Are "Superintelligent" Computers an Existential Threat to Our Future?

[Fat Mans Plan]

The "something else" in my view is an omnipresent (or non-local) quantum field which is the underpinning of material reality.This is Mind. Think of Mind as the internet and physical brains as smartphones; you will not find the source of the internet on an individual phone, even though you could track some of its activities there. In the same way, you can record mental activity by looking at the brain, but you won't find the source of Mind.

ty for actually putting forth something. So the brain as a receptical.

But why such correlation between alzheimer's/hemorrage's etc and impairment of some sort.

100 Billion neurons with thousands/tens of thousands of connections, what in you mind(brain :) ) are they doing?

At some point the brain sends an electric signal to our muscles, we know fairly well how electrical signals are passed between neurons, where exactly does the influence happen? and why hasn't anyone found it yet.

I think anything put forth should be testable. (for it not to be testable is just to say you think we will never know the answer, I am not so pessimistic)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FMP,

So, we can't discuss potential quantum phenomenon that we can't test yet?

[Fat Mans Plan]

So, we can't discuss potential quantum phenomenon that we can't test yet?

I said that we can't test, not that we can't test yet. It wasn't even directed exactly to weeping, just thought it was important to point out ideas that are unfalsifiable are kind of useless.

Talk to me when we have a machine that can tell me what I'm thinking, specifically. Until then this is still speculative, at best:

And it's not like you havn't been dismissive of things that can't be proven yet.

[Castel]

I said that we can't test, not that we can't test yet. It wasn't even directed exactly to weeping, just thought it was important to point out ideas that are unfalsifiable are kind of useless.

I have no real dog in the quantum fight but:you don't think that you could confute some of his claims by say...showing that quantum effects don't affect cognition?

[Fat Mans Plan]

I have no real dog in the quantum fight but:you don't think that you could confute some of his claims by say...showing that quantum effects don't affect cognition?

Oh sure, as I said before, it wasn't even really directed at weeping and I should of made that clearer in the original post.

Just that some peoples idea of the mind (not necessarily WS's) don't have anyway to test it. Thought I'd put that there in case anyone else was brave enough to put forth something :P

[Jo498]

Not just materialists. Seeing as no one actually puts forth thought out alternate theorys we are either all missing something, or physicalists/materialists are right.

I think that we should consider all possibilities that we can comprehend (naturalistic ones) before giving up on that goal and assuming supernatural (though we should never stop looking for a natural cause).

I don't think we are anywhere near the point of giving up on a physical mind.

Huh, it's not that reductionist physicalism could explain any of the "hard" problems. So it misses a whole lot. There are very good reasons why it is in principle impossible that it could explain qualitative subjective experience. And the latter is a datum we all have, so it is not something esoteric, but rather something a mentally healthy person is much more certain about than about any speculative theory. Put simply, this is the case because mathematical theories of physical reality abstract from the qualitative (and the subjective). It's like trying to explain colors after you have reduced a picture to black and white and your rules and methodology dictate that you are allowed to use only black and white.

Or as someone put it, if you have swept a lot of dirt (all stuff subjective and qualitative or otherwise "mindlike") under the rug and are now happy about your clean objective mechanistic rug, you cannot claim that it is only a matter of time and more research before the stuff you swept under the rug will go away. It's already under the rug and with your cleaning method (abstract and mathematize and use only the remaining structure as "real" and dictating the behavior of the corresponding "matter" and sweeping everything else under) you cannot get rid of it in principle.

So the postulation of another quantum field (omnipresent or not, why should it be omnipresent, would it not be enough it it was present in brains and nervous systems?) should not be of much help at all. Because this would just be another bit of quantitative, abstract structure described from a 3rd person perspective and not getting any closer to qualitative subjective (1st person) experience, consciousness etc. It would be abstract math or structure of matter, but not "mindlike" at all.

(There are IMO even more fundamental things like math and intentionality (aboutness) which are (other than qualitative subjective experience) *presupposed* by physicalism but seem to be irreducible.)

[Fat Mans Plan]

Or as someone put it, if you have swept a lot of dirt (all stuff subjective and qualitative or otherwise "mindlike") under the rug and are now happy about your clean objective mechanistic rug,

In your situation though you see the dirt.

You can describe this dirt to me but I've never seen dirt so that's no help.

You take a picture of the dirt to show me but no dirt shows up on the picture.

You try and gather up the dirt and weigh it but it does not seem to effect the physical world.

At what point do you admit your brain might be decieving you? or do you go on trying to convince me of this dirt.

There is such a thing as trusting yourself too much, people with phantom limbs can feel like they have limbs, do they?

but rather something a mentally healthy person is much more certain about than about any speculative theory.

What speculative theory are you talking about, all the main theory's of physics (on a lower and higher level) are extremely accurate. Intuition can lead us astray and often does, you can't determine the ways of the world purely with the power of the mind, you need data. But thanks for calling me mentally unhealthy :)

There are very good reasons why it is in principle impossible that it could explain qualitative subjective experience.

Nothing will explain that to you though, you have put this illusion of 'subjective experience' on a pedestal so high that you don't like the idea of it following any laws, so all your left with is "something supernatural is responsible" which is basically not an answer.

But let's pretend that it is true (supernatural dualism)

Either the supernatural does not in anyway effect the brain (and thus actions), in which case it is unfalsifiable and physicalism still guids all your actions.

Or the supernatural does interact with the brain, we could eventually detect it no?

Huh, it's not that reductionist physicalism could explain any of the "hard" problems. So it misses a whole lot.

Physicalism isn't a tool to solve imaginary problems. Are there actually any non-dualists around here? or have they all been scared off :P

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FMP,

In my experience most people are materialists around here. They just don't jump into "Philosophy of Mind" discussions very often.

Out of curiosity, what do you believe defines consciousness? If it's mere computing power why don't we have strong AI yet?

[Weeping Sore]

You try and gather up the dirt and weigh it but it does not seem to effect the physical world.

Are there actually any non-dualists around here? or have they all been scared off :P

I'm not a dualist, I'm an idealist. Matter is an epiphenomenon of mind, it's a way of resolving the question of why consciousness does seem to affect the behavior of subatomic particles (the only way out of this conclusion seems to be the multiple universes theory which seems like a grotesque flouting of Occum's Razor). We've discussed this ad nauseum in previous consciousness threads...

[Altherion]

Matter is an epiphenomenon of mind, it's a way of resolving the question of why consciousness does seem to affect the behavior of subatomic particles (the only way out of this conclusion seems to be the multiple universes theory which seems like a grotesque flouting of Occum's Razor).

Why do you think that consciousness affects the behavior of subatomic particles?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

For the record I don't think that the "supernatural" can exist. I simply think reality is a lot weirder than we give it credit for. I think there is an awful lot we don't understand and that we are kidding ourselves when we claim to be able to explain it.

[Castel]

For the record I don't think that the "supernatural" can exist. I simply think reality is a lot weirder than we give it credit for. I think there is an awful lot we don't understand and that we are kidding ourselves when we claim to be able to explain it.

You're one of the mysterians Scott?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What is a "mysterian"? I do think the quote, "the Universe is not just stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine" is accurate.

[Castel]

What is a "mysterian"? I do think the quote, "the Universe is not just stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine" is accurate.

Yeah, I think that's it :)

I was just curious about how far you'd think we'd get.

[Weeping Sore]

Why do you think that consciousness affects the behavior of subatomic particles?

In his 1932 book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann argued that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows for the collapse of the wave function to be placed at any position in the causal chain from the measurement device to the "subjective perception" of the human observer. In 1939, Fritz London and Edmond Bauer argued for the latter boundary (consciousness).^[1] In the 1960s, Eugene Wigner^[2] reformulated the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment as "Wigner's friend" and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line which precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. See Consciousness and measurement. The non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.^[3]Rudolf Peierls was also a proponent of this interpretation.^[4]

This interpretation has been summarized thus:

The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal)

minds

, which perform

measurements

on the brain causing wave function collapse.

[

3

]

Henry Stapp has argued for the concept as follows:

From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe... Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected

most directly and immediately

to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become...parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation...

[

5

]

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

A very long way. I just think the onion is one with infinant rings that science and the search for ultimate truths are Zeno's paradox in motion. That our knowledge is always, to borrow from David Deutsch, "The Beginning of Infinity". :)

[Fat Mans Plan]

In my experience most people are materialists around here. They just don't jump into "Philosophy of Mind" discussions very often.

ah ok, I think it is healthy to test beliefs against someone else, even if (especially if) they believe something weird to you.

Out of curiosity, what do you believe defines consciousness?

I believe people define conciousness :P just not very well.

I could make up my own definition, but I don't see the point as there are allready a lot of other useful(as in actually defined) words to explain intelligent agents.

I just convert any 'concious' I see to 'intelligent'

If it's mere computing power why don't we have strong AI yet?

I think you underestimate the immense calculatory ability of our brain, 100billion neurons with ~7000 connections each is an immense goal. Also we still need to either get a full grip on the brains workings or come up with a suitable replacement algorithm.

Then there is the training of that AI...

it's a way of resolving the question of why consciousness does seem to affect the behavior of subatomic particles

say again (or preferably, say a different way :P)

If you're talking about the 'observer effect' in quantum mechanics you realise the 'observer' does not actually have to be human right? it does not have to be an intelligence of any sort.

For the record I don't think that the "supernatural" can exist.

Supernatural is a strange word, it seems to mean things that can never be understood but aren't random.

I think there is an awful lot we don't understand and that we are kidding ourselves when we claim to be able to explain it.

I don't think we can explain it all yet, someday hopefully a lot, I just don't think much of certain theorys that pretend to explain things but actually don't (supernatural ones)

[Weeping Sore]

say again (or preferably, say a different way :P)

If you're talking about the 'observer effect' in quantum mechanics you realise the 'observer' does not actually have to be human right? it does not have to be an intelligence of any sort.

As there's really no way to conduct an experiment without observing, directly or indirectly, the results, the role of consciousness cannot be conclusively excluded. Still, the idea of consciousness playing a role in quantum events is now a small minority opinion within the scientific community. I presume most scientists are happy that there are alternate (if inelegant) materialist explanations of the phenomena.