Theos-Talk Archives (November 2005 Message tt00065)

Mark,

I agree, as you pointed out, that the human mind which includes the storage 
of information, both locally for short term memory, and non locally for long 
term memory, is integrally tied to and effected by the individual and collective 
cells of the brain-body.   

This, of course implies that its limits are determined by the cell's internal 
and surrounding field interrelationships that determine the specific 
biochemistry and physiology of the brain's neurons as well as their synapses. All of 
which "wetware" are modifiable through usage, due to their "living" organic 
structures... That are, essentially, inductively and resonantly interconnected, 
self energized electrical fields in at least seven fold dimensions of 
fundamental space... Each at a different order, spectrum or phase of frequency-energy 
extending from near zero in physical or metric space (e.g., gravity) to near 
infinite at the zero-point (e.g., singularity).   

The rule being that every thing in the universe is actually an integral part 
of one thing. And while consciousness is inherent at every zero-point in the 
universe, only organic beings that contain *life* and *sentience* can 
experience consciousness (awareness, qualia) and respond to that experience(will, 
intent).

Except for the fields physically tied up in the quantum particles, these 
hyperspace fields of mind enfolded within the Planck space between the particles 
and atoms, are capable of being modulated by frequency encoded interference 
patterns of holographic image information, which can be detected (as explained in 
my comments below) by the non local zero-point of consciousness... That 
point, due to its inherent nature of "awareness" and "will," afferently experiences 
the stored mental images, and efferently determines and controls the active 
forces of response between the zero-point's surrounding spinergy and the 
individual neural cells linked electrochemically to the body cells and organs. Thus, 
a sudden pain at the end of a finger causes the immediate contraction of the 
appropriate muscles drawing the finger away from the source of pain.

However, in a similar neural network based computer hardware system composed 
of silicon synapses, there can never be a connection of those "dryware" 
components with the living hyperspace mental and other multidimensional nonphysical 
fields necessary to link them with the zero-points of universal or individual 
consciousness. These aspects of consciousness can only be modeled or 
emulated analogously. Therefore, no matter how complex in structure or 
programming, such an artificially intelligent computer system could never attain the 
ability to modify the electrochemical field characteristics of its individual or 
collective components to achieve an individual efferent-afferent awareness and 
will identical to that experienced by a human being or any other sentient 
biological being. 

In other words, its evident from the above comparison that no non-biological 
computer hardware system, no matter how complex, could ever attain human 
consciousness. It follows that consciousness per se, can never be considered an 
epiphenomena of either the brain or any computer system. It also follows that 
the brain is not a computer -- since it's only function is to act as an 
efferent-afferent transducer-controller between the sensory, mechanism and the 
point of individual cell or self aware consciousness, as well as between that 
point and the individual cells of the body organs and musculature systems. Being 
organic itself, the brain can also modify its own cellular components 
according to usage and need. Consequently, no hardware system, supposedlyemulating 
a brain, could ever attain that degree of "affinity" between any of its 
components.

Best wishes,

L Maurer


In a message dated 11/12/05 9:53:38 PM, waking.adept@gmail.com writes:


> 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 
> 
> > circumference -- 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 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 
> 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 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 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 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 
> > > > to each other.
> > > > Consciousness is not a thing which can be found, consciousness is an 
> emergent
> > > > property not unlike the meaning found in these marks before you."
> > > >
> > > > DAVID BOHM
> > > > ____________________________________
> > > >
> > >    (snip)
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> --
> Mark Hamilton Jr.
> waking.adept@gmail.com
> 
> 



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