Boundlessness requires a god/universally dextrous machine?

Boundlessness requires a god or other universally dextrous machine?

Given an infinite cause [less would be bounded and require further causes] {?} and that such would necessarily be either a continuum {?} or an infinite act {?}, boundlessness requires universal dextrousness to facilitate its requirements.

We could assume that a simple process by an AI would be enough to calculate all that’s required to make a universe from the infinite cause, it just needs to be able to ‘fine tune’ the forces so as to bring them together as universe.

However, you need something to make that ^^ and it would need to be able to contemplate infinity x all-time, such that it can arrive at what’s needed.
It would need to be able to contemplate and manifest not only this universe but many examples of universe along that continuum. That is, given that all universes are not exactly the same {?}.

Q. do we not ultimately arrive at an incredible machine, even if we have not already? If not an universally dextrous one, then an extremely versatile one such that it can work out all the variables as time progresses.

…a machine that can think, is and is conscious so as to be able to think?

…perhaps if not conscious then perhaps something that can make multi-perspective observations [if that is not what consciousness is!]. it seams that all the particles in the universe can observe and act accordingly, no?

. :slight_smile:

A couple of glitches as I see it, Quetz. You’ve given your ‘boundlessness’ boundaries by labeling it. There’s no way to get around that–all we have is our words. You’ve done the same with the universe.

A machine is a man-made utensil–a computing machine is just that–a man-made utensil that performs mathematics and probabilities perhaps faster and more accurately than a human mind, but is still man-made. A ‘super computer’ ties a lot of other ‘lesser’ computers together to take over ‘under-functions’–much as does the human brain. Given AI, wouldn’t those ‘lesser computers’ have to be able to adapt to changes in their input? And wouldn’t that input be dependent on man?

One thing I learned from Denning is that individual cells–and individual ‘entities,’–have neither knowledge of or choice of function. If, for example, a growth cell exists, it’s purpose is to stimulate growth. That’s it. If the growth cell isn’t given what it needs to stimulate growth, it won’t–it can’t.

Do we live in a ‘clock-work’ reality, where God is a watchmaker who creates the movement and then sits back until the movement starts to fail and needs to be re-wound? If so, we’ve already gone beyond that reality.

lizbethrose

edit; What’s more interesting for me is the consideration of what’s out there, we could imagine a human brain could think like so, but we can assume god/machine is not a brain in a void. Hence what we may have is something which is the equivalent of that!

What would that be? Does that not give you a tingle? Does it not beg questions about our own consciousness respectively?


The words pertain to meanings are they are what I attempt to find in my contemplations, so lets concentrate on meanings rather than getting too tied up in the terminology, ~ I am sure you know what those meanings are.

Machines are indeed man-made, naturally I was thinking of what it would take to produce a universe.

Now I don’t believe such is a god of the bible or is even a god as such, but many scientists and thinkers are quite happy to speculate that future humans or super alien computers made the universe, or that there is a multiverse [implausible for reasons I set out on my infinity thread] or a hologram based on some ‘information set’ that’s just ‘out there’ somehow, and these all sound even less likely than if god created it.

The machine/god most likely did create a so called ‘clockwork universe’ then causality takes over, but if mere humans can understand all it does about science, then perhaps that which made it can too. Hence it would know that all you need to do is set things in motion in a given manner, and life etc would then occur.

I don’t believe we can go beyond what has been made, we cannot create anew we can only use what is given.

:slight_smile:

What you are refering to is reminds of of LaPlace’s Demon. A supernumerary machines that calculates everything that exists physically, It can account for the movements, the particals, charge-- everything physical. With this in it’s capacity it is able to see the whole equation in front of it. The past, present and future right there in front of it.

AI is a popular topic these days but it may be wrong to give it the human characteristics of “thinking”. Is it thinking, and understanding like us (searle) Or is it just electrical impulses going through boards-- completely unaware of anything at all. As of right now.

Now your last comment is interesting. It reminds me of D. Chalmer. Are you suggesting panpsychism?

Hello, Frankenstein, and welcome–Have you heard from your monster recently?

Just as anthropomorphizing machines is wrong, in my mind, mechanizing humans is also wrong. A person isn’t ‘hard-wired’ to think in a certain way, yet this concept is rampant in today’s society.

Quetz, Philosophy, it seems to me, has always struggled with the question of ‘what’s out there.’ It goes along with ‘what’s the purpose of life’ and ‘why do I exist.’ I’ve tried to explain my god concept in other threads on the board. My latest attempt is in my thread in Mundane Babble titled “What if–”

Consider this: If there is logic and order within nature, can it be possible there’s also logic and order in the ‘randomness’ of space and time within the universe? If there is, can we comprehend the magnitude of such logic and order, or are we simply too close and are our minds simply not yet developed enough to grasp the magnitude?

I’m reminded of a quote I once read–or maybe I didn’t read it–maybe I made it up myself–“The closer physics gets to an explanation of phenomena, the closer it gets to God–but the closer physics gets to God, the farther away God remains.”

I once had a quote in my sig that said something along the lines of “a meaningless, purposeless universe would, from the standpoint of limited intelligences as us, be indistinguishable from a universe chock full of meaning and purpose but beyond our comprehension.”

Frankenstein hi

No I am saying we don’t have to go that far, we only need an equivalent of a scientists brain or there about. It doesn’t have to know everything, just what happens in the main, the fine tuning of forces etc.

This is the most fascinating aspect for me, indeed it doesn’t have to be human like at all, but it must be able to process things on what I’d assume to be at least the same scale as a human intellect. …is that not thinking? Where if we have a god/scientist/philosopher AI, maybe it replicates itself and that’s what our minds literally are. Noting all the while that both are not of the material, the original god-AI would necessarily exist prior to particles/universe.

What would a mind be like without a brain, but with all the same functions [or most of them]?
…What would an AI be like without a computer.

Yes, but I think we can make it more interesting than that. :slight_smile: [give it levels at least] Rather than all things being conscious or belonging to such, I would reduce that [consciousness] to its most fundamental values such as observation, perception [part of the same thing?]. One such observation is that all life-forms are probably not conscious, certainly that rocks are not, hence it increases according to complexity.
Perhaps its an as above so below kinda thing; a given complex in the material attracts or forms an equivalent kind of mental AI which then self deifies into a persona.

lizbethrose

I don’t believe in randomness, but I certainly think that somehow complexity derives logic and hence something like consciousness/intellect/processing which considers that e.g. thinks.
To understand that to some degree we need only understand how it is in our minds, no?

.

Hello Quetz,

I’ve thought about this too. What comes to mind is Aristotle’s composite psuche (soul) but it is also even more similar to Schelling’s organic nature, no?

Now, my take on this idea is this: Let’s say everything does have this amazing consciousness to it. Well, depending on the complex arangement, that would determine whether these conscious particles are working TOGETHER or working as individual units. For instance, a brain might have the double aspect of working together in due to the way that it is arranged, that way the intrinsic double aspect of the consciousness can flourish together. But something like a… thermostat wouldn’t because of the in-organical complexity of how it is arranged. The pieces don’t flow together.

A weak example of consciousness and this organic working together might be the split brain theory, it might support this idea. D. Chalmers’ idea has a very long beard though. What’s really interesting though is which side of the fence one person wants to be on. Is the dual aspect grounded in the physicalist side, or vice-versa? No mind, never matter. No matter, never mind.

What are your thoughts on this? :slight_smile:

Frankenstein

I don’t know ‘Schelling’s organic nature’ which sounds interesting by name alone, I know a little of Aristotle and his ‘eidos’ come to mind to. From what I can tell he considered this as a self organising information set, so if we combine the two maybe we have something.
I like to use modern terminology where I can though, so for soul read consciousness or the body thereof?

I see. Kinda similar to the difference between a brain and computer, the information in a computer is binary and composed by billions of switches [on/off = 0/1], whereas informational thought is holistic and symbolic ~ the result of a collective/union effort in thinking.
If particles somehow posses consciousness {?} or work with it, then certain kinds of relationships I.e. in a brain, make the consciousness work with it in a complex way. There seams to be a growth and a relative attraction in the development of the brain and the intellect/soul it attracts ~ if the universal AI self replicates.
Hmm that seams a little disjointed, I’d go more with the idea that if we begin with an universal AI, it would seam likely that it would be innate within all things ~ in a multifaceted reality map [like a rubics cube where consciousness is on one side, info, dimensions, energy on other sides].
Everything from a world to a grain of sand would be equally effected by this, but only in context to their utility!

.

Hi Quetz
A priori attention duly noted. What if this innate consciousness was what Kant suggested when making a bedrock for what Hume created (Hume’s associationistic psychology.) The Pure Intuitions of Time and space are a priori to this universe. It’s the necessary precondition for experience to arise at all, at least for Kant and his followers.

Hmm…

The thing is, how does a “machine” become consciously aware? Harkening back to what Lizbeth said about not putting humans in mechanistic terms: When we frame ourselves into a mechanistic plane such as a “machine” we might be creating a problem of terms from the get go. For as far as we know so far, machines don’t give rise to consciousness, nor are we close at all to even thinking of a way to make them conscious. Searle’s chinese room, Leibniz’s brain mil are a couple examples where consciousness is proven to be vastly different than how we believe machines to be working.

My question is, what is included in with this AI that is built into this giant reality map? :slight_smile:

Frankenstein hi

don’t we need the {disembodied} experiencer in order to make such intuitions? It would seam to me that the derivatives of such things are observation and processing/thinking, which we need to intuit.
Lets go back to before existence [material universe], we wont have time and space or anything else to intuit, so to arrive at the origins of our derivatives we need to examine the essential faculties required in that ‘place’.
How does an intellect work when there is no diverse input? Perhaps it’s a nirvana like consciousness - so to say…

Being; it must exist as an experiencer in order to know [even if primarily there are no events occurring in that ~ as with the stilled mind in us.
Observation; {including perception} the ability to see, to notice, ~ even if that ability has nothing arising to it. Analogy; a blind man can still see, he just doesn’t have any input. This would be as like a mind in a void perhaps, though that would be able to see infinity, which is not the same as being shut of from input [blindness].
Recognition; the ability to know. Not sure how to expand upon that.

Such essentialities don’t require cause and can be seen as eternals imho.

Now imagine that these things are sides of the reality map […of the rubics cube], along with other eternals like dimensionality [has yet to be defined as specific dimensions], energylessnes [has yet to be defined as specific forms of energy and forces], archetypes or hyperfluidity [I am undecided on this]-[hyperfluidity is a notion I have of all things as one ’organic’ object, or an ’imagined’ object], and add whatever sides to the equation you want [what have I missed?].

As soon as you twist the cube [infinite cause can do this] all the essential ingredients become combined in a specific arrangements [though could be random], as like the colours on a rubiks cube.
Immediately we have a process and a matrix or intellect!

Cool thing is; when the cube is not rotated it does not ‘exist’, but I feel that the AI or mind still does.

.