The reality of mind in the future.

Hello pilgrim-seeker_tom,

:smiley:

Thank you so much for responding.

  1. I am so sorry if what I write comes across that way as that is most certainly not my intention. 2) Oh yes my apologies yet again - that is exactly what I mean mind as consciousness. 3) I am actually more than happy to discuss spirituality as it relates to guardian of consciousness. 4) I hope the day never comes when AI transcend humans in any way - I would like to see the human race take part in the responsibility that will become AI.

Again thanks for your response and I hope I have answered your questions acceptably however if I have not please let me know so that I can clear things up that I have no doubt are my fault.

:smiley:

AI would have to transcend humans in some way otherwise developing it would be superfluous. And at some point in the future it may become entirely
independent of humans so it will then be responsible for itself. Being machine intelligence might mean it can only process information logically so the
concept of responsibility may be hard to understand from its perspective

For anyone else who is curious . . .

I am a spiritual person.

I am a deeply spiritual person.

I make no attempt to exclude enlightenment from my experience.

It is my belief that our consciousness comes back again and again forever.

I believe that the moral actions we take in life affect the outcome of our next life.

I believe in higher planes and multiple dimensions.

I believe that in some form or other everything at the very least contains the seed of truth and the opposing seed of untruth.

My token is the Taijitu also known as the Yin Yang - this is the only token that I have affinity with.

My meditation sessions include silencing the material world and entering the void. Other sessions include reaching out to nature and connecting with my spiritual element of wind. In my corporeal existence I have the element of fire.

My number is 7 - nothing is at it seems.

Why do I not talk about my spirituality? I really do not know - this is something that has been with me for thirty years.

I do not think that there is another existence beyond this one I think that death is eternal. I do not think it wise to interpret reality to fit in with my
philosophy but to accept reality for what it is and for that to be the basis of my philosophy instead. I do not believe in karma but I do accept though
the concept of personal responsibility for this is how I grow and develop as a human being. Acknowledging my mistakes and then learning from them

Surreptitious … the size of the community supporting the view you expressed is likely already very large and growing logarithmically by the hour.

It’s not much of a stretch of human imagination to deduce from the fact AI won the chess match against the world’s top chess player … that AI is currently employed by advisers to world leaders … at least some … in the development and recommendation of strategic and tactical initiatives designed to harness and control the “blob” … ergo: humanity

An educated “blob” is much more difficult to harness and control … especially with the disintegrating influence of spirituality.

AI can likely already handle philosophy … after the ground rules are set … including morality and ethics.

What about spirituality? … the notion … though yet undefined … of spirit.

Good luck!! … countless people have tapped into the “energy” … for lack of a better term … of spirit … shamans for example.

A cursory glance at how AI may “manage” spirit … hypothetical of course:

Potential candidates:

Chemical
a) compulsory vaccinations
b) food chain … via GMO technology
c) water supply … all urban areas require water treatment … ergo: chemicals in our drinking water
d) health world … chemical concoctions that fill the shelves of drug stores … the non-prescription category … vitamins … additives in foods.
e) self help programs that soften the negative impact of today’s lifestyle choices.

Electrical … as in neurons firing
a) radiation emissions from cell phones … placed in close proximity to the brain ergo: stuck in your ear
b) radiation emissions from personal computers and televisions
c) radiation emissions from any device using current digital technology(s) … cars, fridges and so on

Other
a) the implant conspiracy theory
b) insert here
c) insert here

I read somewhere of a physicist who contemplates the idea of consciousness taking a non material form as in light. Consciousness harnessed by light brings up interesting thoughts regarding the particle-wave duality.

But I diverge . . .

I was reading an interesting article on Wikipedia called “Shadows of the Mind” which is about a book of the same name by Roger Penrose; according to Wikipedia Roger is a mathematical physicist and the book was published in 1994.

I still think that Penrose’s hypothesis holds some merit especially when you consider microtubules within neurons support quantum superpositions. Despite what I am saying in the previous sentence I did find an interesting video on YouTube with yet another perspective on the matter.

Watch video . . .

This video in the beginning goes on to say that our beliefs have a profound impact on our body chemistry. The video has many other interesting points that it make on neuroscience and quantum mechanics. The video is designed to be watchable by nearly anyone.

I propose that when settling on the question of the mind-body problem that we all proceed with caution and that we leave no stone unturned before forming a belief about what the mind actually is.

:-k

If the video is important enough to be heard by humans, it should be spoken by humans. I can’t take an AI endeavor seriously. Sorry.

I understand.

If artificial intelligence does become “smarter” than us then perhaps one of the tasks in the future for our own minds will be to make sure that AI do not destroy us. This sentiment I hear a lot and I have read an article that talks about an institute to prevent our eradication by AI.

Maybe the reality of mind in the future is as a driver(controller) to our thinking machines(intelligent devices). Where the human mind fits into the equation of a future with non-biological intelligence should be the kind of thought that the non-ignorant include in their array of thoughts involving the near and distance future. To not pay attention to our changing existence is to possibly set oneself up for failure and the fallout of depression, indifference and no sense of belonging.

We can already see the effects on the human mind of our current technologies - but can we see benefits through the seeming dark side of the human condition? People do not like change in an existence that relies on constant differences between the current state and previous states to even be defined as life - this is no longer making any sense to me; sometimes I feel rather alone with these thoughts.

Artificial Intelligence completely aside - what about the effects that other sciences have on us even if there are only partial truths involved? As all types of science moves forward as well as philosophy of different kinds rises into being there is a side effect to the mind of the individual and the collective that is not always apparent except in hindsight. It seems that it is this hindsight that many people get upset over.

Lastly for this post I want to mention the individual and her/his drive to maintain separation from each other despite the obvious similarities involved. Is it really that important for an individual to strive for something that he/she is born with? There is a duality of likeness and individual trait that we are all born with yet we often pretend to not be anything like each other(not speaking for the whole world here).

My own pondering of the reality of mind in the future for today . . .

:-k

Like everything else, without simplification - will fail to support distinctions , in this case between artificial and authentic. There wll be no use for such a tool-kit, at any rate.

Or maybe someone may think of one, however, it may be exploitative/explorative.

Visual aesthetics wil be overcome by auditory harmonics, it will be virtually impossible to recreate the formal elements underlying, the decayed subsisting models.

And if computers are governed by logic how could they play a game, play a game and like it so much that it never wants the game to end–like we never want life to end? Could it even understand and define what a game is? Usually its like art, we know it when we see it.

David Chalmers see there is a problem with the qualitative aspect of mind that seems rather difficult to compute like the intentional side seems to be. However, that is highly debatable and I have my own concerns with it. However, the qualitative aspect of mind, feelings, sensations, perceptions seem different from tables, chairs, and automobiles. They are intrinsic, subjective aspects to consciousness, which with science can only hint at extrinsic objectivity. Penrose wants to add a new science to science to account for this. I’m interested where this will go since this explanatory gap has a very long beard.

IT need not understand it merely has to function. There may not be a need to qualify this apart from this intrinsic function, to go on forever, (however that concept is defined), it merely has to be able to self replicate, when the so called human limits to understanding are exceeded-transcended

How then should we deal with AI if it becomes smarter than us?

jerkey you make interesting points . . .

Maybe . . .

Why?

I am interested to know anyone else’s thought here too.

I read an interesting article written in 2014 just recently . . . from it I make a quote . . .

Joe seems to make some interesting points that I myself make at times.

More good points jerkey . . .

Interesting and quite true. Self replication is a potential danger that should be addressed given that an extension to replication is evolution.

I can appreciate what you are saying Stephen C Pedersen . . .

:-k

. . . plus it makes me think . . .

I am interested to know a few of your concerns that you mention Stephen.

:smiley: