RE: A.I. Is Scary Because It Implies We Might Afterall Have No Soul
Fortunately for us, consciousness is not something we can make in a computer.
We have to teach robots what a door is. And then what a door knob is, and then how to work with those things. And still, the robot does not really understand inside and outside.
Mystics and meditators can tell you that there is something more beyond this 3D reality. That our thoughts are not in our brain. And so, the entire thought structure that we just build a complex enough computer, and viola, life... just doesn't pan out. At that point, we may be able to create robot machines instead of flesh and blood machines that we call our body.
But, they would be slow and clunky, even if they worked, because the flesh and blood machine has many layers that doctors and scientists still call "superstition." Even when many scientists have photographed some of these layers, the scientists still scoff.
Further, many of our senses seem to send signals back in time so that our brain processes them at the time they happen, not at the time + time to transmit + time to process.
So, these people thinking about these things should really work on their fears. Find out where they are coming from. That would be a good use of their time. Else, they are just trying to reinvent the wheel, before reinventing the car that mystics are already driving around in.
great reply.. i would add that quantum theory shows that we are connected to our reality.. some would go on to say that we are creating our reality by decoding consciousness through our senses giving us the impression of a fixed reality rather than a reality that quantum theory maps out..
Quantum theory does no such thing. It is just a mathematical model that predicts the behaviour of particles/waves fairly well, those particles themselves also being a model, and not reality, or even necessarily a projection of reality.
Obviously they will deny consciousness saying it's an emergent quality and epiphenomenon and out of body experiences are only hallucinations.
The same applies to children, and not all of them will later understand or want to know about the internal mechanics of a door lock.
So could I, but that doesn't make it true.
I've seen AI-controlled robotic arms and hands balance broomsticks, four-legged robots running up hills in rough terrain with an elegance a human would find hard to emulate, and conversation robots talking quite coherently with a human in real time. Nothing slow or clunky about those.
Anyway, my having a soul, whatever that is, is not threatened by sufficiently complex and noisy machines also having a soul, so I don't see much point in fighting the idea.
I had an experience.
And then you come along and say, that experience wasn't true.
Where does that leave us?
Whether you call it hallucination or something else, it is still my experience, and is my life.
Robotics is extremely slow.
Especially in data acquisition and pattern recognition.
It is also extremely slow because it uses electrical impulses very noisy delivery conduits.
But, as you have said, these can be all overcome, and robotics can be used to do far more precise and repetitive tasks that it has been trained for.
It is really hard to explain this unless you are actually working on robots. Limit switches, the heart of most CNC machines are extremely slow compared to all the other electronics.
Many people can say many things but those are not to be regarded as true until they are proven to be true. What do you think is the impossible part about a computer having consciousness?
Nope. All our reactions are delayed and so are our senses. They feel instantaneous to us because this is the time scale we can perceive. If somebody shoots you, you are going to feel the piercing pain at the same time as the bang of the gun because these are your limitations. But shoot that with a high speed camera and you'll see that first you get the bang, than you get the travel time of the bullet, then you'll see it rupture your flesh and only after a delay (the time for your senses and your brain to process it) you will react. Watch some slow mo videos on youtube of people being hit with things or explosions that happen with humans present and you'll see a significant delay in reaction time. So what you are saying here obviously doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I bet you believe lots of "science".
I bet you believe that there is no aether, because M-M disproved it. But, if you look into it, they didn't disprove anything and barely made enough readings to call the thing they did an experiment. So, I bet you have all kinds of things in your mind that are categorized in the "proven" category, but are anything but.
We cannot prove out of body experiences, however many people have them and are totally changed by them. The effects they have on people are very real and quite easily measurable. But the out of body experiences cannot be proven. But, once you have had one, you cannot deny it.
A scientist who was doing brain surgery proved that our senses are not delayed.
You can go read up on this real mind bending findings.
I bet we have very different attitudes towards proof. Seems like what you are saying is that the thing you want to be true is true until proven otherwise. That's not how proof or evidence should work. I try to suspend belief in anything until the evidence is really a lot. When I talk about the knowledge we might have gathered about the world, I often use phrases like "It seems" and "is likely" and "appears to".
The legitimate questions we should be asking about any assertion (like the ones you are making) is not if they have been disproved, but have they been proven. There are many assertions that are not yet disproved, but this doesn't make them more likely to be true. If I say that the ether is made of green unicorns that are playing ping pong with all the particles and are farting out our consciousness, you will not be able to decisively disprove my claim, yet this is not a reasonable claim to believe, right?
You are contradicting yourself. If you have reliable measurable effects, that's something you can study and start building a case around. The things is, they don't seem to be reliable. You are talking about how little data this or that scientific experiment might have, but I bet you can't point to a larger data set that supports your beliefs even just barely. You are talking about how little data "the other side" has while you think anecdotal evidence is sufficient to prove your point. Have you noticed that inconsistency? Or if you have larger and more reliable data sets and experiments, then please share them, so instead of talking about opinions, we can talk about evidence? I bet you don't have any reliable and repeatable evidence, do you?
I'd like to point out that I really don't have a horse in this race, what I care about is learning more about reality. I would find it quite comforting and pleasant to learn that we have eternal souls and that there are other realms of being that come after death. I want my consciousness to exist forever. But if there isn't enough evidence to support those claims, it is not reasonable for me to believe them, even if it would be pleasant, fulfilling and comforting.
Sure, where? Who's the scientist. And more importantly how many other scientists have repeated this experiments and have confirmed his findings. You realize you talking about a physics-defying result. If that's confirmed that a Nobel Prize for the guy at the very least. Contrary to popular belief (or should I say conspiracy-theorist
level misconception), the scientific community loves and strives for findings that disprove what we initially thought was true. Scientists advance their carriers not by confirming things, but by proposing, discovering and confirming new things. Think of all the famous scientists. Virtually all of them found something new and had us discard a previous belief. Before Einstein we though motion is Newtonian, Einstein disprooved that and he was celebrated for it. Before the double-slit experiment, we though particles behaved in deterministic ways. But when we discovered that they don't, that was celebrated. So somebody showing instantaneous senses or information going back in time is somebody who would be really celebrated in the science community because that would advance our understanding.
I'm just pointing it out to preempt a "they-are-all-hiding-his-findings" argument.
It was not celebrated, and is still highly contested or outright ignored.
Take it this way, if we believed in the double slit experiment, we would not believe in Einstein's theories. One disproves the other.
I get into a group of shaman or into a group of out of body experiencers, they all agree that the mind is not in the brain. It is self evident. And everyone who does what it takes to join one of these groups see much the same thing. Inside these groups, there is no doubt. But, to most scientists, it is literally arguing that there is an invisible dragon in your garage.
Of course, there is no proof that the invisible dragon exists. But once you learn to see it, you will never be the same again.
Surely if i can learn to see the dragon then its no longer invisible and besides I dont even own a garage so the jokes on you dragon!
But seriously - not sure if you are psychotic or just an idiot. Thats a question Science may be unable to answer as yet
Yes, it would no longer be invisible to you, but, can you prove its existence? Its still invisible to everyone else.
For a factual incident of this sort, try looking up ghosts and angels. Many people have seen them. However, most of the science community says they don't exist.
Or look up the Mandela Effect. Half of the people remember something different. How is this possible, when the past is supposed to be the past and unchanging?
Find me a proper physics textbook where it's not celebrated.
I have to say you are entirely wrong here. We might struggle with interpreting both with a unified theory, but both the double-slit experiment and the experiments and observations that have confirmed Einstein's relativity stand. It doesn't matter who tries the double-slit experiment, it works, so it's reliable. And it doesn't matter who tries to use GPS (which is adjusted for the effects of relativity), it works. Our understanding of why both apply and how they would work together might still be lacking, but the experimental data still stands and so does the predictive power of both theories in the areas when they don't overlap. They break down only when they have to work in concert in the same context, but nobody would deny that and everybody would celebrate them being binned for something better that unifies them.
If you get into a group of flat-earthers, they would all agree that the Earth is flat. Does that make the Earth flat?
That's not a real argument. And of course it's not self-evident. How could you explain that people who get brain damage might get a personality change (lobotomy as a clear example). If the personality doesn't come from the brain, than changes to the brain should not change it. And our personalities are quite easy to alter with things that alter the way the brain functions. Like drugs and alcohol. If our personality and consciousness doesn't come from the brain, why do substances that alter the way our brain functions change them?
Because scientifically-minded people demand real evidence and those groups convinced as they might be don't have any evidence to offer. If they had real evidence, everybody would listen.
If you can see it so well, why can't you come up with reliable evidence to show it exists? Why would there be no proof for something that really happens to you?
Because scientists have divided things into physics and metaphysics.
Things from the metaphysical realm, are all woo-woo, and cannot be used in any proofs for "science". Science is really set in the materialistic universe. Accepting anything outside of it is verbotin.
Just look at the arguments for intelligent design. Anyone who believes in intelligent design is thrown out of the science community. Black balled. Their papers stricken from the record.
The double slit experiment disproves Einstein's theory of relativity.
Further, all of the supposed evidence for the theory of relativity is all bunk. Einstein's theory explained Mercury's orbit much better than Newtons, however, it was still only 96% accurate. A lady published her findings recently with a 99.999% accuracy, and her theory does not use relativity.
The GPS satellite thing is a myth. I have had some people in the know say that it doesn't exist. And, it is impossible to prove or disprove. There is nothing verifiable about it. There is one group in one company that does it all. You either believe them or you don't.
Spooky action at a distance. That was what freaked Einstein out the most.
So, the latest double slit experiment finds that if you observe the "particle" that it behaves as a particle. Further, if you observe it in the future, it behaves as a particle in the past.
Further, there are many, many forks I can stick into the theory of relativity. That it is still in the science books is beyond me.