Interest in God is incidental to that passion. Neither 1, 2 or 3 precludes the possibility of an afterlife. If everything came about by itself, an afterlife theoretically could, too. Nothing says it couldn't. Nothing says the afterlife is not going on right now without us, or even with us. Except the Bible, I guess, which says the afterlife will happen later, which I profess no belief in.


It could be going on now. If you listen to people who report near-death experiences, they experience an afterlife now.




> Now. Why would the creator/s provide us with an afterlife? I look for the word empathy. _The creators, too, must have a greatest fear, And for us tremble as death frolics near_, to pen a spontaneous rhyme.
> 
> Whether the creator made us in his image, as claimed in the Bible, if the creators provided an afterlife for us, I deduce they at minimum have enough familiarity with fear to empathsize with us in our greatest fear.
> 
> There is nothing that forces me to believe a creator would have enough empathy to provide an afterlife for us. I wish there were.


Empathy might be a way to describe such a relationship, but that would mean it is personal which brings you back to traditional theistic positions.




> For we may be no more than nerve fibers on God's fingertips through which it experiences its own creation, handy tools, so sophisticated we became or were meant to be independently conscious, but not worthy of a God's empathy, aye?
> 
> Is a limited God/creator more likely to have empathy?


I like the idea of us being nerve fibers on God's fingertips, but I don't know where it leads.

I don't see anything "artificial" in the world. That may be the main difference in our views. True, we see the world as exterior to us and we can make things which are artificial. For example, when we make a table we create something that the word "table" refers to, but basically it is only a reworking of atoms. It is only a table for us. Also when we look at anything we see an "object" because we are a "subject" and that is how we see things. That doesn't mean there isn't something really out there. There is. We just have a subject-object relationship to it as humans.

----------


## desiresjab

I think you misunderstood some of what I tried to say. (2) is almost certain to be true, if you indeed agree with me. We are almost certainly experiencing an artificial universe, when you consider that traditional God created a single universe, as did Nature (happening by yourself), and our descendants could generate limitless artificial universes we were able to experience, then it becomes almost certain we are in an artificial universe instead of the single one.

The idea is, in fact, an alternative interpretation of multi-verse.

The key idea of our descendants running ancestor-simulation software, which is the actual basis to our experience, is not my own idea. The rest of the development is. I picked that key idea up from a cosmologist whose name I have misplaced. The definition that _only that which came about by itself is real, all else was created and therefore artificial_, is my own thought, as far as I know.

----------


## YesNo

We probably don't agree, but it doesn't matter.

For the record, I think (2) is almost certainly false because it requires time reversal. However, let's put that aside. 

I was thinking about this thread today and I have a question. Let's say you have something "artificial" and not "real". It is made out of something. Is that something it is made out of artificial or real? If it is artificial then ask the same question about what it was made out of.

----------


## desiresjab

> We probably don't agree, but it doesn't matter.
> 
> For the record, I think (2) is almost certainly false because it requires time reversal. However, let's put that aside. 
> 
> I was thinking about this thread today and I have a question. Let's say you have something "artificial" and not "real". It is made out of something. Is that something it is made out of artificial or real? If it is artificial then ask the same question about what it was made out of.


A sand sculpture. It is artificial and not real. Only if sand and all its constituents back to the beginning of the universe came about unaided by anything would sand be real. Then we would have something artificial made out of something real.

If the universe was created, then everything that follows is artificial, so that part is easy enough.

Something real cannot be made out of something artifiical, for something real cannot be made, period.

I can refine and correct an earlier statement. If the universe is artificial, mankind is necessarily artificial, too, unless we are from outside the universe. I had it that way, then I changed it. Now I must go back to the original. But if the universe is real, mankind could still be artificial. Yes, there is still hope.

Can something real be composed of something real? Of course. Sandstone. Tree sap.

----------


## desiresjab

It follows that if the universe is artificial, it will contain all artificial things. But if the universe is real, it may contain both real and artificial things.

----------


## desiresjab

People who are religious, who believe in God, believe in an artificial universe without making the realization in words. They want to immediately jump to the defense of God's creation and declare that it is real, under the false impression that artificial carries its negative connotations as usual. But it doesn't. To some people it would be a sin to say that God's creation is artificial. They would be afraid to utter it or seriously entertain it. They do not realize that artificial is good, it is what they want. Without an artificial universe, they would also have an uncreated one.

* * * * *

Without the overwhelming statistical argument of our descendants running ancestor-simulation software, we are back to the tradtitional standoff between willful and accidental universes.

But whoa now. I do not think we have to chuck the ancestor simulation scenario out the window because of time reversal. Not necessarily, anyway.

Let's take a closer look. Time is an elastic parameter. Newton would kill me for that, but nowadays we know it is true anyway. Its elasticity may also have unsuspected properties and dimensions. Godel himself proved time travel was theoretically possible through manipulation of Einstein's field equations. 

But for our advanced descendants, no time travel is necessary. They are fighting the arrow of time the old fashioned way--with their brains and new techniques. They cannot physically travel back in time, but they know an awful lot about physical laws nonetheless, and they know an awful lot about history, and they know an awful lot about their ancestors. With complex enough software that perhaps grows within their own brains and is not per se written as we think of that activity, they made all of this and they made it seem so real to us that it is impossible for us to tell for sure if we are real or artificial. No time reversal is required.

All that is required are beings far enough in the future to create the ancestor simulation technology. I know they would find motive. 

Let us ask why. They know their history worked out exactly as it did. What could be more obvious? But they might in addition ask the question whether it had to work out exactly as it has, and if all those seeming other paths that it might have taken were simply mirages on the way to completing what had to happen.

By running their simulations trillions of times and more, they might get very close to results which would allow a conclusion or a good theory. With enough repetitions they might discover there never was a chance of altering even the smallest thing in universal history, let alone the course of large events.

The beautiful thing--no manipulation of time required anywhere.

The above is one scientific reason our advanced descendants might develop such software and run such simulations. It is even easier to imagine illicit uses for such software.

The point you overlooked or that I did not express right is that no time manipulation is required for this scenario to unfold, and this is why I think its statistical domination is so powerful. We are not their ancestors sharing the same universe, but their artificial ancestors in our own artificial universe. They would be monitoring us but we would not be monitoring them. What seemed like 13.7 billion years or thereabouts to us, and could be backed up by data, might be to those doing the monitoring about...say, oh, six or eight thousand years. Gulp!

----------


## desiresjab

Just what do those distant descendants make us out of, for everything to seem so real to us, for us to seem so alive to ourselves? Would it be possible?

On top of your medical records and history, including genetic profiles, they have arrest records, military records, all municipal records, complete internet history of both posts and searches, and any miscellaneous sources to compose a real-seeming you out of. Is that enough?

Ah, but we left out the most important thing they have to assist them in building us's that seem real to ourselves--an advanced understanding of themselves and humanity, of the human brain, of the limits of behaviorism if any.

They should be able to do it.

----------


## YesNo

Why would our descendants want to create us as simulations? They already have us as history. 

I think you are missing our subjectivity in this theory, but are relying on a deterministic view that everything can be objectified.

----------


## desiresjab

> Why would our descendants want to create us as simulations? They already have us as history. 
> 
> I think you are missing our subjectivity in this theory, but are relying on a deterministic view that everything can be objectified.


I just answered that. I will give you another reason they might run ancestor simulations-- besides all the viable commercial ones that are so easy to dream up, such as meeting or at least observing in action your grea-great-great grandparents, eerily precise simulations of them that feel conscious and alive, who feel like you and me, in fact, or to learn more about oneself. Some site like ancestrydotcom would include not only a full background report but a sophisticated ancestry-simulation as well.

The scientific reason I alluded to above is to study the Butterfly effect. Small shifts of input from a powerful creator, such as voices in ones head, could lead to large to changes from normal output, such as ancient goatherds becoming religious and writing down their visions and spreading notions to others.

Why would they want to run these simulations? Because they will be an important scientific tool for gathering information. Simulations are already very important. They will only get better. A simulated universe is the ultimate simulation. It already contains the objects for any simulation you want to run on local phenomena within it.

One could make an almost endless list of reasons why human beings would create and run these simulations. Profit would be behind many of them, scientific research behind many, as well. There is no reason they cannot fast/forward these simulations to run right into and past their own era. The simulations would be powerful predictors and increasingly powerful ones in big demand. Like supercomputers or space before them, they might have their own race.

Recreation is another real possibility. If the consciousness of individuals can be temporarily integrated with the simulators.

They could become commonplace, something you buy and take home with you--a universe simulator. It has battalions of parameters you can adjust. You can create different types of universes. Fun for the whole family. Create an evil universe and let the kids see what happens, as the whole family integrates with the simulator and experiences the evolution at various play speeds. Multiple universes could be left running, while yet others are created.

Not to get too science-fictiony, but you see plausible reasons for doing it will be everywhere around the actual descendants of these simulated beings. I called them actual, not real. A semantic foresight. You asked the easiest question of all--why? A reason is everywhere we turn.

The next exercise seems evident to me. Later for that.

No, I do not forget subjectivity. How can artificial beings be anything but subjective? An objective being of any kind is an impossibility, it seems to me, because an objective being has no sense of self, it does not differentiate between itself and what is outside. It does not see itself. Anyway, the beings in the simulation have to be as close to us as they can be created, subjectivity and all.

----------


## YesNo

> If the consciousness of individuals can be temporarily integrated with the simulators.


I don't think this is possible. I would reference John Searle's Chinese Room argument to eliminate algorithmic simulators. You would need a non-algorithmic simulator. The first challenge is to describe what such a device would be.




> No, I do not forget subjectivity. How can artificial beings be anything but subjective? An objective being of any kind is an impossibility, it seems to me, because an objective being has no sense of self, it does not differentiate between itself and what is outside. It does not see itself. Anyway, the beings in the simulation have to be as close to us as they can be created, subjectivity and all.


I somewhat agree with this only because it is vague enough to find possible places of agreement. However, I do not agree with the idea that subjectivity can be created as an objective reality. True we can create children and these have subjectivity but their subjectivity comes from their own lived creativity. It is not something we create.

It makes sense to me to see the objective or "artificial" as the illusory Hindu "maya". I don't think that is how you view it.

Also it seems you are working from a deterministic view of reality that I reject based on my own lived experience and evidence from quantum physics.

----------


## desiresjab

> I don't think this is possible. I would reference John Searle's Chinese Room argument to eliminate algorithmic simulators. You would need a non-algorithmic simulator. The first challenge is to describe what such a device would be.
> 
> 
> 
> I somewhat agree with this only because it is vague enough to find possible places of agreement. However, I do not agree with the idea that subjectivity can be created as an objective reality. True we can create children and these have subjectivity but their subjectivity comes from their own lived creativity. It is not something we create.
> 
> It makes sense to me to see the objective or "artificial" as the illusory Hindu "maya". I don't think that is how you view it.
> 
> Also it seems you are working from a deterministic view of reality that I reject based on my own lived experience and evidence from quantum physics.


In fact maya is a word I often use. To me, of religious figures Buddah got closest to the truth of human reality by equating it with illusion..

I don't care much for the subjective/objective side of the theory. It is technical and sounds like sentence diagramming. There is no doubt one can pick and prod into every corner and find leaks here and there. It has been done with every philosophy that took the highest powered human minds a liftime to compose and consider and revise, so it can be done with my partially borrowed idea as well, I have every confidence. In fact I have sat here and done it. I have picked little quibbling holes in it. But that really does not matter, because I can do that with literally any theory I can grasp. I think we all could.

I have to interrupt. Was just called for prawns.

----------


## desiresjab

I do not worry about how they will construct their simulations. That is way beyond us all. They will do it. They have already done it, if I am right, since we are here. The level of success they will attain can be debated, but we all know they will try.

I want to compliment you and all the members of the forum for being excellent simulations of consciousness.

True consciousness would be what God has and what God promises to us in the Christian religion. We cannot in any way show that we are truly conscious and not some simulation that is asymptotically close.

Our old friend the asymptote again. We are good fakes, aren't we? Out in the physical world (a fine simulation of a physical world) you only come so close to the ideal behind any effort. You can idealize a perfect circle, but you cannot cut a perfect one.

The same with other difficult propositions and phenomena to formulate. We do not need to be conscious, we only need to be asymptotically close, and I think we are.

This has all kinds of wonderful philosophical, religious and fictional ramifications. It is a fun ball to run with.

----------


## YesNo

I estimate your chance of being right at about 0%. But life is short. We all have to handle cognitive dissonance as best we can. The most amazing cognitive dissonance is that we are here at all talking to each other. We have to make sense out of that. If "simulations of consciousness" works for you, fine. I prefer to cut to the chase, skip the needless addition of "simulations" and focus on consciousness itself.

----------


## desiresjab

If the first man to walk on the martian surface finds a perfect camera sitting on a rock, he will be forced to conclude that it did not come about by itself. This is a classic argument from design. Camera is even the traditional example. It could have been a microscope or a microwave oven, the astronaut would still conclude the same thing. Or, the point is, instead of any of these, perhaps he sees a spohisticated artificial universe. He will conclude the same thing in all cases--it did not come about by itself. Not a strong philosophical argument, but an ironclad indication of what our assumption will always be.

All evidence of whether the universe is real or artificial is indirect and heavily philosophic. It is a question not yet seriously considered by science, and may likewise only be considered obliquely.

The more evidence for design in nature the modern evangelist sees, the more imbued with visible artificiality he pronounces nature to be, usually without knowing it or thinking about that aspect of it. He would prefer another name for it.

* * * * *

It sounds to me like God later felt sorry for us. One could find paralells to the bible, I am not interested in doing that. Once in a while an example stands out and demands to be heard from anyway.

The story of our creator and of his developving relationship with his creation in the Bible, may be a paralell of what happened with our real creators, our distant descendants. God only had empathy with us later. The God of the old testament is not very empathic or caring, despite that God's own constant proclamations otherwise, but the God of the new testament is caring and empathic, in comparison to the older one.

God later became empathic and less punitive, just like our actual creators, our distant descendants. Our descendants are still humans. They can compatmentalize and deny with the best of us. It probably took a grass roots campaign and legislation to finally get a mandatory afterlife built for all those pour souls in the simulations suffering from the fear of death.

And it only made good scientific sense, too, since mankind will be busily engaged in building simulated afterlives they can hook into and integrate with in case there is no real afterlife for consciousness to go to. All the research relates. That is why it will happen. 

Whether we are simulated or real, exactly the same thing happens down the road for us--we look for a real afterlife and try to build an artificial one.

In our hearts we would rather have a real afterlife than an artificial one. There could be a real one, plus the artificial one we build. We could find the artificial one better than the one that is natural to the universe.

----------


## YesNo

Instead of believing in future descendants somehow being able to recreate us so we can have an artificial afterlife, why don't you just assume that consciousness is larger than our own and can create this universe?

What do you think of those people who discuss near-death experiences and claim they are evidence of an afterlife?

----------


## Danik 2016

I think what we mostly have today, are narratives, religious and scientific narratives. And we need them to be reassuring, because too little is known about afterlife.

As for the future inventions I think they are difficult to predict now because they probably depend on a technology that is still going to be created.
This story was written in 1975 by Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges 
http://anagrammatically.com/2010/03/...es-translated/
Only forty years ago it was an uncanny tale. Today to open the "Book of Sand" you have only to access the internet.
When you again access the page you were looking at, it will have changed.
And even Borges wildest imagination wouldn´t be able to foresee these virtual every day echanges with people of all corners of the world.

----------


## YesNo

Nice haunting story especially with sentences like this: “Study the page well. You will never see it again.”

----------


## desiresjab

> Instead of believing in future descendants somehow being able to recreate us so we can have an artificial afterlife, why don't you just assume that consciousness is larger than our own and can create this universe?


I cannot assume something just because that is how I might like it to be. What you just said means you are not listening carefully. What does it seem I have been assuming created the universe? A consciousness, if it is created rather than having just happened by itself. Only a consciousness can consciously create something, lad.




> What do you think of those people who discuss near-death experiences and claim they are evidence of an afterlife?


When a star dies there is some extended fireworks, too, as it becomes a red giant and then finally a white dwarf.

I have never looked into the phenomenon with more than a passing glance. I suspect there is probably something to their experiences, but establishing a connection between them and the afterlife is out of our league for the moment. It is entirely plausible that only those who are coming back and are not going to die anyway, have these near death experiences. Perhaps no one who died actually had one of these experiences, but we could never prove it. A great subject. I believe that someday it will be an extremely fruitful orchard for science. Our dreams and our near death experiences are two places we shall boldy go, perhaps only to discover they are the same place.

I hate to leave this earth before life is discovered elsewhere. I would like to watch old paradigms tremble and collapse. About a decade is what I reasonably have left, and that is not going to do it.

----------


## YesNo

> I cannot assume something just because that is how I might like it to be. What you just said means you are not listening carefully. What does it seem I have been assuming created the universe? A consciousness, if it is created rather than having just happened by itself. Only a consciousness can consciously create something, lad.


You are assuming that our descendants will be able to simulate our consciousness.

----------


## desiresjab

> You are assuming that our descendants will be able to simulate our consciousness.


We can already simulate consciousness. We are not asymptotically close yet but are making continual progress. You know the simulations will not get worse. Since we ourselves are simulations which are, for all we can tell, asymptotically close to consciousness without being God conscious, I fail to see the problem in believing we will someday get there. It can only be the _Man will never fly_ syndrome. You have a bad case of it with your friend Searls.

----------


## desiresjab

We will become more and more adapted to and dependent upon our helpers with their ersatz consciousness long before anyone believes they are asymptotically close to actual consciousness. We talk to our pets. too. The anthropomorphesizing (sp.) of our helpers will take place naturally in spite of public education campaigns. By the time they do become anything close to conscious, we will already have accepted them as our confidants long ago.

* * * * *

I foresee nested simulations that could become endless. As we are a simulation (something artificial), someday someone in one of our own simulations will create an artificial intelligence and artificial universe, and this should not seem frightening to us, since we must already accept ourselves as artificial if we believe in God as creator.

----------


## desiresjab

Time for us to ask ourselves some questions, reader. If such realistic simulations were available to us, would we run them? Could you justify running the civil war over trillions of times, to see if on average the U.S. did a poor job, an average job or a great job in terms of elapsed time before equal rights became a reality, when you know that circa 600,000 simulated beings with feelings and famlies and the belief that they are real, are going to die prematurely, many of them in great pain?

Yes, we would justify it. At first our justification is that they are only simulated and none of it is real. Later, these simulated beings will earn some rights, thanks to an educational system currently geared toward turning out activists. Maybe then you will need a permit.

As God changed its mind about us in the new testament, we will change our minds with regard to our own simulated creatures, adopting a more empathic approach. A God hound would think our own experience reflects God's in every way, and this is one interpretation. I love making these biblical connections and analogies--it is part of my heritage, and does not mean I take them more seriously than the other notions I contemplate. Actually, I take them less seriously, but provide them for those who might see things that way, and because they are a playful part of my cultural heritage. It comes natural to make such speculations, having grown up around Christian doctine.

----------


## YesNo

> We can already simulate consciousness. We are not asymptotically close yet but are making continual progress. You know the simulations will not get worse. Since we ourselves are simulations which are, for all we can tell, asymptotically close to consciousness without being God conscious, I fail to see the problem in believing we will someday get there. It can only be the _Man will never fly_ syndrome. You have a bad case of it with your friend Searls.


We can create beings with consciousness. It is called reproduction. There is no need to simulate consciousness except to try to show that consciousness is not "real" to use your term. But if it is real then no artificial approximation ever gets close enough to it since every approximation is artificial. By your own argument what is artificial is not real. 

I think part of the problem with such theories is they view what is artificial as real even though they claim it is not real. When they look at a table they believe whatever it is made out of that makes it "objective" is real but unconscious. Then they take this fantasy reality they believe exists and try to reduce the real subjective reality to the objective unconscious fantasy. That is where they fail. In particular using algorithms they fail based on Searle's Chinese Room argument.

----------


## desiresjab

There are many ways around Searle's argument, which is not established fact anyway, but wildly controversial. The easiest way is to step out of the computing paradigm we are familiar with. Searles admits the possibility of biological systems different from our own that might be able to simulate consciousness.

It does not have to be a direct assault. The problem can be come at obliquely. Various combinations of organic and inorganic components should produce biological systems "different from our own." Brains integrated with internal quantum computers will be one unified system that can be said to be conscious. This is not different from ourselves. We do not require that our spinal columns and toenails be conscious to name ourselves conscious. The internal computer will be in perfect harmony with the firing synapses of the human brain that for sure _is_ conscious. These internal quantum computers may be constructed out of our own junk DNA.

The argument against this would be take away the brain and the computer is no longer conscious, if it ever was, but take away the computer and the brain is still conscious. It is not the same integrated system of consciousness, though. The consciousness we simulate will not be copies of our own. It will be a new kind. 

I expect the manufacture of brains in isolation late this century. Any "experience" whatsoever may be imprinted on these manufactured brains. Their imprinted experiences will not be human experiences but computational and organizational ones. The nature of computational science will undergo a revolution, and will at that point be far beyond the reaches of Searle's objections to strong AI.

Even under the current paradigm, many of earth's technical philosophers are concerned with the rise of AI. I think they can see beyond Searle's horizon as well. He has a compelling argument for the short term, but that is all it is to me.

----------


## desiresjab

I have my own definition of consciousness: _the ability to daydream_. That ability does not demand the dreamer be self aware, as far as I can tell. Is there any potential for a conscious state without subjectivity? Does consciousness demand self awareness? Bothersome questions.

Our new theoretical form of consciousness would be able to daydream without any sense of self. All that activity would be subjective, but the subject would be unaware of it, and unaware of itself as an entity. It would simply daydream. Do you think that is possible? We can say the words, but can it actually ever be?

----------


## desiresjab

Right here on earth I believe we have different grades of consciousness. I should have said: _High consciousness is the ability to daydream_.

The consciousness of the grizzly bear and the mosquito seem quite different at first glance. I suspect the grizzly bear can daydream and the mosquito cannot, yet I assume the mosquito has a higher grade of consciousnees than the amoeba. Seeing consciousness as a gradation might eliminate some of the dualism that seems to bother people but which never bothered me.

----------


## YesNo

> There are many ways around Searle's argument, which is not established fact anyway, but wildly controversial. The easiest way is to step out of the computing paradigm we are familiar with. Searles admits the possibility of biological systems different from our own that might be able to simulate consciousness.


AI as a way to artificially simulate consciousness _is_ wildly controversial. Searle's position is just an argument against it. It is like the argument that says you cannot square the circle using a straightedge and compass. Searle's argument only applies to algorithms.

After the argument there will be people who will continue to try. There is nothing wrong with trying. They might find something interesting and they may help people understand better why they will not succeed.




> It does not have to be a direct assault. The problem can be come at obliquely. Various combinations of organic and inorganic components should produce biological systems "different from our own." Brains integrated with internal quantum computers will be one unified system that can be said to be conscious. This is not different from ourselves. We do not require that our spinal columns and toenails be conscious to name ourselves conscious. The internal computer will be in perfect harmony with the firing synapses of the human brain that for sure _is_ conscious. These internal quantum computers may be constructed out of our own junk DNA.
> 
> The argument against this would be take away the brain and the computer is no longer conscious, if it ever was, but take away the computer and the brain is still conscious. It is not the same integrated system of consciousness, though. The consciousness we simulate will not be copies of our own. It will be a new kind. 
> 
> I expect the manufacture of brains in isolation late this century. Any "experience" whatsoever may be imprinted on these manufactured brains. Their imprinted experiences will not be human experiences but computational and organizational ones. The nature of computational science will undergo a revolution, and will at that point be far beyond the reaches of Searle's objections to strong AI.


Part of the problem is we do not have a clear idea what consciousness is or what subjectivity is. I don't think "daydreaming" is broad enough to describe consciousness. It has to include even life forms that do not have a nervous system. It may even have to include what is not thought to be alive such as a quantum reality. 

I tend to think at the moment that subjectivity is how consciousness participates in a specific perspective. The view of reality it creates is what is known as the objective (or artificial). What is subjective is primary. There is no other way we know anything except through subjectivity and we cannot reduce subjectivity, the "real", to something objective.




> Even under the current paradigm, many of earth's technical philosophers are concerned with the rise of AI. I think they can see beyond Searle's horizon as well. He has a compelling argument for the short term, but that is all it is to me.


There are a lot of problems with using machines that have nothing to do with consciousness. Sometimes machines pollute or cause human damage and one has to protect against that.


Edit: Something occurred to me that I want to eliminate from the discussion. In none of this are we talking about a spirit possessing a computer. AI proponents would not consider that possible anyway. However, given Searle's argument, that is the only way I can see at the moment that a computer using deterministic or random algorithms could obtain a conscious subjectivity as a computer. Some spirit would have to choose to possess it. The AI proponent would want to force that spirit to be there just by running some algorithms (deterministic or random).

----------


## desiresjab

> It is like the argument that says you cannot square the circle using a straightedge and compass. Searle's argument only applies to algorithms.


Except that one is proven.




> I don't think "daydreaming" is broad enough to describe consciousness. It has to include even life forms that do not have a nervous system. It may even have to include what is not thought to be alive such as a quantum reality.


I no longer think "daydreaming" is good enough either. That goes for my former definition as well, of catching oneself thinking. These are things I would expect a consciousness to do, characteristics, but not inclusive enough to be good definitions.

I would be satisfied for now with a definition of consciousness as we know it. Beings without nervous systems and thinking rocks can wait.




> Edit: Something occurred to me that I want to eliminate from the discussion. In none of this are we talking about a spirit possessing a computer. AI proponents would not consider that possible anyway. However, given Searle's argument, that is the only way I can see at the moment that a computer using deterministic or random algorithms could obtain a conscious subjectivity as a computer. Some spirit would have to choose to possess it. The AI proponent would want to force that spirit to be there just by running some algorithms (deterministic or random).


It's too bad that occurred to you, dang it. I wish it hadn't. All we need are spirits in the conversation. Like you say, let's eliminante them.

Let's also eliminate all unknown forms of consciousness, such as beings without nervous systems and thinking asteroids et al. Not to say they do not exist, or that they do. By concentrating on mosquitos, grizzly bears and humans, we might actually find a definitioin we like.

Of course, we do not literally have to create consciousness to create consciousness. What? How's that? 

We set out to simulate a universe, right? If we simulate the universe well enough consciousness will be part of it. We do not have to separately create consciousness, the universe (simulated) does that for us. Nifty. Now all we have to do is simulate the universe properly. An afternoon's work for men like us.

Really, it is like what we do when we make a baby. We do not set out to make a consciousness by some set of rules. We make a baby and expect the baby to have consciousness. I am not suggesting you and I make a baby.

----------


## desiresjab

Yes/No, in case you have not seen this I think you will like it. Self organizing processes and quantum vibrations in microtubules of brain neurons.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0116085105.htm

How about that last sentence?

"Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music which is harmonic."

----------


## YesNo

> Except that one is proven.


They have both been proven. Not everyone accepts them. I am sure there are some looking to show both proofs are false.




> I no longer think "daydreaming" is good enough either. That goes for my former definition as well, of catching oneself thinking. These are things I would expect a consciousness to do, characteristics, but not inclusive enough to be good definitions.
> 
> I would be satisfied for now with a definition of consciousness as we know it. Beings without nervous systems and thinking rocks can wait.


The problem with that is that you may miss the big picture and confuse some correlate of consciousness that one has observed with consciousness itself. 

There are people who claim they see ghosts. These forms of consciousness do not have a nervous system. They have no material correlate to their consciousness. There are also people who claim out of body experiences. These are also independent of a nervous system. 




> It's too bad that occurred to you, dang it. I wish it hadn't. All we need are spirits in the conversation. Like you say, let's eliminante them.


The reason to eliminate them is to make the AI issue more falsifiable. AI would have to show that it can generate consciousness through deterministic or random processes. That generation of consciousness allows for no free will. I would expect spirits possessing bodies do want to keep their free will which is why I don't expect them to possess the computer I am using or the table the computer is on. 




> Let's also eliminate all unknown forms of consciousness, such as beings without nervous systems and thinking asteroids et al. Not to say they do not exist, or that they do. By concentrating on mosquitos, grizzly bears and humans, we might actually find a definitioin we like.
> 
> Of course, we do not literally have to create consciousness to create consciousness. What? How's that? 
> 
> We set out to simulate a universe, right? If we simulate the universe well enough consciousness will be part of it. We do not have to separately create consciousness, the universe (simulated) does that for us. Nifty. Now all we have to do is simulate the universe properly. An afternoon's work for men like us.
> 
> Really, it is like what we do when we make a baby. We do not set out to make a consciousness by some set of rules. We make a baby and expect the baby to have consciousness. I am not suggesting you and I make a baby.


I like to think of consciousness being present if the object is able to make a choice that can be reduced to neither a deterministic nor a random process. That would include humans, cats, insects, quantum reality and non-materialized spirits.

When we have children, we don't make their consciousness. We are just providing a place where consciousness can be specialized having a specific viewpoint where its participation in subjectivity allows it to create an objective world around it to which it responds.

By the way, the universe is not a simulation. It is the real thing or rather the real subjectivity.

----------


## desiresjab

The universe may be as real as it gets to us, but that does not make it real, since I believe it was created, and is therefore artificial. Only that which came about by itself is not artificial. Now, it's just a definition, a distinction I make personally. If the universe was created then nothing in it is real, either, for it violates causation that it could be there without a universe being there first. Simulate our universe correctly and all its emergent properties will be there, including consciousness.

It is possible you and I were actual beings at one time, now we only believe we are. We died long ago. In the simulations we must have had other wives and other professions, and other fates, so to speak. Or maybe not. That is one thing the simulations would clarify--that little matter of fate and determinism, the butterfly effect.

I do not rule out that we were created by an "Almighty" of religion. In that case our consciousness and our universe are in lowly contrast to the reality promised by God to the faithful in the afterlife.

----------


## desiresjab

Back to basics. We are not have consciousness at all moments. We are part time conscious beings.

----------


## YesNo

> The universe may be as real as it gets to us, but that does not make it real, since I believe it was created, and is therefore artificial. Only that which came about by itself is not artificial. Now, it's just a definition, a distinction I make personally. If the universe was created then nothing in it is real, either, for it violates causation that it could be there without a universe being there first. Simulate our universe correctly and all its emergent properties will be there, including consciousness.


I will assume consciousness is real and it is what creates the objective universe in which it participates.




> It is possible you and I were actual beings at one time, now we only believe we are. We died long ago. In the simulations we must have had other wives and other professions, and other fates, so to speak. Or maybe not. That is one thing the simulations would clarify--that little matter of fate and determinism, the butterfly effect.


I don't believe in the butterfly effect so as an argument it won't work. 

It is sort of like telling me, "Since Santa came down the chimney, we have the presents under the tree." I mean, it is an argument of sorts, but unless one accepts the assumption about Santa, it is not likely to be convincing.




> I do not rule out that we were created by an "Almighty" of religion. In that case our consciousness and our universe are in lowly contrast to the reality promised by God to the faithful in the afterlife.


All you have to do is change your view of what that consciousness is so it is not lowly.

----------


## desiresjab

> I will assume consciousness is real and it is what creates the objective universe in which it participates.


I have been preaching a variation of this for some time, using a Yeats quote: _Whatever flames upon the night, man's own resinous heart has fed_, but I always find myself playing devil's advocate because you are such an unrestrained fanatic.





> I don't believe in the butterfly effect so as an argument it won't work.


All right. Then you are a determinist after all. The butterfly effect is a representative of the type of non-determinism you are constantly promoting. What bugs you, perhaps, is that it works in models, it works in simulations. When some parameters are tweaked ever so slightly, they produce major changes in the behavior of the simulation down the line, and hence the name of the effect because the butterfly flapping its wings in south America is responsible for a hurricane off Florida two weeks later. This is merely a metaphor to illustrate how sensitive models of chaotic systems are to slight changes in initial conditions, weather systems being chaotic. If you have never read a book on chaos theory, you should read Gleick. Chaos is no longer described as random. There is a certain amount of order in chaos, a kind of predictability but not determinism. I know you are a well read fellow, and have probably read this author. What I cannot understand is why you would not have sucked up these ideas for use in your own theory, since they seem a good fit. Chaos is the medium lying somewhere between full determinism and full randomness. That is the same medium you say we are in.

If I were to agree with you and profess that consciousness is the ability to make a choice, I see nothing to further compel me to add the constraint that the choice must be non-deterministic and non-random. I guess you are saying it cannot be a true choice if it is either. However, it also means you are saying consciousness cannot exist without free will.

----------


## YesNo

> I have been preaching a variation of this for some time, using a Yeats quote: _Whatever flames upon the night, man's own resinous heart has fed_, but I always find myself playing devil's advocate because you are such an unrestrained fanatic.


Playing devil's advocate is useful. One has to consider the other side as well. I suppose I am doing something smilar, but I am not interested in showing you are a fanatic or even wrong. I just want to clarify what I think is the case.





> All right. Then you are a determinist after all. The butterfly effect is a representative of the type of non-determinism you are constantly promoting.


Sometimes we think we can list all the possibilities and then eliminate those that don't work. The last possibility remaining must then be true. That is an effective approach provided we have actually listed all the possibilities. Usually we are too blinded to do that.

Non-determinism contains a lot of possibilities. It is not just the butterfly effect which I think is too deterministic for even chaos theory. For example is the hurricane so determined that only the random change in a single butterfly will determine if it exists or not? It would seem that chaos theory needs a lot more randomness than that.




> What bugs you, perhaps, is that it works in models, it works in simulations. When some parameters are tweaked ever so slightly, they produce major changes in the behavior of the simulation down the line, and hence the name of the effect because the butterfly flapping its wings in south America is responsible for a hurricane off Florida two weeks later. This is merely a metaphor to illustrate how sensitive models of chaotic systems are to slight changes in initial conditions, weather systems being chaotic. If you have never read a book on chaos theory, you should read Gleick. Chaos is no longer described as random. There is a certain amount of order in chaos, a kind of predictability but not determinism. I know you are a well read fellow, and have probably read this author. What I cannot understand is why you would not have sucked up these ideas for use in your own theory, since they seem a good fit. Chaos is the medium lying somewhere between full determinism and full randomness. That is the same medium you say we are in.


Although I have Gleick's book I have not read it. I am reading Bergson's "Creative Evolution" at the moment. However, I wouldn't mind learning more about chaos theory when I get back to Chicago.

If chaos lies between full determinism and full randomness then it is not how I view reality. Reality contains neither determinism nor randomness as I see it so there is no way for reality to be some middle ground between a little bit of determinism and a little bit of randomness. Reality contains various forms of subjective consciousness making choices under constraints. At least, that is how I see it.

Models and simulations on the other hand (not reality) can contain various forms of determinism and randomness. And these models can be very useful, but they are not reality. They just model reality. Constructing models is a scientific activity based on experimental testing whose accuracy is limited by the precision of the instruments available for the tests. Claiming that reality _is_ the model or simulation is metaphysics, not science. To confuse reality with a simulation of reality is like confusing a meal with the menu, to use an old saying.




> If I were to agree with you and profess that consciousness is the ability to make a choice, I see nothing to further compel me to add the constraint that the choice must be non-deterministic and non-random. I guess you are saying it cannot be a true choice if it is either. However, it also means you are saying consciousness cannot exist without free will.


That is close to what I am saying. However, people might argue that we do not have complete free will and we don't. We are somewhat predictable based on our "dispositions". But we have enough free will to make a choice which allows something new and intentional to appear. 

You mentioned Penrose and Hameroff's quantum vibrations. These could be accepted as correlates of consciousness in humans. They are sometimes easier to work with than saying consciousness implies the existence of choice. It might not be easy to show that a choice was made. Suppose one accepts that finding these quantum vibrations implies that the being having them was conscious. It is easy to find these quantum vibrations. Then we could see what other species also had quantum vibrations and say they too are conscious. That is where I see the usefulness of correlates of consciousness. 

Some people look at correlations differently. They find a correlate of consciousness and think they can reduce consciousness to that correlate. That would be like finding a footprint in a forest (a correlate of some animal walking in the forest) and claiming the footprint made the animal rather than saying that the animal made the footprint.

----------


## desiresjab

I fear that choice making may be another of what you call a correlate and I would probably have called an artifact.

And your theoretical human being that has just enough choice to give him free will within constraints, sounds like he falls between two notions, too, though you seem to object that chaos lies somewhere between randomness and determinism. Not so much an objection as a distinction. With chaos theory it may be that it contains just enough determinism to make it useful.

The concept of _strange attractors_ is something I believe you will pull a lot of fascination from, and acts as a of focus for metaphorical insights. The brain is stirred to see these tiny and huge invisible structures our reality is swimming in, that were not known before. We get floored that the behavior of cotton prices, weather systems, static and dripping water, along with many other diverse phenomena we would never have thought so of, share a deep structural kinship, and we get to see the birth (or at least the public debut) of a new mathematical constant, the Feigenbaum constant. I got a little off tangent here. The first sentence.

----------


## YesNo

> I fear that choice making may be another of what you call a correlate and I would probably have called an artifact.


I suspect most people restrict a "correlate of consciousness" to something in the neurons, perhaps even of a quantum nature. And the interest is to provide a base on which to find a deterministic theory that explains consciousness in terms of those correlates. In this sense making a choice would have to have a correlate if a deterministic explanation were to ultimately succeed.

In my view, I look at all reality as a correlate of consciousness. It need not be neural. However, that doesn't help someone measure anything. It is just a perspective on consciousness even the type that is not centered in a brain with neurons. What I am unclear about is differences between consciousness, subjectivity and awareness. They all seem to describe something similar. Being aware depends on a specific type of body that one has. 




> And your theoretical human being that has just enough choice to give him free will within constraints, sounds like he falls between two notions, too, though you seem to object that chaos lies somewhere between randomness and determinism. Not so much an objection as a distinction. With chaos theory it may be that it contains just enough determinism to make it useful.


Chaos theory relies on determinism and randomness. I have no problem with that. It is a way to measure what we observe. However, does what one is measuring rely on determinism and randomness is what I doubt. We observe patterns and put them on a map. Is the map we construct, that is, the simulation of that reality that we construct, the reality itself?




> The concept of _strange attractors_ is something I believe you will pull a lot of fascination from, and acts as a of focus for metaphorical insights. The brain is stirred to see these tiny and huge invisible structures our reality is swimming in, that were not known before. We get floored that the behavior of cotton prices, weather systems, static and dripping water, along with many other diverse phenomena we would never have thought so of, share a deep structural kinship, and we get to see the birth (or at least the public debut) of a new mathematical constant, the Feigenbaum constant. I got a little off tangent here. The first sentence.


After checking Wikipedia, I see that the Feigenbaum constant is a mathematical constant so it could be used in a model of reality. That model works or not depending on its ability to make accurate predictions. If predictions work, that does not mean that reality contains a Feigenbaum constant. The model contains that constant. If the constant is irrational then at some number of decimal places I would expect the predictability of the simulation and reality to break down. That is, predictions will fail to be useful. One will have to replace the determinism with a probabilistic model. Why do I expect that to happen? Because that is what happened with quantum physics.

----------


## desiresjab

If I were a God, down to what scale would I make my simulation understandable and the universe rational to its simulated hosts? Could their quest go on interminably, always with progress? Or has the scientific quest into finer and finer scales finally come to no man's land where there is no longer anything for rationality to work with, where order as we define it does not and cannot exist?

Our discussions continually encounter many of the things I touch in poetry. I have not shown any of these pieces out. I guess I will.

----------


## YesNo

I would be interested in reading those poems. Maybe I would understand your position better.

Perhaps part of the problem is the word "create". We think creating means taking something unconscious as raw material and making something out of it equally unconscious. 

When I think of the Big Bang I see the universe as coming out of "nothing", that is, nothing unconscious. Since it happened, there was a conscious choice involved outside the universe to start it. But what did that choice do? Did it create unconsciousness out of nothing or out of itself? I don't think there is any more unconsciousness now than there was before the universe began. There is still nothing unconscious in the universe.

When we look at the universe we create a simulation of it to help understand its orderliness. Our subjective view of the universe creates an objective and unconscious universe, a simulation. Our creation is something artificial. If it is a simulation of reality, what is real? The only reality is that consciousness that manifests itself through a universe of which we are a part. We are a manifestation of consciousness, not a simulation. We in turn make simulations using more primitive tools such as mathematics and experimental science. Mystics would use more advanced tools realizing that reality is not the objective unconscious world we think it is.

----------


## desiresjab

A simulation is also a manifestation of consciousness.

----------


## desiresjab

> A simulation is also a manifestation of consciousness.


I do not know the roots of _manifestation_, but the first three letters are provocative.

----------


## desiresjab

Not much to say right now. Working.

----------


## YesNo

> A simulation is also a manifestation of consciousness.


Yes, it is. 

I picked up Martin Buber's "I and Thou" at Hooked on Books in Colorado Springs. I don't understand it, but some parts seem to be true. The "I-It" relationship would be what we have with mathematics and hence more primitive than the "I-Thou" relationship. I'm trying to fit these ideas into the ideas we are discussing in this thread.

Here's a quote: "All real living is meeting." So, the "I-Thou" relationship is not one-way, but requires a two-way meeting for it to happen.

The I-It is also lived only in the past. The I-Thou in the present.

If everything is a manifestation of consciousness as I am trying to argue then the mystical, advanced methods would involve meetings not measurements. Measurements lead to theories and simulations which generate predictions about the future.

----------


## desiresjab

posted in the wrong thread! Sorry.

----------


## desiresjab

It is a great deal more fun to approach these big questions in poetry and fiction. Being a created being feels safer to me than being an accident of nature. A creator could always have empathy, provide for our consciousness after death, send us to an afterlife. It is much less believable that random forces of nature put together all of this _and_ an afterlife. A creator is not necessary for an afterlife, though. It could happen without one.

The thing about an advanced creator is I believe it would not make throwaways. Like gold, the important aspect of us, our consciousness, would be recycled, subsumed, reabsorbed, for lack of better terms, if there is a creator, I believe.

Individually, I do not know if I am cosmically significant, but some of my "parts" might be universal. That is at the least what one hopes for. There is no proof, or anything like a proof. Yet I do not suppose an afterlife is any more miraculous than a life. Do you?

----------


## desiresjab

I am confused lately, making a lot of duplicate posts and such. Alzheimer's?

----------


## desiresjab

> I fear that choice making may be another of what you call a correlate and I would probably have called an artifact.
> 
> And your theoretical human being that has just enough choice to give him free will within constraints, sounds like he falls between two notions, too, though you seem to object that chaos lies somewhere between randomness and determinism. Not so much an objection as a distinction. With chaos theory it may be that it contains just enough determinism to make it useful.


I will not try to explain where I was wrong until you read the book, Yes/No. The dynamical systems studied by Chaos theory are fully deterministic systems which are nonetheless not prdictable beyond a short range. I need to brush up on the theory myself. Some of that will happen when you read the book and I fetch my own copy out of storage.

----------


## YesNo

I agree that an afterlife is no more miraculous than a life. We just take our lives for granted.

----------


## desiresjab

My reasons for believing in an afterlife seem to be nothing more than an enlargement of Gauss's idea that if there were no afterlife it would be too wasteful. Typical Gauss, terse and direct. He may have hit it, though.

----------

