In my article Why your next 3D MMORPG will fail I wrote that everyone is average. Although I meant the same thing, ‘average’ has a negative connotation so it might be wrongly interpreted. Let me restate that:
Everyone is awesome!
In my previous post On arrogance (this is the second part) I wrote about how every human being places himself in a social hierarchy (or pecking order). Which results in him feeling better or worse than other people.
I am not arrogant because of the simple reason that I do not feel better than anyone. I just feel great about myself, without the need to compare that to anything. Why do I feel great about myself?
Why would you need a REASON to feel good or bad about yourself? If you’re thinking like this, it is exactly the pecking order in work. If you’re seeking reasons for validating yourself, you’re actually comparing yourself to some person or an ideal and feeling accordingly. You’re placing yourself on a social hierarchy (that you have made up by yourself, as I explained).
I am standing apart from that. There is no need to justify my well-being and thinking of myself as awesome. I just am. And so are you. If you realize it or not.
This probably comes from an understanding that everyone is the same thing actually. All people are equal.
The only thing that we are different at are our looks, size, biology, behaviours, culture, thoughts, words we speak, actions, jobs, titles, achievements, knowledge and so on… seems like everything?
Well no, I listed only the things which can be perceived externally. If we study a human being scientifically and objectively we will find all these things. When we objectify people we find only differences. If we compare people’s waist lines, people’s IQ’s, people’s opinions and tastes about music each person will have a different measurement. If we study humans all we see are differences.
But I see just one and the same thing. Do you have an intuition of what it is?
- It is the simplest thing in the world.
- A child understands this.
- It’s actually the first thing that happens to you when you are born.
Before you had any knowledge about the world. Before you could actually hear sounds, see something else than light and darkness, before you were taught anything, before you learned to interact with this world all you ever had was… experience.
I’m talking about your subjective experience. Consciousness.
You just arrived on this earth and started experiencing. You were JUST conscious. You were just experiencing the “I am” of your being. You were completely melted and embracing this peculiar experience. Because it is strange.
Probably the minute I was born, I thought to myself – what the fuck? Why am I experiencing reality, what is this? And I started crying.
Now what I am going to write about here is my current speculation about the subject. I don’t really care how correct it is, but I do know it works empirically, it makes me feel good about the world, humans and myself. So enjoy.
Of course we percieve the strawberry differently, nevertheless the fact that we are experiencing the strawberry remains the same.
I believe all humans, animals and vegetation are conscious, in the exact same way you are. It is just a tool for something to look at itself.
I don’t think it is anything magical or fancy. I think of it as a physical property like gravity or a magnetic field. It is sort of a field. An ouroboros of the universe which has an ability to look at itself. It is used by living organisms when there is a demand for it. Mostly living organisms use it for survival, because they need to create models of reality and they need to experience that model. Why is there a need to experience the model? I’m not sure, but I suspect it would not work without it.
Of course this is extremely counter-intuitive. It is hard to imagine a worm being conscious. Even harder to imagine a tree being conscious. But every living organism in fact does the same thing. A worm must create a model of its earth reality in order to dig holes and find food. A tree must create a model of reality in order to seek sunlight and fresh soil. We humans also create models of reality in order to find funny videos on Youtube.
Human consciousness arises through the 5 senses (seeing, hearing, smell, touch, taste). If something enters through the eyes or ears we become conscious of it. Of course in a worm it is much simpler, or different, cause it just has a sense of touch. A tree also has a different sense, I can only speculate what it means to be a tree. But just because we can’t imagine it, doesn’t mean it is not true. The senses are different but the arising of consciousness is the same.
Let’s focus just on people. We all have brains don’t we? These brains have the same function – they create models of reality in order to help the body live in the world right? All brains are made out of the same thing – neurons, synapses and other grey and white shit. So if this is the same in all humans why would they be any different than you? Or why would their present functioning be any different?
Of course they are different, but not in the sense I am talking about. All people have different thoughts, ideas, emotions, they see, hear and believe a million things. All of these things that happen in the mind are different. But the thing that always stays there is THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN EXPERIENCE OF THEM. Or in other words there exists an experiencer or observer of all these things.
Your conscious experience now is functioning in the exact same way as everyone elses. Consciousness is in you and me, your friend and your neighbour that you don’t like! We are all here to experience reality as human beings. Have as much fun as we can, live as fully as possible. We are all awesome, just because of the fact we exist. You are great and you don’t have to justify it. Never explain yourself or feel sorry for anything. No reason.
Look for an answer of your own and test it. My theory makes me feel at peace. I wouldn’t really consider it if it didn’t give me results. Talking to people from this point of view is… effortless. Even if it is somebody I never met before, I already know him/her, we are the same, it’s like talking to yourself. Also I developed a lot of compassion for humanity nowadays and there are lots of other side effects coming from this thinking, like feeling OK with everything, but maybe that’s just me…
Of course I have not wrote everything I wanted to say. What started as a post on arrogance will eventually lead to a third part. In that post I’ll leave the best part, actually my theory of everything haha. So until next time…
Appendix. I probably overcomplicate stuff, so here is a video of Tim Galwey, he is talking about the exact same thing – At the Feet of the Wiseman.
I used to feel the exact same way, no bad feelings, no critic at my own account, but this just until I got in a steady relationship. And I must say… it is impossible to remain calm and/or not feel sorry for some things which cause others to cry and/or suffer.
You can only feel at peace with yourself as long as your actions have consequences that don’t make others suffer because of them. If the consequences are pointed at me, I can live with that, but as soon as somebody suffers, I start doubting the way in which I am acting. Whether if I’m talking about a friend, a parent or a girl.
Every body is the same we have different emotions, thinking, idea etc. but it remains that every body as emotions, thinking and idea’s so we are the same. We don’t think exactly the same way like you said but every body is the same for the reason that or 5 senses (seeing, hearing, smell, touch, taste) works based on electromagnetism (scientific fact) because it is based on how electrons intereact with each other the difference of why we don’t fill the same thing is how our brains react to those changes. A tree as is own view on the world it maybe dosen’t have a brain but all the cells living in community into the same beying that exchange chimical that are based on the ouside world make’s them have an idea of what the world is.
Absolutely empowering. Great article, MM.
“I don’t really care how correct it is, but I do know it works empirically, it makes me feel good about the world, humans and myself”
Interesting how you are contempt in your fictional reality. Where trees have consciousness, and even if you haven’t done anything in your life other than drink beer in the local dive, you ‘re still awesome.
“My theory makes me feel at peace”
Feel at peace all you want. But you have to realize that it was your preconceptions that were making you uneasy before this “theory”. You don’t need these preconceptions any more, and you shouldn’t substitute them with new ones. Evaluate each individual critically, without preconceptions of their or your value.
“I probably over-complicate stuff”
No, Michal, your oversimplifications and half-truths aren’t over-complicated.
bahahahah…….hahahahahahah….haw..hawh…haww…..
I like your posts because they confirm my own independent research.
research : a systematic investigation to establish facts
Your particular brand of research has nothing to do with “facts”.
Keep up the good work! You are the best!
hahahahaaha, independent research *rolling on floor laughing*. BWAHAHAHA!
Good stuff. I quickly scrolled to the bottom to read the comments and realised how big this article was, yet when I read it it was as if someone just talking to me plain and simple. Your stuff is very interesting MM and in my view is not over-complicated at all.
if this would be german, I would read the whole thing, but…
maybe time to improve my english =/
Stop making stuff like this and release a DEMO!!!!!!
There will be no demos. Berserker itself will be a kind of independent stand-alone preview to Link-dead.
I don’t live by this, but now I want to.
@Big: You are caught in the “people are different”-thing. Sure, people are different, but they all live for the same thing. I don’t want to argue, as your arguments are too close to the reality, but since this is a post about HOW you live and not WHY you live and WHY things are like they are, and WHY anything else, I think you should try to focus more on WHY. 😀
Look at me!
I’m a troll!
All I do is post useless crap on MM’s blog because I have no life and I want to argue to prop up my ego.
Please don’t stop feeding me please so I have stuff to troll about in the future as well.
Look at me!
I’m a troll!
All I do is post useless crap on MM’s blog because I have no life and I want to argue to prop up my ego.
Please don’t stop feeding me please so I have stuff to troll about in the future as well.
Ah, now it all makes sense! ;D
compassion? icky!!!
MM you are grossing me out.
Well if there’s some guy with a big screen tv and a surround system like that in MY head, I’m comin in =P
Dev: It’s just stereo. But you can upgrade it if you want to.
I really liked reading this. I’ve been doing a lot of work lately, and I’ve been browsing through other artists works because I’m really lacking any sort of inspiration.
But it’s not what i should be doing. I need to just drive around and develop my own sense of things. I shouldn’t be striving to be as great as the artists i admire, i should just strive to be great.
Great post, great ideas. Thanks for making my day.
“every human being places himself in a social hierarchy (or pecking order). Which results in him feeling better or worse than other people.
I am not arrogant because of the simple reason that I do not feel better than anyone. I just feel great about myself, without the need to compare that to anything.”
How do you define ‘feeling great’ when you don’t compare to anything? I think subconsciously you actually do compare, but you’ve made a good point, you don’t have to compare to other people. You can just compare your current state of being with earlier times of your own life for example and feel great as a result. I think we all actually determine ‘feeling bad’, ‘feeling good’ and ‘feeling great’ compared to ourselves anyways. Off course some people are very ambitious and set very optimistic goals for their lives… failing one of those can have big influence on how they feel *eventhough* in a more objective way they could or should be feeling pretty good at what they’ve achieved already in their life already.
I think unhappy people can’t relative enough and often talk themselves down into their own misery of de-motivation like a vicious circle.
“In that post I’ll leave the best part, actually my theory of everything haha.”
I’m looking forward to that, eventhough I’m not sure what other people would regard as a ‘theory of everything’.
(In a nutshell mine comes down to this; “In the most abstract way possible, I believe in my own existence and interaction with the world around me. Everything has a reason, there’s no such thing as a God or other entity controlling the grand scheme of interaction, there’s only an infinity of possibilities, opportunities and probabilities. It’s dynamic, interactive and I’m not just an observer. ‘I am’ relative to the world, therefore my perspective is egocentric-based as ‘observer’ from within this world’. I believe in rationality and relativism and because of that both my view of the world and my ‘theory of everything’ are subject to change near constantly. Truths are only interpretations of knowledge and since knowledge is subject to change, truths only matter for rationality’s sake. (Can’t get more relativistic than that I guess 😉 .”
“BigBossSNK is a troll. Please don’t stop feeding him”
Let me make it abundantly clear. So long as I have 5 free minutes in my day, I will continue to “uselessly” weed out any arbitrary bullshit that gets passed on as the truth.
PHeMoX : How do you define ‘feeling great’ when you don’t compare to anything?
If I would be precise, it’s rather a feeling of being OK, of contentment. Which isn’t great like the feeling you get when you win a prize but it feels great compared to feeling lousy or depressed. I mean, most of my life I felt lousy and I didn’t even know it. So just getting rid of that and not feeling worse is great for me.
Yeah your theory is close to mine, but mine is much simpler. Notice that if you only assume that the world exists from possibilities all else is reduntant,
“BigBossSNK is a troll. Please don’t stop feeding him”
Let me make it abundantly clear. So long as I have 5 free minutes in my day, I will continue to “uselessly” weed out any arbitrary bullshit that gets passed on as the truth.
Truth is relative.
“Truth is relative”
Measurements are relative. Truth is objective.
Oh boy, you shouldn’t have said that. Now we have to listen to a long SNK speech about physical truth again…
“Measurements are relative. Truth is objective.”
Only god knows the truth.
Humans can try but it will vary person to person, unless you think your god.
Actually truth goes beyond even the concept of God, because there’s no such thing as an absolute truth that we could ever know of even if we were able to find it out. Quite evidently it’s impossible to know whether we know everything about something or not. We can never gather all knowledge to every subject involved. Absolute truths only exist in ideal theory, not in practice.
“Measurements are relative. Truth is objective.”
Truth is not objective when ALL our ‘truths’ are based upon relative measurements and knowledge which both in theory and in practice often simply never hold the entire truth. The existence of absolute truths is an illusion, there’s really no such thing in practice. Tell me one thing of which you know for a fact that it’s literally ‘absolutely’ truth. There’s not one thing in our universe of which we can say we know it’s an absolute truth.
“Notice that if you only assume that the world exists from possibilities all else is reduntant,”
True and I do agree, but sometimes people understand that part as if I believe not to be in control or able to influence the world around me so to speak. It’s not that passive.
Cheers
“Only god knows the truth.”
God is a conventional notion with no manifestation in physical reality.
“There’s not one thing in our universe of which we can say we know it’s an absolute truth.”
Light travels at a constant speed in vacuum. QED
“Oh boy, you shouldn’t have said that. Now we have to listen to a long SNK speech about physical truth again…”
Now, now Cosmin, we might have exchanged a few blows in the past, but you should know I always strive for concision in my posts.
““There’s not one thing in our universe of which we can say we know it’s an absolute truth.”
Light travels at a constant speed in vacuum. QED”
Are you familiar with the definition of ‘physical constants’? This is it: “A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time.”
It explicitly says ‘generally believed to be’… that basically means “is considered and assumed to be true or might be true until we find reason to believe otherwise”.
That’s how science works, so no, not even that is an absolute truth. It’s only a valid truth for now relative to our current knowledge and observations and even now there are scientists who do not agree and think that gravitational potential might actually influence the real speeds. In fact, over time the properties of the speed of light might be able to change, we don’t know that.
Don’t forget that it’s also assumed that this characteristic of the speed of light is universal (as in the same in all parts of our universe). While this is very likely to be true, it’s objectively seen simply unknown.
This might seem nitpicking, but it’s just to clarify how there can not even be absolute truths and how the whole idea is actually an illusion in practice.
“That’s how science works, so no, not even that is an absolute truth”
That’s a common mistake in logic. The ability for further testing doesn’t disqualify the status of an idea as ultimately true or not. If more research is needed, the notion remains undefined as an absolute truth, so it’s still possible for it to be an absolute truth.
2 to 3 thousand years from now, when we’ll have finished mapping the universe, we’ll be able to see whether the constancy of light’s speed is an absolute truth or not.
What’s wrong with logic there then? Science does not consider such things as truths, but more so as “true”. There’s a big difference between considering something as truth or true. That’s why I said that it’s a ‘valid’ truth, but not an absolute truth.
2 or 3 thousand years from now we still won’t have an answer that will make it justifiable to say it’s an absolute truth… and that’s simple logic. If we can’t rule out all possibilities now, what makes you think we will in 2 or 3 thousand years? It’s a wishful assumption at best and I’m pretty sure we will really never be able to know everything about everything as there are many things to discover about a probably infinite amount of things.
In the bigger picture of our universe and beyond, we really are clearly close to nothing, so how could we ever know enough? We can’t. Not ever.
“That’s why I said that it’s a ‘valid’ truth, but not an absolute truth.”
To disqualify a statement as an absolute truth you need to find an occurrence within the universe where it does not apply. Until that time your disqualification of c’s constancy as an absolute truth is invalid.
“If we can’t rule out all possibilities now, what makes you think we will in 2 or 3 thousand years?”
Simple. Better technology. Nothing more is needed.
“I’m pretty sure we will really never be able to know everything about everything as there are many things to discover about a probably infinite amount of things.”
Your “mild assurance” of a negative offers little to this discussion.
“In the bigger picture of our universe and beyond, we really are clearly close to nothing, so how could we ever know enough? We can’t. Not ever.”
Your unfounded certainties amuse me. Information works additively. We piece things together little by little, until we reach a 1:1 representation of reality. That is the way science works.
You clearly don’t understand the problem, which is obviously why you are amused by my certainties.
Better technology won’t ever provide us with all the answers. Not only because the point when we know everything about everything is only a theoretical one. It’s pretty obvious too, every time we discover new things usually that actually raises even MORE questions, instead of providing satisfying all-compassing answers for that specific subject.
As for my ‘mild assurance’, it’s simple… we won’t ever be able to gather infinite amounts of knowledge, not even with more advanced technology. It’s an ever increasing stream of information, gathering that information is one thing, but researching (!) is a whole other thing. Explain to me why you think technology will solve this problem. I doubt humanity will exist forever, but even if we’re optimistic about that I don’t see how we could ever know everything about everything….
“Εvery time we discover new things, this usually raises even MORE questions, instead of providing satisfying all-compassing answers for that specific subject.”
This depends on your ability to comprehend the problem at hand. If a puzzle consists of 100 pieces, and you only possess 5 pieces, any new piece seems unrelated and vexing. After you realize what the bigger picture is, pieces fall in place easier. It’s the same with scientific research.
“we won’t ever be able to gather infinite amounts of knowledge, not even with more advanced technology”
I don’t need to gather infinite information. Only sufficient relevant information to prove that light’s speed is constant throughout the universe.
“gathering information is one thing, but researching (!) is a whole other thing. Explain why you think technology will solve this problem”
It’s called data mining. Better technology, better data mining.
“This depends on your ability to comprehend the problem at hand. If a puzzle consists of 100 pieces, and you only possess 5 pieces, any new piece seems unrelated and vexing. After you realize what the bigger picture is, pieces fall in place easier. It’s the same with scientific research.”
Yes, but the problem is that you don’t actually know when you have all pieces. It might be a square puzzle of 50 pieces and you think you’ve figured it all out, but it may very well be 100 pieces of a square puzzle instead. We just can’t tell by looking at our 50 pieces.
“I don’t need to gather infinite information. Only sufficient relevant information to prove that light’s speed is constant throughout the universe.”
That’s where you’re wrong, because without that information you can’t rule out other possibilities and therefore you can’t say something is ‘absolute truth’.
“It’s called data mining. Better technology, better data mining.”
Right, but as I said you need to do research too, imagine the amount of research involved when we’re talking about infinite amounts of data…. having researched it all simply is a point we will never reach.
“The puzzle might have more pieces than your current theory predicts”
When your initial puzzle has clearly defined physical boundaries this isn’t an issue. As to whether this extends to the whole universe, we’ll have to wait for a quantum theory of gravity, or space exploration to come to a conclusion as to whether space is infinite or finite.
“You can’t say something is an ‘absolute truth’ if you don’t rule out all other possibilities”
We cannot prove it as an absolute truth right now, but making an educated extrapolation is valid.
“We will simply never finish researching an infinite amount of data”
We don’t know yet whether the amount of data in the universe is infinite. Your certainty over an undefined quality has no basis.
“We cannot prove it as an absolute truth right now, but making an educated extrapolation is valid.”
No, of course not. It’s a valid theory, sure, but it’s not an absolute truth. It’s crucial that you can really prove this without ANY doubt before you can call it ‘absolute truth’, which really is something that we won’t ever be able to as I’ve already explained.
“We don’t know yet whether the amount of data in the universe is infinite. Your certainty over an undefined quality has no basis.”
Basically it’s infinite until proven otherwise and even though that’s my opinion, we haven’t reached a boundary yet, so you can’t say it’s finite either. Regardless of that I’m pretty sure the amount of knowledgeable data even if finite is extremely huge and ever increasing the more we discover, hence why I think it’s infinite and not finite. There are so many levels on which we can do research, I just seriously doubt it’s finite, so there’s my basis for this theory.
“It’s crucial that you can really prove this without ANY doubt before you can call it absolute truth”
It’s crucial for proof. It isn’t crucial for a simple claim, more so when you cannot provide a falsifying case and disprove my claim. By your own definition c’s constancy would be “considered and assumed to be true or might be true until we find reason to believe otherwise”.
“The amount of data in the universe is infinite until proven otherwise.”
Your claim is arbitrary.
“There are so many levels on which we can do research, I just seriously doubt it’s finite, so there’s my basis for this theory”
A finite number of operations over a finite set of elements does not result in infinity.
“There are so many levels on which we can do research, I just seriously doubt it’s finite, so there’s my basis for this theory”
A finite number of operations over a finite set of elements does not result in infinity.
You’re arguing the human mind capacity to create from new information. We have quite an imagination to recreate, given access to multiple sources. The lack of a physical manifestations for a thought does not mean non-existence. We create out of necessity and leave old ideas to fade into history.
The argument over the theory of infinity is moot as we will never have the capacity nor intention to confirm it. Unless you want to destroy everything to ease yourself of ignorance, you will be dead before that happens.
“You’re arguing the human mind capacity to create from new information”
The human mind isn’t the only calculating machine that can gather information and research it.
“We create out of necessity and leave old ideas to fade into history. The lack of a physical manifestations for a thought does not mean non-existence. ”
New scientific ideas are only accepted when they offer a greater correspondence rate to reality than their predecessors. As such, not all human thought is research.
“The argument over the theory of infinity is moot as we will never have the capacity nor intention to confirm it.”
Wrong on both accounts. As explained above.
“New scientific ideas are only accepted when they offer a greater correspondence rate to reality than their predecessors. As such, not all human thought is research.”
Oh! I strongly beg to differ, all human thought is research, if only for the theoretical chance of being useful or beneficial at some point later in time. Scientists came up with some of the best ideas by doing all sorts of things not directly related to their research, but thinking about those irrelevant thoughts in a different context made them do great discoveries and think of great solutions. It’s clearly ignorant to look at thoughts and research from a ‘I look at the past only’-perspective.
“The human mind isn’t the only calculating machine that can gather information and research it.”
No machine can do research like we do and unless you see future slave labor clones as machines, I doubt any machine ever will be able to. Researching is way more than just calculating, hence why on the scientific level artificial intelligence (yes, what’s being researched in high-tech labs) is still not very impressive at all compared to the real deal.
“The argument over the theory of infinity is moot as we will never have the capacity nor intention to confirm it. Unless you want to destroy everything to ease yourself of ignorance, you will be dead before that happens.”
Although, objectively seen you’re right, that’s also where we don’t share the same paradigm I guess. Because clearly if it ís infinite then we will have to take that into the equation as well. Will we ever know for certain if the universe if infinite? No, but we will know it’s finite the moment we discover the boundary, therefore as long as we do not find the boundaries it should be considered as if it’s infinite. We don’t have any other choice because of our physical limitations, even if we would be immortal at some point in time. There’s no such thing as being able to “witness the end of infinity”, not now, not ever. Hence why it makes sense to me to assume it’s infinite.
“all human thought is research, if only to promote serendipity”
Scientology is a product of human thought. Scientology is not research. QED
“artificial intelligence is still as good as the real deal.”
Today. We don’t have quantum computers yet either.
“Will we ever know for certain if the universe if infinite?”
A quantum theory of gravity would be able to make this prediction before physical exploration of space, given a significant, but not complete, set of data.
“Scientology is a product of human thought. Scientology is not research. QED”
I never said that all inventions coming from our thoughts would be useful for everybody or rational or even true. I only said all thoughts are research, thoughts do not have to be true in order to be research, after all just ‘considering a possibility’ is part of research too.
The thoughts that eventually resulted in Scientology were definitely research, although strictly theoretical and fictional in nature. The story that was made up definitely tried to give a possibility of it’s own, how ever ridiculous it is.
In fact, all ideologies are heavily based on ‘research’ anyways, because they have a natural habit of finding out the best way to (ab)use people for their own purpose. Those ideologies aren’t based on truths or rationality, but always on emotions, peer-pressure and so on. Even ridiculous things like Scientology could never have been ‘successful’ without that ‘research’, didn’t Hubbart himself say that if you’d want to get rich you should start a religion? Well, it clearly seems to me that all his thoughts led to a lot of research-like conclusions.
By the time the science-fictional thoughts of Hubbart became an ideology (based on no evidence obviously) that could start a cult, that’s where his research got a whole different meaning, but it doesn’t mean that fantasizing or propagandizing about something isn’t “research” in an abstract way. Does research always involve pure facts only? Does research only include positive things? Off course not.
“A quantum theory of gravity would be able to make this prediction before physical exploration of space, given a significant, but not complete, set of data.”
Ah yes, but it will be a while before scientist do and predictions in science have thus far, far too often shown to be wrong at least in the details.
Besides, there really isn’t a scientist at this moment that would be up to the task at hand in my opinion. Obviously that doesn’t prove anything, but if we theoretically could solve something, but in practice still do not have done so…. what’s the point in knowing or predicting that we might figure it out some day?
““artificial intelligence is still as good as the real deal.”
Today. We don’t have quantum computers yet either.”
Believe it or not, but the current consensus amongst scientists that research AI all agree that making the perfect AI is impossible and that replicating our brains is impossible, regardless of the computing power or speed of processing. Thing is, our brains do not ALWAYS act rational or even the same in a similar scenario. It’s not a calculator that simply outputs data based on inputs. Quantum computers and more research in this area might change our view on this and may change the opinion of scientists on this, but at the moment there’s simply not enough known about the human brain of how things really work. We know a lot, but basically we’ve only seen the packaging and have a rough idea of what seems to be active at what time, but we’re still years and years away of really grasping the human brain system.
Lol, this is getting out of hands, but I’m enjoying this so far, so it’s all good. 😉
“I only said all thoughts are research”
Not all thoughts are research.
Thoughts that aren’t research:
Thoughts that have no logical connection between them, or don’t provide a valid reason for circumventing logic.
Thoughts that are in contrast to the physical reality they are trying to represent.
I can’t make it any clearer without breaking out the round holes and square pegs.
“what’s the point in knowing that we will figure out whether space is infinite or not?”
We won’t have to use physical exploration of space to determine whether our universe is infinite or not. Contrary to what you had suggested. It also means you have no valid basis for presupposing the universe is infinite.
“the current consensus amongst AI scientists is that making the perfect AI is impossible and so is replicating the human brain’s functions”
And in which conference was this consensus voiced? Cite your sources, unless you have none.
“we’re still years and years away from really grasping the human brain”
Today. We don’t have quantum computers yet either
“Not all thoughts are research.
Thoughts that aren’t research:
Thoughts that have no logical connection between them, or don’t provide a valid reason for circumventing logic.”
No, even those thoughts can still be research and I already explained why this is true.
“And in which conference was this consensus voiced?”
Do a search on google, you’d be surprised. Especially Japanese researchers that are currently involved in making those exoskeleton suits (that make you be able to lift much more weight and so on) seem to be totally convinced that cyborg is the way to go when it comes to clever robots, because making a good enough AI is impossible. There aren’t many scientists who disagree with that, especially because we do not have quantum computers yet.
“We won’t have to use physical exploration of space to determine whether our universe is infinite or not. Contrary to what you had suggested. It also means you have no valid basis for presupposing the universe is infinite.”
It seems you’ve totally ignored my previous statement. Bravo. As I said before we simply don’t seem to share the same paradigm I guess. Because clearly if it ís infinite then we will have to take that into the equation as well. Will we ever know for certain if the universe if infinite? No, but we will know it’s finite the moment we discover the boundary, therefore as long as we do not find the boundaries it should be considered as if it’s infinite. We don’t have any other choice because of our physical limitations, even if we would be immortal at some point in time. There’s no such thing as being able to “witness the end of infinity”, not now, not ever. Hence why it makes sense to me to assume it’s infinite.
“Today. We don’t have quantum computers yet either”
Right, but you seem to expect a lot from the future, perhaps I’m just not that optimistic, but basically you say we will know everything before we go extinct, something which you can’t prove and seems extremely unlikely to me.
“There’s no such thing as being able to “witness the end of infinity”, not now, not ever. Hence why it makes sense to me to assume it’s infinite.”
and the off course I haven’t even spoken about the probability of multi-dimensionality of our universe and the possible implications of that for the infinite-ness of everything around us.
“even those thoughts can still be research”
“CAN be research” and “ARE research” are only partially overlapping sets. At least you accept your concession.
“Japanese scientists say making a good enough AI is impossible”
They might agree it is difficult, given our current level of familiarity with neurology, but when a scientist says “impossible”, he means physically impossible. And physically impossible it is not. Don’t misquote scientists.
“There’s no such thing as being able to “witness the end of infinity”, not now, not ever. Hence why it makes sense to me to assume it’s infinite.”
Defining the undefined is a fallacy, no matter what you think the most convenient option is. And to put the final nail in your argument’s coffin, our universe might be infinite, and at the same time finite. A ball shaped universe is infinite because it wraps around itself (with no “end”), and finite because it has limited space. Here’s an interesting source:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726384.700-ballshaped-universe-bounces-back.html
Your assumption is unfounded.
“You say we will know everything before we go extinct, something which you can’t prove and seems extremely unlikely to me.”
The only way to make a certain prediction of the future is to control the parameters of the system. As there are still parameters outside our control, we cannot be sure if we will reach a 1:1 representation of reality. But, the higher our scientific achievements, the more tools we have to battle the unknown.
““even those thoughts can still be research”
“CAN be research” and “ARE research” are only partially overlapping sets. At least you accept your concession.”
But you aren’t accepting the fact that people can think of the same things in a different context therefore something that once was useless becomes useful. Because of that there’s no reason for me to exclude ANY thought as not being research, eventhough technically and at a fixed point in time it might not be very research-like. There’s more to it.
“They might agree it is difficult, given our current level of familiarity with neurology, but when a scientist says “impossible”, he means physically impossible. And physically impossible it is not. Don’t misquote scientists.”
No, he literally states ‘impossible’ in various interviews and he even tells why, hence why I brought up the problem of computers eventhough they may seem like the key to this problem. We’d need a lot more comprehension of how the brain works too, which unfortunately is something computers do not necessarily solve for us. In fact, if you look at the recent developments it’s very questionable if computers themselves could teach us more. Don’t forget that one of the key problems is finding the ‘physical image’ in our brains, before that we can not ever claim to know how it really works. Sure we can see on a scanner that it’s active and perhaps we may derive clever things from it, but at the same time the estimation still stands that we only know about 9 or 10% of what our brain does. I just don’t want to rush anything in that area and just go about and say that we will find out one day, gathering new data from research in this area is painfully slow and for the most part we don’t quite know where to look. I didn’t misquote anyone.
“And to put the final nail in your argument’s coffin, our universe might be infinite, and at the same time finite. A ball shaped universe is infinite because it wraps around itself (with no “end”), and finite because it has limited space.”
That’s funny because I would consider a sphere to be finite, not infinite. It has a boundary after all. Once you’ve covered the entire inside of it, you’ve covered it’s entire finite surface so ideally you would be back at the point where you started.
If time(!) would be a sphere, then it’s not infinite either, but would simply bring you back to where you once were time-wise, as if it’s looping. Off course assuming that would be what time would ‘do’ if it’s finite (perhaps it would stop), but if it does continue to go on, it would still be crossing places that it has already been. Obviously this goes for both the more abstract time and a time-space that would be wrapped around as a sphere, whatever your view on time itself.
Something of a paradox if you ask me and to me it sounds unlikely that time-space would be spherical and not infinite as in really infinite. This doesn’t say anything about the validity of the probability thereof, but I can’t say that it sounds like something I would assume time to be based on current consensus and theories. Besides, space-time being spherical, what that would do to a finite universe one can only guess, but perhaps ‘a time’ as such wouldn’t be that relevant anyways? After all, all things that have a start usually tend to have an end, so an infinite time would simply be and although it may effect plenty of things to be relevant in the short-term, it may very well be irrelevant in the long run.
In fact this all made me think… Perhaps such a sphere of time that is finite in time-space surface bút continues and repeats itself forever along the same surface… wouldn’t technically the term ‘infinite’ be wrong in such a scenario? After all it’s not really infinite in terms of actual surface and a sphere would definitely imply that time reaches the same destinations over and over again.
“Your assumption is unfounded.”
No, not at all, we still would have to find boundaries, because even a looping time or a finite space would give away clues about it’s boundaries. Off course, we then would have the problem of figuring out íf there’s something on the other side of the boundary or not, so perhaps even then we wouldn’t know for sure still. Obviously it all depends on what the boundary would be. If the boundary is simply a space-time that warps us back to the other side of the universe as if it’s spherical as I mentioned before, then obviously we would notice this ‘boundary’, but would it really say anything useful about the universe being infinite or finite? I think it would mostly be a matter of opinion in such a scenario and obviously it’s still just one of many possibilities. Quite frankly at the moment we just don’t know.
By the way, thanks for the link, very interesting.
(By the way, those scientists do not really seem to think about a sphere, but more so about an inversed sphere that has a dynamic surface. As such it can still very much simply be infinite but show wrapped parts at the “edges” (distance-wise) that shine through. I think the bottom-line of it all is, that all options are still on the table as far as infinite vs. finite, and that’s also why I haven’t come across anything that really convinced me otherwise of accepting infinity as ‘true for now’. Remember that I do not believe absolute truths exist and therefore I would never argue that this is absolutely true, but I still tend to think it’s the most likely option for several reasons (as partly mentioned here).)
“You don’t accept that people can think of the same things in a different context and therefore turn something useless into something useful.”
I accept it is possible for some thoughts. But not for all.
“Gathering new data from research in neurology is painfully slow and for the most part we don’t quite know where to look”
Again, difficult and impossible are different notions. You might want to introduce this concept to this elusive AI researcher you quote.
“All options are still on the table as far as infinite vs. finite goes, and that’s also why I haven’t come across anything that really convinced me of not accepting infinity as ‘true for now’.”
You are entitled to a personal opinion, but presenting it as a definition without anything to back it up is fallacy.
Enjoyed the mindf*ck of time and infinity, never did like time-traveling movies, but in regards to ai:
a pure machine construct could never bypass the capabilities of the human mind. We take for granted our brains daily actions but the simple acts require an shitload of processing.
Why haven’t we solved mysteries of the universe you may ask yourself. Simple, we are bound to our basic needs and social brainwashing which may eliminate curosity, the cornerstone of intelligence. (aka religion
).
My point lies at contriversal thought, the manufacure of a mind/machine brain, or cyborg.
The power of our mind 10x when we stripped away the soul.
So ai is moot in advancing technology. The best it can be used is the field of repatative tasks. Limitations given on how many variables it can handle, pre-programmed by man.
AI will always be artifical, and not intelligence, until we step out the box.
typo: religion is brainwashing, not intelkigence.
“a pure machine construct could never bypass the capabilities of the human mind.”
You provide certainty without proof. Your claim is arbitrary.
I agree with Anonymous there, it’s really just simple logic and as I’ve said before this is the current consensus about AI.
“AI will always be artifical, and not intelligence, until we step out the box.”
Exactly. It’s difficult to predict if we are ever going to be able to ‘step out of the box’ in this regard. So in that way bigbossSNK your claim is as arbitrary as ours, which is the whole thing with predicting the future anyways…. :p
We definitely won’t be able to ‘step out of the box’ before we fully grasp the human brain and we’re still a very very long way from that. Quantum computers or no quantum computers, it won’t solve every problem, we need more discoveries, theories and generally just more knowledge. Something that is not guaranteed to happen just by time passing by.
“I accept it is possible for some thoughts. But not for all.”
Right, but nothing we think of is truly original and we do not know all future contexts of these important similar thoughts. So… we can’t really say that certain thoughts will never ever matter for sure.
“Again, difficult and impossible are different notions. You might want to introduce this concept to this elusive AI researcher you quote.”
Impossible simply means that it’s impossible, what’s so difficult about that?
“You are entitled to a personal opinion, but presenting it as a definition without anything to back it up is fallacy.”
It’s too easy to state that I didn’t back it up when you simply don’t agree with my arguments. Explain why my arguments are wrong. I told you what made sense to me, but really it’s just one of many theories about this subject as you must know. Hence why I stressed that it’s “my opinion”.
“we can’t really say that certain thoughts will never ever matter for sure.”
Obviously “we” can’t. I, on the other hand, can.
“Impossible simply means that it’s impossible, what’s so difficult about that?”
Impossible means physically impossible, meaning that the laws of physics prevent us from attaining this knowledge. Difficult means it’s not obvious how to create a working theory with our current data set. See the difference? The unnamed AI researcher you quote doesn’t.
“We definitely won’t be able to ’step out of the box’ before we fully grasp the human brain and we’re still a very very long way from that.”
Again, if it isn’t physically impossible to acquire information, it’s just a matter of doing enough research, and coming up with ideas that fits the puzzle. (read: science)
“Explain why my arguments are wrong.”
See above.
“a pure machine construct could never bypass the capabilities of the human mind.”
You provide certainty without proof. Your claim is arbitrary.
The Matrix, hows that for proof.
“The Matrix, how’s that for proof?”
Very, very poor.
“Obviously “we” can’t. I, on the other hand, can.”
Lol, like whatever man, you can’t either. You can’t rule out the future possibility of one thought being thought of again in such a context that it dóes matter.
““The Matrix, how’s that for proof?”
Very, very poor.”
Why is that poor? If we are in a simulation then off course it would prove that we can be fooled bigtime and it would definitely imply a VERY advanced machine construct managing the simulation behind the scenes.
“Difficult means it’s not obvious how to create a working theory with our current data set. See the difference? The unnamed AI researcher you quote doesn’t.”
No, he has good arguments why it’s really impossible. It’s the Japanese guy behind the exoskeleton suit, just do a search already.
“Again, if it isn’t physically impossible to acquire information, it’s just a matter of doing enough research, and coming up with ideas that fits the puzzle.”
It’s really NOT at all a given that we will ever figure out everything, if you believe otherwise then so be it. It’s not worth wasting more time on this. There will always be crucial discoveries before we can comprehend things that pave the way for more technological and scientific progress. It’s not as inevitable as you seem to believe even with infinite research time.
““Explain why my arguments are wrong.”
See above.”
How old are you anyways?
“You can’t rule out the future possibility of one thought being thought of again in such a context that it does matter.”
The premise was over thoughts becoming research, not “mattering”. Since you lack the logical tools to differentiate the two and I don’t, I can make such a disqualification, even if you are unable to. See, I don’t base the validity of my claims on arrogance. Rather, the other way around.
“The existence of the Matrix would prove we can bypass the human mind.”
I’ve already explained why we aren’t in a Matrix:
http://mm.soldat.pl/?p=120 and here http://mm.soldat.pl/?p=133
You couldn’t counter my argument then, what makes you think you can trump it now?
“It’s not as inevitable as you seem to believe even with infinite research time.”
Mapping a physical location will finish after some time, given enough resources. The brain is yet another unmapped physical system, even if our understanding of it based on it’s neurological components is currently not complete.
“Explain why my arguments are wrong.”
“See above.”
“How old are you anyways?”
Apparently, you are ignorant to the skill of referencing. See above.
“Theory and actual results – different result = no matrix”
or
“t and a results + matrix = differnt results”
or
“t and a result +- matrix = different/same results”
so how can test to see if we’re theory and actual results arn’t always the same. What if they vary and the matrix makes us believe its the same.
my point: ¿how old are you?
“How can we test to see whether the matrix feeds us experiment results”
A computing machine requires time to perform calculations. This is a physical requirement of the universe, not theory. Were the matrix to change experiment data, time would need to be added to the relay of that information, rendering the simulated universe non real time. So go ahead and deny our universe’s cosmological constants, my ignorant friend.
Were the matrix to change experiment data, time would need to be added to the relay of that information, rendering the simulated universe non real time.
Your argument is arbitrary, my fellow battery friend, and I’ll kindly enlighten you.
We are a physical entity hence easily manipulated by reality.
(I do believe in a 1:1 correlation with physical reality but I find your lack of imagination disturbing. It is of course why we are better then robots, Again i refer to the matrix)
Were it the robot’s whim, they would erase the memories, in which we create the illusion of time, and manipulate them in order to create the simulation called The Matrix. This in turns becomes Consensus reality. Now the question becomes, what is real?
So go ahead and deny our universe’s cosmological constants, my ignorant friend.
Gladly, were it my it intention to become Neo.
On a opposite note, erotica and Actual results will be impossible to hold the same results because of variables invisible to the naked eye.
Typo: Theoretical, not erotica (spell-check is major failure.)
“I find your lack of imagination disturbing”
Physical impossibilities are physical impossibilities, bubba. The matrix just isn’t compatible with the universe we exist in.
“Were it the robot’s whim, they would erase the memories, in which we create the illusion of time”
A case easily dismissed by performing an experiment that requires less time than the processing time of the supposed Matrix’s computations. Basically experiments near the Planck time scale would disallow any interference from a Matrix.
“On a opposite note, theoretical and actual results will be impossible to hold the same results because of variables invisible to the naked eye.”
Learn some physics. Then return. You are not prepared.
“Mapping a physical location will finish after some time, given enough resources. The brain is yet another unmapped physical system, even if our understanding of it based on it’s neurological components is currently not complete.”
My whole point is, that it’s not just mapping physical locations, it’s understanding what you are mapping and all that matters in that context.
“The premise was over thoughts becoming research, not “mattering”.”
I said ‘thoughts are always research’ and it implies that thoughts can or will matter at least to some extent in certain contexts. There are a lot of different kinds of ‘research’, especially when it comes to psychology, but I guess you’re simply ignorant about that.
Why differentiate when in a different context the exact same thoughts áre research? Doesn’t make sense to me to simply ignore that.
“Since you lack the logical tools to differentiate the two and I don’t, I can make such a disqualification, even if you are unable to. See, I don’t base the validity of my claims on arrogance. Rather, the other way around.”
No, I do see how contexts matter, but as I said before, why ignore thoughts that are exactly the same but in a different context that áre research? There are plenty examples too. Lets say I look at an apple and think ‘ow, nice apple.’ Not much research you say? Well there’s two things happening, 1.) I observe the apple an 2.) react to it by concluding that it’s ‘nice’. If that alone isn’t enough for those thoughts to be research, there are plenty of such scenarios that are being used for study of brain activity quite literally and so it’s still research.
“It’s not just mapping physical locations, it’s understanding what you are mapping and all that matters in that context.”
There is no physical barrier to understanding the brain. Here’s some new breakthroughs:
http:/ /www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060623215911.htm
“Why differentiate when in a different context the exact same thoughts are research?”
One set of physical facts fulfills the definition of research, another set does not.
“There are plenty of such scenarios that are being used for study of brain activity quite literally and so it’s still research.”
“Thinking about an apple” under an fMRI machine is research.
“Thinking about an apple” with no such machine isn’t research. Unless you introduce that element later on, in which case it will become research.
Wow Michal, seems like you’re a very philosophic dude, I never imagined coming here to read anything this interesting… 😀 I played your game a lot before and I’m also a hobby programmer like you, I think you’re at my age too, haha, we should probably be friends.
Looks like we might have the same views on some stuff. Btw, here is something I once wrote (to get it out of my head):
Imagine a 2d world that you touch with your 5 fingers, in the 2d world these 5 dots will look like 5 different beings, but in reality they’re all just one being; your hand.
In this 2d world their lives and personalities might be very different since they’re all raised under different circumstances (you are “programmed” by your surroundings). But inside they’re all the same, the same being which wants nothing but peace and love. So when you interact with other persons look at them like copies of you, it’s just you under some other life-conditions, love yourself.
Than how come I still get to be the greatest?