Theos-Talk Archives (November 2005 Message tt00063)

Leon,

My statement was loosely based on a materialist viewpoint. As such,
the mind would have inherent limits since it is physically contained
within the human body. It is, in essence, an individual part of our
universe. But as you know each individual part can learn and grow from
neighboring cells as it interacts. It can also learn how to manipulate
neighboring cells by feeding it different input and finding the
required "X"-factor needed to yield the desired results.

The statement I made further combines the materialist viewpoint with
the spiritualist viewpoint by adding that even as an individual, the
mind has a profound effect on each and every external force (as I just
mentioned), and vise versa. This would make the mind not only an
individual, but an integral part of sister and parent cells.

As systems grow more and more complicated the effect of an individual
has an outwardly expanding influence in it's entirety just by
manipulating its environment in various ways. This even includes
dynamically changing parent cells by manipulating its sister-cells.

Basically, the point I was trying to make is that a computer program
that handles similarly designed neural systems may also run into a
situation where it would be able to manipulate its "universe" (not
ours, just the computer itself).

Finally, I compared this to the same process an occult practitioner
would have to go through grueling training and trial-and-error
processes in order to facilitate their ability to manipulate the
environment, as would a neural-net AI system. However, since we are
more complex beings our awareness and abilities are much more easy to
facilitate than that of a computer.

-Mark H.

On 11/12/05, leonmaurer@aol.com <leonmaurer@aol.com> wrote:
> 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 collection of
> 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 we experience
> 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 forms of
> 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 islocated
> 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 tobe
> 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 themind"
> 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 processesof
> 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 it would 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 AI buffs
> 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 inthe 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 have to
> > 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 inthe
> > > 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]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Mark Hamilton Jr.
waking.adept@gmail.com