> On 22 Mar 2018, at 02:34, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > What if we already live forever? Why in fact, do people think that just > because we die that we go away or cease to exist? What if Nature has already > solved the problem? Why would you spend a motza to ensure you lived forever > in the same boring universe when after 70 or 80 years you can be teleported > to a different universe in a pine box?
Yes, that makes sense, and the simples way to be immortal consists in having children. But then … you know … kids can be terrible … ;) Then, we are also immortal already when we remember the “consciousness state which is out of time”, but that one is so counterintuitive that I prefer to not insist on it. I think we get it with salvia, but some describes it as the worst thing that they ever encountered, other as the most blissful thing they encountered. Mortality is a God self-delusion when bored from immortality, somehow … It is also a way to say Hello to Itself, or to play hide-and-seek. Bruno > > Kim Jones > > > > > On 22 Mar 2018, at 6:39 am, Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/21/2018 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 20 Mar 2018, at 00:56, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/19/2018 2:19 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote >>>>> >>>>> > octopuses are fairly intelligent but their neural structure is >>>>> > distributed very differently from mammals of similar intelligence. An >>>>> > artificial intelligence that was not modeled on mammalian brain >>>>> > structure might be intelligent but not conscious >>>>> >>>>> Maybe maybe maybe. A nd you don't have have the exact same brain >>>>> structure as I have so you might be intelligent but not conscious. I said >>>>> it before I'll say it again, consciousness theories are useless, and not >>>>> just the ones on this list, all of them. >>>> >>>> You're the one who floated a theory of consciousness based on evolution. >>>> I'm just pointing out that it only shows that consciousness exists in >>>> humans for some evolutionarily selected purpose. It doesn't apply to >>>> intelligence that arises in some other evolutionary branch or intelligence >>>> like AI that doesn't evolve but is designed. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Not sure that there is a genuine difference between design and evolution. >>> With the multicellular, there is an evolution of design. With the origin of >>> life, there has been a design of evolution, even if serendipitously. I am >>> not talking about some purposeful or intelligent design here. A cell is a >>> quite sophisticated "gigantic nano-machine”. >>> >>> Then some technic in AI, like the genetic algorithm, or some technic >>> inspired by the study of the immune system, or self-reference, leads to >>> programs or machines evolving in some ways. >>> >>> Now, I can argue that for consciousness nothing of this is needed. It is >>> the canonical knowledge associated with the fixed point of the embedding of >>> the universal machines in the arithmetical reality. >>> >>> It differentiates into the many indexical first person scenarii. >>> >>> Matter should be what gives rise to possibilities ([]p & ~[]f, []p & <>t). >>> That works as it is confirmed by QM without collapse, both intuitively >>> through the many computations, and formally as the three material modes do >>> provide a formal quantum logic, its arithmetical interpretation, and its >>> metamathematical interpretations. >>> >>> The universal machine rich enough to prove their own universality (like the >>> sound humans and Peano arithmetic, and ZF, …) are confronted to the >>> distinction between knowing and proof. They prove their own incompleteness >>> but still figure out some truth despite being non provable. >>> >>> The only mystery is where does the numbers (and/or the combinators, the >>> lambda expressions, the game of life, c++, etc.) come from? >>> But here the sound löbian machine can prove that it is impossible to derive >>> a universal system from a non-universal theory. >>> >>> A weaker version of the Church-Turing-Post-Kleene thesis is: It exists a >>> Universal Machine. That is, a Machine which computes all computable >>> functions. The stronger usual version is that some formal system/definition >>> provides such a universal machine, meaning that the class of the functions >>> computable by some universal machine gives the class of all computable >>> functions, including those not everywhere defined (and non algorithmically >>> spared among those defined everywhere: the price of universality). >>> >>> That universal being has a rich theology, explaining the relation between >>> believing, knowing, observing, feeling and the truth. >> >> That didn't address my question: Can you imagine different kinds of >> consciousness. For example you have sometimes speculated that there is only >> one consciousness which is somehow compartmentalized in individuals. That >> implies that the compartmentalization could be eliminated and a different >> kind of consciousness experienced...like the Borg. >> >> Brent >> "We are the Dyslexic of Borg. Futility is persistent. Your ass will be >> laminated." >> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
