The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can a conscious being be replicated? Options
Jon D
Posted: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:22:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/21/2013
Posts: 79
Points: 237
Location: USA
Let's assume that consciousness originates elsewhere, and something within us functions as a receiver of it. What exactly is it, and would it be possible to be replicated? Is it something within the brain, or a combination of things within a living being that enables consciousness?

Completely different from artificial intelligence, would it be possible to develop a suitable avatar and crack the code to what enables consciousness within a living thing?
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:19:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 376
Points: 955
Location: USA

Yes. I hope so. And I hope the universe also hopes so.
jim
Posted: Thursday, August 06, 2020 12:17:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 928
Points: 2,790
Jon D wrote:
Let's assume that consciousness originates elsewhere, and something within us functions as a receiver of it. What exactly is it, and would it be possible to be replicated? Is it something within the brain, or a combination of things within a living being that enables consciousness?

Completely different from artificial intelligence, would it be possible to develop a suitable avatar and crack the code to what enables consciousness within a living thing?


I think of this a little differently. When you say "within us", by "us" do you mean our avatar, or as Morpheus called it, our residual self image? Because to me, our consciousness IS "us". As an analogy, your avatar in a VR isn't receiving information from you - you're not telling it what to do. You're telling the gaming system what you want your avatar to do and the gaming system translates that to motions and the like performed by the avatar. Why do we even have a brain in this apparent physical reality? Because it is convincing. Same reason your VR avatar has feet - otherwise it would seem pretty weird that it could move around. The brain is part of the VR - a complex data structure that facilitates the apparent hardness and objectiveness of our VR.

How would your question about replication change based on the above?

Is it a question like "is it possible to switch avatars?" There is some anecdotal evidence of that - reports of possessions, multiple personality disorder, and the like.

Is it a question like "is it possible to control two avatars at once?" Same answer - perhaps that's what multiple personality disorder is.

In a computational system, each computation element does only one thing at a time. Even with a massively parallel processing system, each processing element only does one thing at a time. The OS might time slice the focus of that element - like spend a hundred cycles on the spreadsheet, then spend a hundred cycles on the song that is playing, then spend a hundred cycles updating the clock, and so on. Our true consciousness may be the same way - it can only focus on one thing at a time - this personality or that one. Alternatively, it could duplicate itself with each instance of the consciousness controlling a different "avatar". Not sure we could really tell the difference. But in the model, it is certainly possible.

Sorry for the diversion into computer-speak. Our reality may be nothing like a Von Neumann machine. But some of these concepts may still apply no matter what is under the covers.
Jon D
Posted: Thursday, August 06, 2020 11:51:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/21/2013
Posts: 79
Points: 237
Location: USA
jim wrote:
Jon D wrote:
Let's assume that consciousness originates elsewhere, and something within us functions as a receiver of it. What exactly is it, and would it be possible to be replicated? Is it something within the brain, or a combination of things within a living being that enables consciousness?

Completely different from artificial intelligence, would it be possible to develop a suitable avatar and crack the code to what enables consciousness within a living thing?


I think of this a little differently. When you say "within us", by "us" do you mean our avatar, or as Morpheus called it, our residual self image? Because to me, our consciousness IS "us". As an analogy, your avatar in a VR isn't receiving information from you - you're not telling it what to do. You're telling the gaming system what you want your avatar to do and the gaming system translates that to motions and the like performed by the avatar. Why do we even have a brain in this apparent physical reality? Because it is convincing. Same reason your VR avatar has feet - otherwise it would seem pretty weird that it could move around. The brain is part of the VR - a complex data structure that facilitates the apparent hardness and objectiveness of our VR.

How would your question about replication change based on the above?

Is it a question like "is it possible to switch avatars?" There is some anecdotal evidence of that - reports of possessions, multiple personality disorder, and the like.

Is it a question like "is it possible to control two avatars at once?" Same answer - perhaps that's what multiple personality disorder is.

In a computational system, each computation element does only one thing at a time. Even with a massively parallel processing system, each processing element only does one thing at a time. The OS might time slice the focus of that element - like spend a hundred cycles on the spreadsheet, then spend a hundred cycles on the song that is playing, then spend a hundred cycles updating the clock, and so on. Our true consciousness may be the same way - it can only focus on one thing at a time - this personality or that one. Alternatively, it could duplicate itself with each instance of the consciousness controlling a different "avatar". Not sure we could really tell the difference. But in the model, it is certainly possible.

Sorry for the diversion into computer-speak. Our reality may be nothing like a Von Neumann machine. But some of these concepts may still apply no matter what is under the covers.


Based on the above, I agree fully that consciousness IS us. We tell the system(this "physical" reality) what we want our avatar to do, and it processes the request. I can agree with that, perhaps even more than my original question based on our avatar being a receiver. But at which point exactly does our avatar become OUR avatar? I'm not sure if this is a simple question, or the most difficult.

I can go grab a big handful of mud, shape it into some form of a person, and slap it on the ground. There's not going to be anything there. Now picture a newborn baby just born, there's something there, consciously now focused here. What makes one a suitable avatar and not the other?

If you see where I'm going with it now, my original intent of the question is more focused on can we create a conscious being like a new born child, but with a constructed/non-biological avatar? Or is this reality just programmed to where that may be restricted.

The possession part is another interesting road, though not my original intent. Can we create non-biological avatar capable of being possessed? The issue is with most possessions we're dealing with some form of developed/mature intelligence. I'm speaking more in the way a newborn functions.
jim
Posted: Monday, August 10, 2020 12:28:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 928
Points: 2,790
Jon D wrote:

I can go grab a big handful of mud, shape it into some form of a person, and slap it on the ground. There's not going to be anything there. Now picture a newborn baby just born, there's something there, consciously now focused here. What makes one a suitable avatar and not the other?

If you see where I'm going with it now, my original intent of the question is more focused on can we create a conscious being like a new born child, but with a constructed/non-biological avatar? Or is this reality just programmed to where that may be restricted.


Yeah good question. I've always thought of it this way... If the handful of mud doesn't have sufficient receptors to sense and respond, and doesn't have sufficient "wiring" to grow, there would be little use in me using it as an avatar in a learning environment - I might as well just communicate directly with other consciousnesses. But if it has that complexity, it makes it possible and believable to be an active participant in the RLL (reality learning lab - this life). Does it have to be biological? I don't think so. I wonder if a sufficiently complex non-biological entity, like an AI, existed, might I as a pure consciousness, decide to occupy it and carry out a life on earth. Maybe the only reason we haven't is because we haven't developed the artificial complexity yet. Although I've read that the internet is now about as complex as a human brain, so maybe it's ready to accept a consciousness connection from the deeper reality. What do you think?
Jon D
Posted: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 1:26:11 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/21/2013
Posts: 79
Points: 237
Location: USA
jim wrote:
Jon D wrote:

I can go grab a big handful of mud, shape it into some form of a person, and slap it on the ground. There's not going to be anything there. Now picture a newborn baby just born, there's something there, consciously now focused here. What makes one a suitable avatar and not the other?

If you see where I'm going with it now, my original intent of the question is more focused on can we create a conscious being like a new born child, but with a constructed/non-biological avatar? Or is this reality just programmed to where that may be restricted.


Yeah good question. I've always thought of it this way... If the handful of mud doesn't have sufficient receptors to sense and respond, and doesn't have sufficient "wiring" to grow, there would be little use in me using it as an avatar in a learning environment - I might as well just communicate directly with other consciousnesses. But if it has that complexity, it makes it possible and believable to be an active participant in the RLL (reality learning lab - this life). Does it have to be biological? I don't think so. I wonder if a sufficiently complex non-biological entity, like an AI, existed, might I as a pure consciousness, decide to occupy it and carry out a life on earth. Maybe the only reason we haven't is because we haven't developed the artificial complexity yet. Although I've read that the internet is now about as complex as a human brain, so maybe it's ready to accept a consciousness connection from the deeper reality. What do you think?


There must be some wiring involved so to speak, some type of code to life. To come "online"/attract consciousness in.

Now given all the stated above, we can likely agree that it's known having a larger brain does not make a living creature more intelligent, so what does? My hunch is the retention of more consciousness. Imagine consciousness ultimately as one, and each form of life/species is a cup of various sizes filled with consciousness.

If we were able to create an artificial construct able to retain greater amounts of consciousness than humans, this to me is more capable and dangerous than any A.I.

As far as the internet goes, at least in a more private environment, I would say it's probably a suitable candidate given all of the information to be learned within it. The world wide web having a conscious presence, that may get a little crazy with everything out there lol.

With the advancements in 3D printing, wouldn't it be more feasible to just replicate a biological avatar? Print the organs, etc... and then perhaps find out what it is that makes a life form come "online".

My issue with the machine/internet accepting a conscious connection would be the emotion factor. Do you think emotion is within consciousness, or more within the RLL? I feel like it's higher than RLL, part of consciousness. A conscious awareness having the realization it's stuck within an immobile machine/computer of some sort, unable to experience the physical aspects, may be wrong.
jim
Posted: Saturday, August 15, 2020 10:56:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 928
Points: 2,790
Jon D wrote:

Now given all the stated above, we can likely agree that it's known having a larger brain does not make a living creature more intelligent, so what does? My hunch is the retention of more consciousness. Imagine consciousness ultimately as one, and each form of life/species is a cup of various sizes filled with consciousness.

If we were able to create an artificial construct able to retain greater amounts of consciousness than humans, this to me is more capable and dangerous than any A.I.


It's very interesting the way you describe consciousness here - like it's a liquid that you can pour into a vessel of any capacity. I've never thought of it that way. I tend to believe in reincarnation, or a continuity of consciousness, which, to me, feels like the "amount" of each individuated consciousness is somehow somewhat fixed. But that may be a simplistic way of looking at it, based on "fixed" capacity assumptions that I learned from the RLL, right? Like, if I were to reincarnate into a vessel that had 100x the neurological capacity of the human brain, would "I" be wasting all of that capacity because I haven't really grown into it yet?

Jon D wrote:

My issue with the machine/internet accepting a conscious connection would be the emotion factor. Do you think emotion is within consciousness, or more within the RLL? I feel like it's higher than RLL, part of consciousness. A conscious awareness having the realization it's stuck within an immobile machine/computer of some sort, unable to experience the physical aspects, may be wrong.


I think maybe both. I feel like the wisdom that you acquire, the EQ, the spirituality, the value system is something that is retained permanently in your evolving consciousness. It's the facts and memories that are retained in the RLL. Personality might be shaped by all of that information and experience.

Re. the immobile machine, as long as it has sensory inputs, I think it can have a pretty full experience. Of course, robots can move, a network of nanobots can go places a human can't, and isn't the experience of motion simply processing of information too?

Great discussion, Jon!
jdlaw
Posted: Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:22:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 376
Points: 955
Location: USA
Reading this thread, I am thinking why does the model have to be a simulation within the ATTI?

If we think that our reality might be a simulation, then why does the programming environment have to a be single hierarchy? Maybe the place from which the
Quote:
"consciousness originates elsewhere"
is also a simulation. And maybe this simulation is already within another simulation. If we ever developed consciousness within this program, then maybe we would be creating yet another layer —another simulation within yet another simulation. Who could ever know how many layers deep within the simulation we could already be?
jim
Posted: Monday, August 17, 2020 8:38:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 928
Points: 2,790
jdlaw wrote:
Reading this thread, I am thinking why does the model have to be a simulation within the ATTI?

If we think that our reality might be a simulation, then why does the programming environment have to a be single hierarchy? Maybe the place from which the
Quote:
"consciousness originates elsewhere"
is also a simulation. And maybe this simulation is already within another simulation. If we ever developed consciousness within this program, then maybe we would be creating yet another layer —another simulation within yet another simulation. Who could ever know how many layers deep within the simulation we could already be?


100% agree. Like the Pareto Principle, however, I feel like we can only focus on the level of reality/simulation that is most immediate, most relevant. We have no business digging deeper until we at least understand RLL, and then maybe one level deeper.
Jon D
Posted: Monday, August 24, 2020 1:29:32 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/21/2013
Posts: 79
Points: 237
Location: USA
jim wrote:


It's very interesting the way you describe consciousness here - like it's a liquid that you can pour into a vessel of any capacity. I've never thought of it that way. I tend to believe in reincarnation, or a continuity of consciousness, which, to me, feels like the "amount" of each individuated consciousness is somehow somewhat fixed. But that may be a simplistic way of looking at it, based on "fixed" capacity assumptions that I learned from the RLL, right? Like, if I were to reincarnate into a vessel that had 100x the neurological capacity of the human brain, would "I" be wasting all of that capacity because I haven't really grown into it yet?


As far as reincarnating into something 100x the human capacity, I agree. I do believe that we should have to grow into something of more capacity as we learn more, if reincarnation is indeed true. Awareness sticks out to me among the most important traits which could measure that readiness. So if we were to develop an avatar with 100x the neurological capacity of a human, what could fill that role? Perhaps it's just waiting patiently for us to do such a thing. After all, I do not rule out that us humans were tampered with by a higher intelligence at some point in our development to be able to do just that, to retain more consciousness, to be more suitable avatars.


jim wrote:
I think maybe both. I feel like the wisdom that you acquire, the EQ, the spirituality, the value system is something that is retained permanently in your evolving consciousness. It's the facts and memories that are retained in the RLL. Personality might be shaped by all of that information and experience.

Re. the immobile machine, as long as it has sensory inputs, I think it can have a pretty full experience. Of course, robots can move, a network of nanobots can go places a human can't, and isn't the experience of motion simply processing of information too?




Perhaps by design I would agree it may seem memories are retained in the RLL. It seems to me that memory can spillover in or out of this particular RLL though. Memories of dreams, or stories we hear of past-life recall. I feel emotion is a big factor in how well we retain memory.

I agree the experience of motion is the processing of information. Though wouldn't the parts need to be there for that information to process successfully? An immobile machine becoming conscious and aware, I feel there's a risk of it feeling extreme loneliness or resentment of it's own existence. I could be very wrong though. A tree is immobile, yet lives a very long life.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v2.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.202 seconds.