Universal data and the infinite consciousness.
Offline In my last essay, I feel that I did not go into enough depth as to the infinite consciousness. So, in this one I hope to explain my position in more detail.
First I need to lay down a foundation for my essay. The universe is full of matter. The second law of thermal dynamics states that a closed system will tend to disorder. Matter (at the classical level) contains molecules and atoms. With me so far? Well the first part is to establish a physical backround about information. The second part is the actual applications.
Basically, data is the inequality of elements. For, example, the number 5 looks different than the number 9. If the numbers didn't look different (have a visual in-equality) then you wouldn't be able to do math, since all the numbers will look the same. Same thing with the alphabit. Now, as I type this, it contains data. Once you read it it becomes information (the message I am trying to send). If I had typed all d's then you would not be getting the information I was trying to get across, because all the elements are equal, and you will not be able to use the data to form words. The alphabit is data, and when we form words, we assign meaning to the data and hence turn the data into information.
So in a nutshell, information is assigning meaning to data. Now, look at the universe. Go ahead I'll wait...... Done? Good. There are ~10^76 atoms in the visible universe. These atoms have the ability to interact and hence transfer photons (energy) these store data. As, any high school chemistry student knows, the amount of different interactions between the atoms is staggering. Consider the example of DNA. Can you believe these only use two pairings! The G-C bond and the A-T bond, yet it contains enough information to create you, me and everyone on Earth! Imagine what the universe can do.
Yes, the universe is constantly exchanging energy. This energy is data, and we take a mere snipit of this infintie potiental turned it into experience (the concious mind). When I say our brains are a filter of this, I mean they take an extremely small fraction of this data and store it in neurons. Thus turning the infinite potienal into the finetly real.
Consider a blank CD.
(image from wikipedia)
This is useless. No data whatsoever since the CD is uniform, every part equal. This is is merely potiental. It can became so much, from Kelly Clarkson to Nirvana. But unless this potiental is limited by putting the data onto the CD, it becomes so much more. It becomes experience. The CD uses dents, the reflect a laser to process the data into information. Your brain uses Neurons that fire eletric signals. The in-equality on the surface of the disc created by a writing laser produces the experience. In the brain, the nueron firing created by the energy in-equality produces the experience.
Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the universe will eventually windle down. The temperature will be constant and data can no longer be created. But that's OK. The multiverse is constantly spitting out new universes. New experiences.
So, I conclude with a quote I posted in another thread
I do think that there is no consciousness after death is non sequiter. Life doesn't bring conciousness, conciousness brings life.
- Login to post comments
Offline qbg wrote:There is still data in that string of Ds (there is about 38 characters in the string, the string only has uses one character), but there is very little [information] entropy (is that what you mean by 'data'?) in that string of characters.
My point was what if d was the only letter in the alphabit? It would be kinda hard to write books and such. The potiental is limited.
No, it's not. Simply look at binary. d=1, dd=0 (or no d at all=0). Thats's all you need
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline cpt, have you read programming the universe by Seth Lloyd?
if you haven't read it, i'm sure it would be interesting to you as Lloyd advances the data stream universe in unique and fascinating ways.
also if you are still interested in the strong arguments in the field of AI you might be interested in Roger Penrose's argument against incompleteness theorem, the better half of which can be found neatly laid out by David Chalmers in his review of 'Shadow of the Mind', you can find this online. You can also find Penrose's reply to the review online.
I realise deludedgod and yourself are quite taken with 'it from bit' in an almost final sense, I, personally, am not, being that pure maths is one of my subjects and it from bit does nothing satisfying, to me, in reducing computational complexity problems to an equal of human abilities. Though I do love it's usefulness in the areas of physical theory, it sorely lacks in answering questions I have come to believe are also important.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:qbg wrote:There is still data in that string of Ds (there is about 38 characters in the string, the string only has uses one character), but there is very little [information] entropy (is that what you mean by 'data'?) in that string of characters.
My point was what if d was the only letter in the alphabit? It would be kinda hard to write books and such. The potiental is limited.
No, it's not. Simply look at binary. d=1, dd=0 (or no d at all=0). Thats's all you need
Also, I don't think pineapple understands that even infinity is semi-finite. Infinity is a set value equal to some count. This means there are actually a lot of different kinds of infinity, some "larger" and some "smaller."
For example, the number of fractional numbers from zero to infinity is infinitely greater than the number of integers from zero to infinity. If you subtract the number of integers from the number of fractions and you still have positive infinity. Conversely, subtract the number of fractions from the number of integers and you have negative infinity. Same "value," different results.
So when we're talking about an "infinite consciousness," how infinite is it really?
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay, for some reason qbq's post is fucked up and I can't read what he is trying to say.
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The single electron resides in the 1s^1 orbital.
Not exactly. Orbitals are the quantum states of electons around atoms. They don't "reside" there. An orbital is simply the linear expression of the eigenstates of the atom's Hamiltonian. Shapes and locations of orbitals are necessarily imprecise.
The orbitals are probability clouds. So it is more or less in the orbital.
Quote:Now, let use do some work on the system. That is, let us put in energy. The electron now jumps to a higher level. Now take away the energy and the electron drops back to the origianl orbital. As the electron falls, it emits energy photons. This energy contains data. You ask data of what? Well, data of what energy level the electron jumped to. Because, you see the energy emitted is determined by what higher level the electron jumped to. Not only that, but we can also determine the electron's angular momentum eigen value. How do we know this? We know this because if, for example, the electron jumped to the 1p^2 orbital, then it will emit a different frequency if it jumped to the 2s^1 orbital.This is correct.
Yes it is.
Quote:So the data is stored by the difference in frequency of the emitting photons. Hence the energy levels can store information.
Was that 'Scienctific' enough?
Sure, but I still fail to see the point you've been trying to make.
My point was that atoms can store data. The different frequency could act as binary code.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:qbg wrote:There is still data in that string of Ds (there is about 38 characters in the string, the string only has uses one character), but there is very little [information] entropy (is that what you mean by 'data'?) in that string of characters.
My point was what if d was the only letter in the alphabit? It would be kinda hard to write books and such. The potiental is limited.
No, it's not. Simply look at binary. d=1, dd=0 (or no d at all=0). Thats's all you need
Yeah, but if I wrote a book in binary code using d=1 and dd=0 and used the representation for letters that the computer uses, it would be one long ass book that you would need a computer to translate into the letters.
But I do see your point. You got me on a technicality. My point was it was easier to use the 26 letter alphabit.
cpt, have you read programming the universe by Seth Lloyd?
if you haven't read it, i'm sure it would be interesting to you as Lloyd advances the data stream universe in unique and fascinating ways.
also if you are still interested in the strong arguments in the field of AI you might be interested in Roger Penrose's argument against incompleteness theorem, the better half of which can be found neatly laid out by David Chalmers in his review of 'Shadow of the Mind', you can find this online. You can also find Penrose's reply to the review online.
I realise deludedgod and yourself are quite taken with 'it from bit' in an almost final sense, I, personally, am not, being that pure maths is one of my subjects and it from bit does nothing satisfying, to me, in reducing computational complexity problems to an equal of human abilities. Though I do love it's usefulness in the areas of physical theory, it sorely lacks in answering questions I have come to believe are also important.
No, I haven't read them. But I have so many books on my summer reading list that I might not be able to.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yellow_Number_Five wrote:Cpt_pineapple wrote:qbg wrote:There is still data in that string of Ds (there is about 38 characters in the string, the string only has uses one character), but there is very little [information] entropy (is that what you mean by 'data'?) in that string of characters.
My point was what if d was the only letter in the alphabit? It would be kinda hard to write books and such. The potiental is limited.
No, it's not. Simply look at binary. d=1, dd=0 (or no d at all=0). Thats's all you need
Also, I don't think pineapple understands that even infinity is semi-finite. Infinity is a set value equal to some count. This means there are actually a lot of different kinds of infinity, some "larger" and some "smaller."
For example, the number of fractional numbers from zero to infinity is infinitely greater than the number of integers from zero to infinity. If you subtract the number of integers from the number of fractions and you still have positive infinity. Conversely, subtract the number of fractions from the number of integers and you have negative infinity. Same "value," different results.
So when we're talking about an "infinite consciousness," how infinite is it really?
When I am talking infite consciousness, I am mostly talking about infinite potiental.
Take my CD analogy. It can only store a finite amount of data. However, the potential of that data is practially infinite. It can be a Kelly Clarkson CD, a video game, a movie, a book on tape, a picture album, etc... This is what I mean by limiting the potiental. If I put a movie on it, since I have a finite amount of space, I limit it's potential, I may no longer be able to put the audio book on there because the movie is taking up space.
The Earth has billions of people on it, and I am willing to bet that there is not one person on it that is a 'carbon copy 'of your consciousness. Nobody that acts exactly like you do, thinks exactly like you do, reacts to things exactly like you do etc...
Does that clear it up?
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay, it's fixed. That was weird O_o
Cpt_pineapple wrote:There is still data in that string of Ds (there is about 38 characters in the string, the string only has uses one character), but there is very little [information] entropy (is that what you mean by 'data'?) in that string of characters.Data can no longer be created if the thermal gradient is the same. Remeber my analogy of typing only the letter d? dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
Pretty much. If you assign meaning to it the string. Kinda of like spy movies when they have a secret code that looks like giberish, but they have the 'key' that assigns meaning to the giberish.
Quote:Let's bring the CD analogy one step further. If there was data on the CD of Kelly Clarkson, the CD has data. However, it is still useless unless we translate this data, put it in the stereo, then it becomes an experience since the data is coming to life.The data on the CD is a representation of an experience, not an experience itself (that is how I read you the first time). I still don't see how just because we assign meaning to data or data can be a representation of an experience or how digital physics means that data has a consciousness or how consciousness brings life.
In the CD, the laser conversts the data into data in vibrations.
When I say we assign meaning to data can be experience is because of the neuron firing causes different experiences. The light from the computer screen is going into your eye and causing neurons to fire. These neurons firing let you interput the light waves into the image, and the words so you can see what I'm typing. In other words, you are consciously interputting it.
People used reductism in the other thread, I am trying to show that it is technically correct, but it's more than that.
- Login to post comments
Offline Something strange happened to my post and when I tried to fix it more strange stuff happened... Anyways, I think I now understand what you are saying Cpt_pineapple a little better. But how does this relate to your quote "I do think that there is no consciousness after death is non sequiter. Life doesn't bring conciousness, conciousness brings life."? It seems that you are using consciousness in a different way in the quote than you are using it throughout this thread.
Pineapple said potential. I kinda see what he means. Life is pretty broad to me, since I consider anything with a drive to replicate and survive alive. My line on consiousness gets drawn shortly somewhere around "x has a pre-frontal cortex" and "x can speak about itself self-consiously" or "x is capable of understanding metamathematics."
- Login to post comments
Offline For example, the number of fractional numbers from zero to infinity is infinitely greater than the number of integers from zero to infinity. If you subtract the number of integers from the number of fractions and you still have positive infinity. Conversely, subtract the number of fractions from the number of integers and you have negative infinity. Same "value," different results.
Actually, the number of rational numbers and integers is the same. You can make a one to one mapping to the integers. The set of real numbers is "uncountable".
Also, on the string of d's: The thing that gave one of the data points was because the string had ends to them, which are variations. Imagining it without the ends is a bit of an odd thought experiment.
Regarding the subject of the thread (or, what I'm percieving the subject to be at least): Do you think you just need enough data processing to generate conciousness?
Personally, I have some pantheistic leanings myself, so I occasionally ponder the idea of the Earth being one big living organism of sorts which could perhaps have a conciousness (entirely alien to us in all likelihood) and maybe the planets and stars interacting act somehow like a living creature with our little planet being the equivalent of an organelle in the cell that is our solar system.
In my view of these things, the "galaxy-organism" could no more talk to us, then we could communicate with our individual cells.
(I feel like I've typed that already recently... hopefully I'm not repeating myself on the board.)
I recognize that these ideas are basically unfalsifiable.
So, what if the life was always there in some form or another and the counciousness rose out of that?
-Triften
P.S. Feel like I'm being a little incoherent here. Sorry.
[Edited to clarify my stance.]
- Login to post comments
Offline I have a question: what is consciousness?
- Login to post comments
Offline I have a question: what is consciousness?
The abilitiy to interput data perhaps?
- Login to post comments
Offline Is a computer, then conscious? I know that current processing power and programming as inadequate, but is it not conceivable that a computer could, in the future, be able to arrive at truly new conclusions, and thus interperet data?
If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.
- Login to post comments
Offline Is a computer, then conscious? I know that current processing power and programming as inadequate, but is it not conceivable that a computer could, in the future, be able to arrive at truly new conclusions, and thus interperet data?
I doubt it.
- Login to post comments
Offline person132 wrote:Is a computer, then conscious? I know that current processing power and programming as inadequate, but is it not conceivable that a computer could, in the future, be able to arrive at truly new conclusions, and thus interperet data?
I doubt it.
That's interesting. Our conscious experience is due to a very complicated processing machinery that developed to survive by being aware of it's surroundings. It includes the ability to take in data from the world around it, from within the body it inhabits, and dealing with the interactions between the two.
How is this analogous to the universe? Not only what mechanisms exist in the universe that act this way, but if they did what would their purpose be?
So, if a computer, which deals with and processes data, cannot be conscious then how can the universe be when it doesn't even apparently have the machinery to process teh data.
The data existing is not being challenged (although calling it data seems a stretch), but the proposal that something is processing the data in a way that not only is information pulled out from the mess, but that the consciousnes is aware of it's being aware is what is being challenged.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:person132 wrote:Is a computer, then conscious? I know that current processing power and programming as inadequate, but is it not conceivable that a computer could, in the future, be able to arrive at truly new conclusions, and thus interperet data?
I doubt it.
That's interesting. Our conscious experience is due to a very complicated processing machinery that developed to survive by being aware of it's surroundings. It includes the ability to take in data from the world around it, from within the body it inhabits, and dealing with the interactions between the two.
How is this analogous to the universe? Not only what mechanisms exist in the universe that act this way, but if they did what would their purpose be?
So, if a computer, which deals with and processes data, cannot be conscious then how can the universe be when it doesn't even apparently have the machinery to process teh data.
The data existing is not being challenged (although calling it data seems a stretch), but the proposal that something is processing the data in a way that not only is information pulled out from the mess, but that the consciousnes is aware of it's being aware is what is being challenged.
Shaun
The universe is self-aware. This data exchange collapses the wave functions.
For example, say I have an electron source. It emits dual electrons. It uses a mechanism of release that, according to the laws of physics, the electrons will have opposite spins. Now, I trap one and let the other fly off. I then measure the one I trapped. I now know that the electron that flew off will have the opposite spin. I know this spin because I know the spin of the electron that I trapped and know that the other spin will be the opposite.
Hence, the data contained information to collpase the second electron's wave function to the opposite spin. That is, the electron always had that spin because of the information contained in the first electron made sure that the second electron had a certain spin.
So, inessence, the universe is collapsing it's own wavefunctions by emitting data.
- Login to post comments
Offline How do collapsing wave functions make the universe self-aware?
Also, since we are discussing consciousness, I'd like an answer to a question I posed to you in a previous thread: can philisophical zombies exist? That is, could a being exist that were in all material aspects human, but lacks conciousness?
Also, the quotation marks in your signature should probably say "seldom if ever equals".
If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.
- Login to post comments
Offline How do collapsing wave functions make the universe self-aware?
Also, since we are discussing consciousness, I'd like an answer to a question I posed to you in a previous thread: can philisophical zombies exist? That is, could a being exist that were in all material aspects human, but lacks conciousness?
Also, the quotation marks in your signature should probably say "seldom if ever equals".
I did give you an answer. Artifical Intelligence.
The collapsing wavefunctions show that in essence the universe is observing itself.
- Login to post comments
Offline person132 wrote:How do collapsing wave functions make the universe self-aware?
Also, since we are discussing consciousness, I'd like an answer to a question I posed to you in a previous thread: can philisophical zombies exist? That is, could a being exist that were in all material aspects human, but lacks conciousness?
Also, the quotation marks in your signature should probably say "seldom if ever equals".
I did give you an answer. Artifical Intelligence.
The collapsing wavefunctions show that in essence the universe is observing itself.
I simply do not buy that interpretation of the phenomenon.
There is certainly something very strange going on with the electrons and their spins, but to say that some sort of self-awareness must be the explanation is missing many logical points.
You are going to have to explain the connection between the quantum events you are referencing (collapsing wave functions) and consciousness. To imply that the electrons have related spins is because the universe is somehow aware of each and sets their spins accordingly just does not follow.
---
What is going on here is the old argument of whether the universe acts the way it does because of some pre-existing consciousness (usually conceived of a conscious and super-intelligent entity), or self-awareness or whether no awareness or consciousness is necessary.
I see consciousness here as not only extraneous, but problematic. Consciousness is a process that we know occurs as a result of complex biological mechanisms that happens in things like brains. Neuroscience has shown this to be the best explanation, and there is no reason to suppose that consciousness exists in any other way than this biologicial mechanical way.
Quantum nonlocality is a fascinating phenomenon (if that word is even the right word), but it does not imply consciousness of the universe to explain it. Further, even if a universal consciousness were possible and could be a valid explanation for it, it would not be the most parsimonious explanation. The reason is that if you need consciousness of the universe to explain nonlocality, then why don't you need to explain the consciousness?
And, well, we have an explanation for consciousness (incomplete as it is), and it is dependent upon biological processes in things like brains. Thus, to explain quantum events via biological events seems backwards, as it's like explaining how a gear works by talking about the acceleration of the car it's a part of.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yellow_Number_Five wrote:Cpt_pineapple wrote:qbg wrote:There is still data in that string of Ds (there is about 38 characters in the string, the string only has uses one character), but there is very little [information] entropy (is that what you mean by 'data'?) in that string of characters.
My point was what if d was the only letter in the alphabit? It would be kinda hard to write books and such. The potiental is limited.
No, it's not. Simply look at binary. d=1, dd=0 (or no d at all=0). Thats's all you need
Yeah, but if I wrote a book in binary code using d=1 and dd=0 and used the representation for letters that the computer uses, it would be one long ass book that you would need a computer to translate into the letters.
I fail to see how the length is important. Binary has many advantages over "traditional" language, not the least of which is that it is much harder to misinterpret if you know how to read it. Truth be told, I often find myself doing math in binary.
You'll probably appreciate this:
http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html
But I do see your point. You got me on a technicality. My point was it was easier to use the 26 letter alphabit.
How is a more complicated alphabet "easier"? By your logic a 1000 character alphabet ought to be more effiecient and superior to our 26 letter code.
I don't see how that is possible.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline When I am talking infite consciousness, I am mostly talking about infinite potiental.
Take my CD analogy. It can only store a finite amount of data. However, the potential of that data is practially infinite. It can be a Kelly Clarkson CD, a video game, a movie, a book on tape, a picture album, etc... This is what I mean by limiting the potiental. If I put a movie on it, since I have a finite amount of space, I limit it's potential, I may no longer be able to put the audio book on there because the movie is taking up space.
The Earth has billions of people on it, and I am willing to bet that there is not one person on it that is a 'carbon copy 'of your consciousness. Nobody that acts exactly like you do, thinks exactly like you do, reacts to things exactly like you do etc...
I should think not, as no person has my exact genetic makeup or my exact experiences.
Does that clear it up?
Not as much as you may have hoped it did. I don't see how uniqueness or the possibility of infinite unique outcomes or individuals necessitates a Creator. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, I disagree with what I see as a non-sequitor based upon and argument from ignorance. The same objection I had in your first essay.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline The universe is self-aware. This data exchange collapses the wave functions.
For example, say I have an electron source. It emits dual electrons. It uses a mechanism of release that, according to the laws of physics, the electrons will have opposite spins. Now, I trap one and let the other fly off. I then measure the one I trapped. I now know that the electron that flew off will have the opposite spin. I know this spin because I know the spin of the electron that I trapped and know that the other spin will be the opposite.
Hence, the data contained information to collpase the second electron's wave function to the opposite spin. That is, the electron always had that spin because of the information contained in the first electron made sure that the second electron had a certain spin.
Eh, I think you are reading too much into this.
If we simply make the analogy Newtonian physics and have one ball strike another, we'd be able to tell what the second ball was going to do, so long as we had the right information: mass of the balls, their speeds, the velocities, angles, etc.
That's just simply how the universe works. I fail to see how it entreats you to attribute the universe to a creation or creator. Like I said, it seems to be a terrible non-sequitur.
So, inessence, the universe is collapsing it's own wavefunctions by emitting data.
Only if you anthropomorphize the universe. Otherwise, no furthur explanation, other than the actual physics involved, is required.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:The universe is self-aware. This data exchange collapses the wave functions.
For example, say I have an electron source. It emits dual electrons. It uses a mechanism of release that, according to the laws of physics, the electrons will have opposite spins. Now, I trap one and let the other fly off. I then measure the one I trapped. I now know that the electron that flew off will have the opposite spin. I know this spin because I know the spin of the electron that I trapped and know that the other spin will be the opposite.
Hence, the data contained information to collpase the second electron's wave function to the opposite spin. That is, the electron always had that spin because of the information contained in the first electron made sure that the second electron had a certain spin.
Eh, I think you are reading too much into this.
If we simply make the analogy Newtonian physics and have one ball strike another, we'd be able to tell what the second ball was going to do, so long as we had the right information: mass of the balls, their speeds, the velocities, angles, etc.
That's just simply how the universe works. I fail to see how it entreats you to attribute the universe to a creation or creator. Like I said, it seems to be a terrible non-sequitur.
Exactly. Just because there is no way of determining something before it is measure it does not mean that intelligence is behind it.
- Login to post comments
Offline person132 wrote:Is a computer, then conscious? I know that current processing power and programming as inadequate, but is it not conceivable that a computer could, in the future, be able to arrive at truly new conclusions, and thus interperet data?
I doubt it.
It's already happened. I've been trying to find the DVD of his lecture, but this professor wrote an evolutionary algorithm which has produced several electronics devices. He holds the patents, but the credit actually goes to the machine.
- Login to post comments
Offline person132 wrote:How do collapsing wave functions make the universe self-aware?
Also, since we are discussing consciousness, I'd like an answer to a question I posed to you in a previous thread: can philisophical zombies exist? That is, could a being exist that were in all material aspects human, but lacks conciousness?
Also, the quotation marks in your signature should probably say "seldom if ever equals".
I did give you an answer. Artifical Intelligence.
The collapsing wavefunctions show that in essence the universe is observing itself.
Could you be a little more specific in what you mean by "artificial intelligence"? Do you mean a computer-based intelligence? If so, then that does not fit the definition of a zombie, as they are not humans. I want to know if what appears to be human (in every aspect, including physical form), can lack consciousness. Artificial intelligence is not an answer, as a zombie would (in theory) occur naturally.
If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:Yellow_Number_Five wrote:Cpt_pineapple wrote:qbg wrote:There is still data in that string of Ds (there is about 38 characters in the string, the string only has uses one character), but there is very little [information] entropy (is that what you mean by 'data'?) in that string of characters.
My point was what if d was the only letter in the alphabit? It would be kinda hard to write books and such. The potiental is limited.
No, it's not. Simply look at binary. d=1, dd=0 (or no d at all=0). Thats's all you need
Yeah, but if I wrote a book in binary code using d=1 and dd=0 and used the representation for letters that the computer uses, it would be one long ass book that you would need a computer to translate into the letters.
I fail to see how the length is important. Binary has many advantages over "traditional" language, not the least of which is that it is much harder to misinterpret if you know how to read it. Truth be told, I often find myself doing math in binary.
You'll probably appreciate this:
After reviewing the posts I found I made an error. As you said the letter d binary code will work and is practical. However, my point still stands that this code does have infinite potiental.
What I meant was the computer only has finite processing power using the binary code. True, it can do many calculations at once, but quantum computing can change that. What it takes a computer a year to decode may only take a quantum computer seconds. This is because the Quantum computer is not limited by binary code.
Quote:Does that clear it up?
Not as much as you may have hoped it did. I don't see how uniqueness or the possibility of infinite unique outcomes or individuals necessitates a Creator. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, I disagree with what I see as a non-sequitor based upon and argument from ignorance. The same objection I had in your first essay.
What I am saying is that God manifests himself into the universe. We are all in essence a spark of God. Remember, what I said, what good is matter if their is no consciousness to experience it? What could is consciousness if there is not matter to bring it experiences?
Eh, I think you are reading too much into this.
If we simply make the analogy Newtonian physics and have one ball strike another, we'd be able to tell what the second ball was going to do, so long as we had the right information: mass of the balls, their speeds, the velocities, angles, etc.
That's just simply how the universe works. I fail to see how it entreats you to attribute the universe to a creation or creator. Like I said, it seems to be a terrible non-sequitur.
I am attributing it to a universal consciousness.
It's already happened. I've been trying to find the DVD of his lecture, but this professor wrote an evolutionary algorithm which has produced several electronics devices. He holds the patents, but the credit actually goes to the machine.
Is that the video you accidently posted in my other thread? I'll still watch it, but could you move it here?
Could you be a little more specific in what you mean by "artificial intelligence"? Do you mean a computer-based intelligence? If so, then that does not fit the definition of a zombie, as they are not humans. I want to know if what appears to be human (in every aspect, including physical form), can lack consciousness. Artificial intelligence is not an answer, as a zombie would (in theory) occur naturally.
My answer is no. There cannot be a human that lacks consciousness.
- Login to post comments
Offline My answer is no. There cannot be a human that lacks consciousness.
Thank you.
Would you agree, then, that we can conclude from this that consciousness is a necessary consequence of the arrangement of chemicals that make up a human and, thus, material in nature?
If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:My answer is no. There cannot be a human that lacks consciousness.
Thank you.
Would you agree, then, that we can conclude from this that consciousness is a necessary consequence of the arrangement of chemicals that make up a human and, thus, material in nature?
*waves hands about* Pick Me! Pick Me!!
I agree it can be concluded but it shouldn't be unless you're 100% sure the physical component "came first". Given the state of theoretical physics I wouldn't be so sure about that.
We must necessarily conclude that they are not separable, at all, one equals the other; case closed. I have no doubt physicalism has proved its results, I just don't believe it has an undeniable conclusion that physicalism is the bottom line in those results. According to Pauli exclusion processed information preceeds physicalism just as equally, that sucks, I know, because we're left with the chicken and the egg.. again.
To me it means we have a clear cut choice between God and No God, it's entirely up to our selves.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:My answer is no. There cannot be a human that lacks consciousness.
Thank you.
Would you agree, then, that we can conclude from this that consciousness is a necessary consequence of the arrangement of chemicals that make up a human and, thus, material in nature?
Eloise covered it pretty well. I'll do more research on the subject and expand on what she said.
- Login to post comments
Anybody out there?
Lots of people asked about the infinite consciousness.
It is a pretty quiet weekend around here. I read your post but I am not the best person to discuss this issue - LOL Your posts are great and I am sure come next week, there will be lots of interested parties back from their vacations who will want to talk about this. My suggestion? Give it a bit and bump it again.
In the meantime, how is your weekend going?
It's going pretty good. I'm on summer vacation, so I have lots of free time and don't have to worry about classes or homework.
I fail to see the connection between data and consciousness. Just because there is a whole freaking a lot of data in the universe doesn't mean this data has some sort of consciousness. Then again, the question "What is consciousness?" still needs to be resolved.
A blank CD still has data on it, but this data is not useful. I don't see how data on a CD is an 'experience'.
And about "data can no longer be created."; is data even being created at all? Isn't the data just changing?
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Well, Cpt., I understand your analogies, but I don't see any scientific evidence in your essay for the belief that consciousness must exist before life.
If I read it correctly, you are saying that life cannot exist without the data/info being consciously organized first, somewhere in the universe.
According to evolutionary biology, the data needed to "assemble" consciousness - at least human consciousness - evolved out of chemical reactions over millions of years. That data is very digital (AGCT), as you have alluded. Unfortunately, in regard to your argument, there is no signature yet detected within any of the genetic data that can be ascribed to a "universal intelligence." It would be quite interesting to find such a signature. Until then, one must assume that consciousness, on this planet, at least, evolved out of a chemical soup over eons.
Also, I was reading something about that thermal dynamics argument a while back that might be relevent to what you are saying here; I will try to find it. I don't know much about it, but if it's relevent to your points, I'll share it with you.
Data can no longer be created if the thermal gradient is the same. Remeber my analogy of typing only the letter d?
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
See? You can get no information from it. However if I have a sequence of different letters (words) you can still get the information because you can assign meaning (data) from the differences of letters.
Let's bring the CD analogy one step further. If there was data on the CD of Kelly Clarkson, the CD has data. However, it is still useless unless we translate this data, put it in the stereo, then it becomes an experience since the data is coming to life.
See Digital Physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
[MOD EDIT - fixed link]
Because humans are capable of creating, translating, interpreting, comprehending, and experiencing data as "meaningful" is still not proof of a universal consciousness. The fact that we create and comprehend data, - particularly that which is symbolic and of our own minds - is merely a by-product of evolutionary biology. Additionally, it has been, arguably, a functional survival by-product of it, not evidence for pre-existing intelligence.
BTW, I believe Einstein's theory of GR pretty much helped to establish that the universe did not just "always exist," but that it had some kind of origin and time frame. If the universe did not just "always exist," as Aristotle thought, then how could its supposed (intelligent?) consciousness "just exist," independent of it or not?
Is this universal consciousness of which you speak, a physical, natural entity, or not?
I did not need to read more than 2 sentences of the Digital Physics wikipedia article to understand that it too is more a philosophy/theology, er, mythology than a science, albeit interesting entertainment on an episode of Star Trek.
I hope nobody minds the resident "bull in the china shop" (being me).
But I am quite sure Capt Pinapple has peer reviewed data that is widespread and undisputed amonst reputable scientists and not the least bit tangential or superficial.
"I am not like them" is what I here from him. But from what I have seen he has come up with just another newer elaborate delusion.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
'it from bit'. That is the universe exists because it experiences itself. I was once for consciousness causes collapse, but deludedgod quickly pointed me towards 'it from bit'
The Big Bang was a transition. In the multiverse theory we are merely a cosmic burp in the quantum foam universes.
Of course. Information theory is valid in physics. Let me explain some more. Take for example the energy levels of a hydrogen atom.
The single electron resides in the 1s^1 orbital. Now, let use do some work on the system. That is, let us put in energy. The electron now jumps to a higher level. Now take away the energy and the electron drops back to the origianl orbital. As the electron falls, it emits energy photons. This energy contains data. You ask data of what? Well, data of what energy level the electron jumped to. Because, you see the energy emitted is determined by what higher level the electron jumped to. Not only that, but we can also determine the electron's angular momentum eigen value. How do we know this? We know this because if, for example, the electron jumped to the 1p^2 orbital, then it will emit a different frequency if it jumped to the 2s^1 orbital.
So the data is stored by the difference in frequency of the emitting photons. Hence the energy levels can store information.
Was that 'Scienctific' enough?
I cant do it Captain I havent got the power!
Exactly how does this translate to a "disimbodied brain"?
I'm sure you have a "disimbodied brain" in a jar in some lab somewhere?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....................
Why dont you spend time trying to envent the "transporter", you'll be investing the same quality time as you do with this.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The universe is part of the brain. We are merely a part of it. The multiverse, all the universes combined is the brain.
In the last thread people had the idea of reductionism. That the brain is merely the firing of neurons. These people must work for IBM help line. What they say is technically true, but it leaves so much unanswered.
The human brain takes this universal data, and turns it into experiences by using it and storing it in the neurons.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA,
"Luke, I am your father"
"Lonstar, I am your father's brother's cousin's former roomate"
"So what does that make us?"
"Absolutly nothing!"
Ok smart guy, I bet that you stumbled on something that somehow the majority of scientists didn't. Somehow you got it right and all that physics and biologily crap we were taught in highscool was a load of crap because we didnt use a OUIJI BOARD made out of your particular brand of atoms.
Please wow us with your "disimbodied brain". You know it exists "just because".
"Just because" never heard that one before.
A little advice. Lay off the wacky weed when watching Stargate.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I use valid theories of physics and biology in my essays.
He's right. Digital Physics is valid and has the backing of big guns of quantum physics including John Wheeler, who has probably spent more time working with quantum paradox than any other man on the planet, dead or alive-including Bohr, Einstein, Boltzmann, Heisenberg, Planck etc.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Bump.
There is still data in that string of Ds (there is about 38 characters in the string, the string only has uses one character), but there is very little [information] entropy (is that what you mean by 'data'?) in that string of characters.
The data on the CD is a representation of an experience, not an experience itself (that is how I read you the first time).
I still don't see how just because we assign meaning to data or data can be a representation of an experience or how digital physics means that data has a consciousness or how consciousness brings life.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
My point was what if d was the only letter in the alphabit? It would be kinda hard to write books and such. The potiental is limited.
Data in a conscious mind is experience. For example, the laser reads the information on the CD and translates it to vibration from the speakers. The vibrations carry the data on the CD. These become sound when we (a conscious mind) hears (experiences) it.
Something strange happened to my post and when I tried to fix it more strange stuff happened...
Anyways, I think I now understand what you are saying Cpt_pineapple a little better. But how does this relate to your quote "I do think that there is no consciousness after death is non sequiter. Life doesn't bring conciousness, conciousness brings life."? It seems that you are using consciousness in a different way in the quote than you are using it throughout this thread.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Not exactly. Orbitals are the quantum states of electons around atoms. They don't "reside" there. An orbital is simply the linear expression of the eigenstates of the atom's Hamiltonian. Shapes and locations of orbitals are necessarily imprecise.
This is correct.
Sure, but I still fail to see the point you've been trying to make.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.