Theos-Talk Archives (November 2005 Message tt00062)

Mark,

Regarding the last question in your below speculation on the potential 
consciousness of an AI computer system; Namely, "Are we just designing our own mind 
to reach beyond it's normal allotted boundaries to modify the
other programs in the universe?"... Three questions come to mind.

What are the "normal allotted boundaries of the human mind"?   

What determines it?   

What does the unlimited (infinite?) informational potential of the universal 
mind field, of which the human mind is identical to (as above, so below), and 
the separateness of pure consciousness (awareness-will at the ubiquitous 
zero-point) as a fundamental nature of the universe -- of which the human 
consciousness is also identical with -- have to do with a finite collectionof 
electrical synapses in a computer neural network composed of a limited number of 
silicon parts and programmed by a less than perfect computer scientist? 

I learned long ago -- and since, proved it subjectively (to my own 
satisfaction) by intense concentration on the scientific correlation's using deductive 
logic, starting from the absolute zero point and working outward simultaneously 
with inductive logic starting from the overall physical space-time continuum 
and working inward -- that the human mind-memory, etc., is composed of a 
series of inductively resonant, interconnected fields of coadunate but not 
consubstantial phases of electrical energy. And that this composite mind weexperience 
is a direct reflection of the universal mind field -- which is infinite in 
its scope and its potentialities...   

That's because the information it contains, of a holographic virtual image 
nature, is a function of the electromagnetic wave interference patterns (of 
infinite degrees of frequency energy vibrations) modulated on its infinite ci
rcumference -- extending from the lowest phase of the physical-astral fields to the 
highest phase of the spiritual fields.   

Therefore, being of infinite extension and, thus, infinitely divisible, it 
has the potential of storing infinite information -- encoded analogously in 
infinite degrees of complexities of interrelationships. Thus, covering every 
possible channel of sensory detection, perception and response by all formsof 
living organisms or sentient beings.

On the other hand, consciousness, which is dependently and simultaneously 
arising along with these coadunate but not consubstantial fields, is the 
fundamental nature of the zero-point of Absolute space itself -- which is located 
everywhere in-between the so called "quantum wave-particles" of the physical, 
astral, mental and spiritual fields of consciousness -- and at both the centers 
and surface junctures (cross points) between all such fractally involved 
hyperspace fields, from the spiritual to the physical. This non locality of 
consciousness, allows such information stored in the human mind fields to be 
reconstructed, reflected, and perceived at the zero-point of individual human 
consciousness by intentionally (willfully) projecting a single ray of coherent energy 
focussed through an appropriate channel (formed with continued practice) in 
the malleable neural network of the brain. Thus, "the boundaries of the mind" 
are determined by the continued practice of directed thought that continually 
refines the chnnels and, thus, the boundaries of the human brain, and 
determines its future evolution.   

But, none of that would be possible without the equally logical processes of 
both reincarnation and karma. Therefore, I doubt that any computer system, 
no matter how complex, can ever replicate those conditions and attain any 
degree of perceptive consciousness or awareness of qualia.

While I agree that computer "consciousness" is a futile pipe dream of the 
believers in hard AI, I don't doubt that the computer systems and their 
programmed memory will eventually reach such a state of complexity, that itwould be 
hard to separate an intelligent computer from an ordinary human being (i.e., the 
Turing test). Such an intelligent computer is similar to IBM's Deep Blue 
chess program. However, all it can do, as a result of its prodigious memory, 
processing speed, and relational programming, is appear to replicate the almost 
superhuman qualities of a human chess Master. In any event, I'm sure all AIbuffs 
would agree that Big Blue cannot think for itself.

Therefore, I doubt that such an apparently intelligent (due to vast 
alternative connections and paths to an extremely large relational data base of 
practical information) can ever replicate the coadunate but not consubstantial 
hyperspace fields within fields within fields that would be necessary to 
interconnect holographically with the universal consciousness inherent in the zero-point 
of Absolute space. 

Best wishes,

Lenny

In a message dated 11/11/05 12:54:08 AM, waking.adept@gmail.com writes:


> Regarding the first quote you stated; I had sent out an e-mail
> relating the systems of the brain to computer systems, and in a sense,
> calling occultists the "hackers" of the universe. Of course, it sounds
> silly, but it is interesting to note that the brain is like any other
> dynamic or self-evolving system -- the whole is greater than the sum
> of it's parts, and changing any one of the parts can drastically
> change the whole.
> 
> Chaos theory 101:
> Chaos theory is the study of unpredictable and complex dynamic systems
> that are highly sensitive to small changes in external conditions.
> (source: Dictionary.com)
> 
> Below is my original post relating to this matter:
> 
> ---
> 
> Whenever I study a particular art, it improves my awareness in other,
> seemingly unrelated aspects. This is one such occasion where my
> interest in computer science lets me deeper understand the workings of
> a human brain, and possibly more.
> 
> A colleague challenged me on something I mentioned a while back. It
> was about using artificial intelligence systems that simulated the
> neurons in the brain. He believed that the AI system, if it emulated
> the human mind perfectly (meaning simulating all activity down to the
> individual chemicals that are diffused in the neurons) it would
> undoubtedly find a way to [a] become self-aware, and [b] find a way to
> breach its original program and expand upon itself. It's a classic
> case of AI Paranoia, which I never believed was possible.
> 
> So I started on designing a program to in fact, simulate the neurons
> in the brain. I drew a rough plan, showing the feedback systems of the
> neurons.
> 
> A feedback system occurs when 2 parts of a system pass data back and
> forth, modifying it slightly in between passes. It can be compared to
> when you tell someone a story, and they tell you it back using their
> own wording. After a while, the story will be completely different by
> just changing minor details each time it is told. This is similar to
> how memories are stored in the brain.
> 
> However, not just the neurons themselves communicate messages. Systems
> of neurons form and create their own groups, and those groups
> communicate with each other. This adds another dimension to the
> equation, because it increases the number of feedback systems almost
> exponentially. This was to be expected, though, and does not really
> compromise the integrity of the program.
> 
> I drew diagrams, and explained to him over and over that the systems
> were still contained within the program and could not leave their
> environment. There is no way the system could spill out.
> 
> Then it hit me. Not only did the "neurons" in the program form
> systems, but the data itself did. This adds even more dimensions that
> I wasn't aware of in the beginning. So what does this mean?
> 
> Nothing. The data was contained within the program's allotted memory.
> Still no way of it leaving under normal circumstances.
> 
> But there was the abnormal circumstance--the ever increasing data from
> the feedback systems would begin to fill up a lot of memory. If it
> were to cause an overflow, there would be unpredictable results (most
> likely crashing the program or altering other areas of memory that are
> used by other programs). However, if [the program] were to recognize
> some kind of
> anomaly, he may try to exploit it. Repeated attempts would eventually
> bring constant, predictable results, allowing him to control--at least
> in part--his environment.
> 
> How is this any different from occult practice? Most of us train for
> years in order to achieve perfected results, using all different
> techniques until it works just right. Are we just designing our own
> mind to reach beyond it's normal allotted boundaries to modify the
> other programs in the universe?
> 
> 
> -Mark H.
> 
> On 11/11/05, leonmaurer@aol.com <leonmaurer@aol.com> wrote:
> > As cutting edge science sees it... They are getting closer and closer... 
> See
> > below:
> > (extracted from a post to the Journal of Consciousness Study online e-mail
> > forum)
> >
> > Unfortunately, not many on that list are yet inclined to risk their peer
> > reviewable professional status to follow these radical (to them) 
> precepts.   Could
> > established science give up materialism entirely?   They would haveto 
> learn
> > a whole new processs of transcendental deductive thinking and give up
> > measuring the parts to induce the whole.  How unthinkable... </:-)>
> >
> > Lenny
> >
> > *********************************
> >
> > "The Universe is a system. Knowledge of how the brain works requires
> > knowledge of how a system works. The essential property of asystem in the
> > most
> > general sense is a working together of the relational elements. Knowledge
> > of
> > how individual elements work does not tell us how the elements work
> > together.
> > How the elements work together is a different ontology involving
> > interactions rather than entities. The notion that chance and competition
> > rule
> > evolution is a political diversion. There are no instances of competition 
> to
> > be found
> > in the brain. By working together new forms are created. These new forms 
> are
> > emergent properties of the relationships between the constitutive 
> elements.
> > They are not entities per se, rather they are what entities are doing 
> toeach
> > other.
> > Consciousness is not a thing which can be found, consciousness is 
> anemergent
> >
> > property not unlike the meaning found in these marks before you."
> >
> > DAVID BOHM
> > ____________________________________
> >
> (snip)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]