GENIUS FORUMS

And that solves only that you are a Trekkie nothing more.

Underground solves itself. Your verblixer.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I can't believe that the opening post went straight to biological brain. You probably need to go way back in time to a time just before water started flowing. Then conciousness found itself, and eventually considered how it could get from A to B. But it could go back way further than that, as photons show signs of intelligence during the two slit experiment. As the charge up the low levels of energy, avoiding high levels of energy to create the wave pattern. In fact the whole universe seems to have some form of intelligence.

Intelligent in what way?

I can think of two ways of defining intelligence, as such:

1) Having a phenomenal prediction; that is having conscious representation of planning/forethought that instantiates a predictive model. (What most people mean by "intelligence")

2) Having a teleological function; that is having an effect or function which, at the very least, has the appearance of following from Intelligence₁


But how can we discriminate between something which has an Intelligence₂ and something which only has a teleonomic purpose? Wherein the purpose of a phenomena is not derived from Intelligence₁, but simple fact of its antecedents. Also in the case of Intelligence₂ we are still discussing something which itself has no purpose, but derives its purpose from something of Intelligence₁.

Also in the cases of Intelligence₁, we are dealing with the appearance or representation of forethought/planning and prediction. There is no introspective awareness of the processes of deliberation, or of coming to the prediction. We may have vague impressions of the process, but upon closer examination we are unable to introspectively penetrate a smooth transition from nothing to something. Upon third-person, empirical examination, the processes of deliberation, planning or forethought appear to be comprised of simple teleonomic effects. In that way, it is possible that nothing of the likes of Intelligence₁ even exists apart from presenting an appearance.

A major confounding factor in this inquiry into "purpose" is the anthropic principle as applied to this discussion. We are existing in a reality wherein we exist, by virtue of this fact we should expect to find antecedents leading up to our existence. This does not help us what-so-ever in distinguishing between Intelligence₁, Intelligence₂, or simple teleonomic effects.

Light has a purpose, and it fulfils its purpose, and its purpose is to energise electrons, and it does this with rules, and the rules are that it should energise low level electrons first. So it hits a low level electron, and it creates an energy blob which expands in a circle. The second photon now avoids this circle, and turns towards the next weak electron. This is purposeful, we have evolved to use this sequence of events as light sources. Each electron as a glow when it is hit, fading so slowly that it gets hit again before it turns dark. And where is the proof of this? In the two slit experiment.

We use intelligence as messages passed to us.. like walls in our living room glowing, and the colour information.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Light has a purpose, and it fulfils its purpose, and its purpose is to energise electrons, and it does this with rules, and the rules are that it should energise low level electrons first. So it hits a low level electron, and it creates an energy blob which expands in a circle. The second photon now avoids this circle, and turns towards the next weak electron. This is purposeful, we have evolved to use this sequence of events as light sources. Each electron as a glow when it is hit, fading so slowly that it gets hit again before it turns dark. And where is the proof of this? In the two slit experiment.

We use intelligence as messages passed to us.. like walls in our living room glowing, and the colour information.

That doesn't help define purpose and/or prove its reality. The example could just as easily follow from simple effects without forethought. One can still call this "purpose" but given the colloquial usage of the term, doing so would be spurious.

At the very least I expect a disambiguated definition of "intelligence" and "purpose", otherwise we will just be talking in circles.

Animus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Light has a purpose, and it fulfils its purpose, and its purpose is to energise electrons, and it does this with rules, and the rules are that it should energise low level electrons first. So it hits a low level electron, and it creates an energy blob which expands in a circle. The second photon now avoids this circle, and turns towards the next weak electron. This is purposeful, we have evolved to use this sequence of events as light sources. Each electron as a glow when it is hit, fading so slowly that it gets hit again before it turns dark. And where is the proof of this? In the two slit experiment.

We use intelligence as messages passed to us.. like walls in our living room glowing, and the colour information.

That doesn't help define purpose and/or prove its reality. The example could just as easily follow from simple effects without forethought. One can still call this "purpose" but given the colloquial usage of the term, doing so would be spurious.

At the very least I expect a disambiguated definition of "intelligence" and "purpose", otherwise we will just be talking in circles.

There are no effects without forethought. That is the problem with the Big Bang. It expects gravity, and many other forms of physics to just exist out of thin air. Scientists ask "If the Big Bang is travelling outwards, how does gravity pull the particles back in to create planets?"

What scientists should actually be asking is where does gravity come from in the first place?

The theory of everything makes no assumptions about physics already existing. You have to create the physics first, before you ask silly questions.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Light has a purpose, and it fulfils its purpose, and its purpose is to energise electrons, and it does this with rules, and the rules are that it should energise low level electrons first. So it hits a low level electron, and it creates an energy blob which expands in a circle. The second photon now avoids this circle, and turns towards the next weak electron. This is purposeful, we have evolved to use this sequence of events as light sources. Each electron as a glow when it is hit, fading so slowly that it gets hit again before it turns dark. And where is the proof of this? In the two slit experiment.

We use intelligence as messages passed to us.. like walls in our living room glowing, and the colour information.

That doesn't help define purpose and/or prove its reality. The example could just as easily follow from simple effects without forethought. One can still call this "purpose" but given the colloquial usage of the term, doing so would be spurious.

At the very least I expect a disambiguated definition of "intelligence" and "purpose", otherwise we will just be talking in circles.

There are no effects without forethought. That is the problem with the Big Bang. It expects gravity, and many other forms of physics to just exist out of thin air. Scientists ask "If the Big Bang is travelling outwards, how does gravity pull the particles back in to create planets?"

What scientists should actually be asking is where does gravity come from in the first place?

The theory of everything makes no assumptions about physics already existing. You have to create the physics first, before you ask silly questions.

That's not precisely my concern, this example is just another subject of the same problem. How do you determine by observing an effect whether or not it ultimately originated from an "intelligent" source with "purpose". Nor does it elucidate what exactly is meant by either term.

It seems you are referring to intelligence in an anthropic sense, as we intimate to each other from subjective phenomena. Yet, this phenomena is demonstrably the result of billions of cellular automata with no intrinsic intelligence themselves, speaking scientifically of course. Thus, what we normally call "intelligence" is only a subjective phenomena, an appearance within consciousness, and not an objective fact about nerve cells. The most we could posit is that intelligence is an emergent phenomena that constrains its parts. We are no closer, however, to the presupposition that waves of light extend from an intelligent source or are intelligent themselves. The evidence appears to be pointing in the opposite direction. We are not even intelligent as such.

Maybe you have just learned to ignore intelligence that isn't high level. When the photon hits the light sensitive paper at mathematical angles you are presuming that physics is part of the universe, and that physics just happens. I need to get across to you that physics can't just exist from nowhere. The photon can't even move without a message being passed from 1 place to another. All we do is take the messages, and use them at a higher level.

1 photon = 1 intelligence.
1 human Brain = Billions intelligence. But only because it is a hive of billions of particles. Basically the same intelligence as the photon but shared together.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Maybe you have just learned to ignore intelligence that isn't high level. When the photon hits the light sensitive paper at mathematical angles you are presuming that physics is part of the universe, and that physics just happens. I need to get across to you that physics can't just exist from nowhere. The photon can't even move without a message being passed from 1 place to another. All we do is take the messages, and use them at a higher level.

1 photon = 1 intelligence.
1 human Brain = Billions intelligence. But only because it is a hive of billions of particles. Basically the same intelligence as the photon but shared together.

As I asked, how are you defining "consciousness"?

I am defining conciousness as a pulse, because that's what it is.. just a pulse shared.. like music. What you are calling conciousness are mostly sensors, like eyes, ears,nose, and mouth. I think that you are using these high level sensors as a way to encapsulate all intelligent thoughts, and then the word pulses that enter the ears as a way to put together thoughts of maths, invention, and creativeness. But there has to be a purer type of intelligence that works with fewer sensors, because DNA is such a complex thing, and yet has no recognisable sensors, but creates a mathematical sequence, and builds a biological body. DNA is in fact much better at maths, and biology than we are.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I am defining conciousness as a pulse, because that's what it is.. just a pulse shared.. like music. What you are calling conciousness are mostly sensors, like eyes, ears,nose, and mouth. I think that you are using these high level sensors as a way to encapsulate all intelligent thoughts, and then the word pulses that enter the ears as a way to put together thoughts of maths, invention, and creativeness. But there has to be a purer type of intelligence that works with fewer sensors, because DNA is such a complex thing, and yet has no recognisable sensors, but creates a mathematical sequence, and builds a biological body. DNA is in fact much better at maths, and biology than we are.

I am not equating consciousness with sensory organs. I'm a defining consciousness as phenomenal self-representation. In order for something to have conscious experience it must consist of not only representational content but a self-model as the subject or perceiver of said content. See Thomas Metzinger's "Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity". The self-model is an emergent property of the causally integrated structure of the human brain, and it that way is illusory. However, consider what "your" experience would be like if there was no inner "you" as the subject of the experience.

Consciousness precedes thought.

Consciousness does not require thought.

Thought does require consciousness.

What is consciousness? I Am.

I Am, therefore I think.

Know it, love it, spread the word.

;)

I am not equating consciousness with sensory organs. I'm a defining consciousness as phenomenal self-representation. In order for something to have conscious experience it must consist of not only representational content but a self-model as the subject or perceiver of said content. See Thomas Metzinger's "Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity". The self-model is an emergent property of the causally integrated structure of the human brain, and it that way is illusory. However, consider what "your" experience would be like if there was no inner "you" as the subject of the experience.

Alright, ignoring that I am millions of creatures working together, I have an identity which I call myself, and I ignore the fact that I am sharing my brain with all of those electrons, and things. My DNA still knows more about me than I do, the chemical reactions in my brain still control my fears, and pleasures. My thoughts are diluted to prevent putting me in danger, my imagination is capped unless I fall asleep, and then it is uncapped and the pictures are allowed to run freely.

Do you know what sentience is? The inner you? It's a little pulsing energy just like a photon. Your self aware example can be identified. Once identified you have to use its physical presence as sentience rather than the notion of what sentience is supposed to be.

Like a computer for example. we all know what a computer is... but we are using the word computer to represent our PC. Everyone knows that a calculator is a computer, but humans tend to group objects together without really acknowledging it. We do that because we are built in the same way. We identify ourselves even sometimes taking our clothes into account. We look at a woman in stockings, and we group the woman together with her stockings. We group Elvis Presley together with his white suit.

Sentience, and self awareness un-grouped is a pulse.

consciousness, duh.