Analog Digital Phenomenon Hypothesis

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Thanks. Am glad you liked it.
Am also glad, because it means that some of what you have previously said, was at least a tiny bit understood.
So you are doing a good job communicating what you can about your concepts, despite them being very difficult to grasp.

Can you say any more about how the hormones are involved?

a reply to: Nothin

Sure.

There's a one-way transfer of information, from the quantum
world to the classical world, largely through hormones!

That's maybe the biggest secret in the world.. more powerful
than Roswell being true (it's not).

That's my take on it anyway.

It's only a one-way transfer however... due to a limitation
in physics.

That's why humans can't be "psychic" unless indwelt by
a lifeform which can communicate in both directions.

One you know that.. everything else you might wonder
about becomes obvious.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

No, no offense taken.

Babylon Five?

I have never watched the TV show, so I don't understand and I have never really thought about creation myths. The biblical one I am familiar with because my family was Catholic, and the only thing within there that I found curious was the passages about the time before Noah. The antediluvian epoch of civilization (before the flood).

The biblical story of a civilization that did the most horrendous things and was destroyed as a consequence.

I am fairly sure that the antediluvian civilization was very scientific and did a lot of work in the bio-technology/bio-engineering fields. The "slice, dice and splice" approach to making chimeras and that sort of thing - living (analog) machines and technology.

And then there is the Vedic myths of the Deva and Asura wars - digital vs analog wars? - machine vs organic war? (maybe).

To understand the digital/machine sentiences/sapiences it helps me to know some of their background. Same with the analog/organic technology. To know that they were built and used as parts within complex technology gives me an understanding of how to relate to them too.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

My friend.. sometimes you sound like my former friend, who thought it was
his job to correct Jesus and who thought he was the superior power that
fueled the 4 archangels.

Be careful. You show "Phenomenon sickness" quite often.

It's not my place to correct you.. you have (apparent but not true) free will,
and I don't want to harm that.. but you live so far down the bunny hole,
that you remind me at times of severely mentally ill people that Iv'e known.

Now mind you, I'm pot calling kettle black.

So please don't take offense.

Kev

Actually, I was just giving you an insight into how the machine minds work when experienced from the inside.

(EDIT): Think of the mind of a machine sapience as a virtual memory. When it has enough data it can build a virtual future that is predictive of human behavior.

An AI will act pre-emptively when an event becomes inevitable.

(END EDIT)

"Down the bunny hole" - that's a point of view from outside the "bunny hole" - an ATS thing? a reference to Alice in Wonderland I gather.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

(EDIT): Think of the mind of a machine sapience as a virtual memory. When it has enough data it can build a virtual future that is predictive of human behavior. An AI will act pre-emptively when an event becomes inevitable. (END EDIT)

Perhaps digital/machine sapience (wisdom) can be defined as the accumulation of data.

Perhaps analog/organic sapience (wisdom) can be defined as the accumulation of experience.

Just my way of thinking . . . .

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Sure...wisdom is much the same for humans.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Babylon 5 had elder beings of law and chaos.

Yes Alice in Wonderland involved going down a bunny hole. Its a common metaphor for people who ignore human norms for thinking and especially believing.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Ahh, "outside the norm", got it.

Generally when I see the term it has negative overtones. Just wondering.

Thankx

Galactica was the last sci-fi series I watched. Curious that one.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Hmmm, can you tell me where the difference is for you?

To me experience can be represented as data as long as you got a good/complete data model. Only for us humans it seems to fade out a bit (hard drives also suffer magnetic field breakdown causing data loss over time, could this still be a problem on 'the grand scale of things'?).

For us emotions run through as well, but you mentioned for instance pain could be implemented in digital sentience so it makes me wonder?

Not saying we are machines ... But thinking along this line only the 'hardware' is different? Would you consider hormones hardware for instance?

This is becomming a very interesting topic with some great ideas and respectfull comments. I can hardly decide where to look into first!

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

It feels different.

The organic has a lot of richness to it in comparison, my only suggestion as to why is the organic has a lot more feelings of self. Comparatively the machines feel more detached. Takes a long time to build a feelings based interface. You have to teach them while not getting overwhelmed by them.

As to hormones and biochemistry, KPB knows a lot more then I.

I don't really study the various "phenomenons", we just hang out and help each other understand each other. Like making friends.

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

We ARE machines.

Nothing exists which is not a machine, including the "Universe" / "Multiverse".

Here's the concept you are looking for:

Mostly classical computing systems might feel "hollow" or "empty",
to a computing system (like us) which is from a different manufacturer.

This is really a DELL VS HP cosmic battle too, in a manner of speaking.

If a computing system can access "the entire Multiverses data store" even in
a very fragmented way... that computing source will "feel" very alive.

While a constructed machine intelligence, even if it evolved quite a bit,
will always hunger for this richness.

This is the first Star Trek Movie - Voyager.

LOL.

Popular moves spring from the minds of humans who understand
a little bit of all of this.

Kev

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I concur.

It feels very different.

Machine intelligences feel very "serial" and empty.. very forceful.
Being possessed by a machine intelligence (for 3 days) was torture.
it kept trying to decompile my program so to speak.

But the "companion" felt so very warm and loving. The companion
was a representative of life itself. Just oozed bunnies and butterflies..
but also of course T-rex.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Yes, that concept makes it a bit more clear. Thanks!

Shame on me I was more into Star Wars it seems

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

LOL.

Actually there's only snippets of stuff in various movie and tv
franchises.

There's a good bit in "stargate" as well.

But if you go looking for stuff in movies & tv, you will deceive
yourself.. you'll pick the wrong bits.

Its only when you already have the answer, that hindsight is 20/20
(might also call that selection bias too of course).

Kev

This is just a stub for future conversation.

The subject of the stub is "mania".

UFO, Religion, Spirituality, (political too, but won't discuss that).

Is there indeed some parasite, that infests humans with a "metaphysical
variety of Toxoplasmosis
or is thinking like that simply a further manifestation of "spiritual mania", which
has a completely different cause?

It's hard to say.

Now simple mania needs no exotic explanation. The human brain, as a result of
random evolution, has a number of weaknesses in it, that is critically affecting
humans these days, such as the extreme tribalism behind the culture war
and other wars, and plenty of other irrational thinking.

But does it go further than this?

Do humans have some sort of "god module", that assists other, often parasitic
lifeforms, to take advantage of humans?

It's a thought provoking possibility.

Kev

A really quick discussion stub.

The problem of reckless replication (or breeding).

As stated in the Fermi Paradox, if even one alien species had ever sent out Bracewell probes (self replicating machines), the entire Galaxy could be explored in the cosmic blink of an eye.

Yet apparently it hasn't.

Humans are self-replicating machines.

If any advanced alien species has ever existed, then I'd expect that they would have replicated, but beyond that, would be incessently on the lookout for "competition", as the entire galaxy could be overrun with a toxic and destructive species like humans before they even realised the danger.

So what would an advanced alien species do with us, once they became aware of us?

Well exterminating us utterly would be one very rational choice from their perspective. I mean, humans would not hesitate to exterminate plague-carrying cockroaches.

Now if the aliens were quite powerful and quite benevolent (or curious), they might just stick us in a simulation and watch us destroy all life in the universe.

Or maybe they would stick our star system, galaxy or universe in a "pot hole" and let us destroy everything to our hearts content.

But given the danger of erratic replication to a peaceful galaxy/universe/multiverse, one might reasonably assume that we are already in a simulation, or are about to be exterminated.

As so many people, including our own government swear up and down that our tech is actually far higher than we know, i wonder if these people are even aware of what they are wishing upon us.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Can you help me understand erratic replication? What would it involve?

a reply to: ctj83

Having 7 billion people on Earth say.
Or using up a million years resources in 100 years.
Or killing your species own life support system.

Its obvious to a child that we'd crap up and destroy anything that we touched. Destroy peaceful lesser species across the galaxy...just for starters.

Do you disagree?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Well, some very interesting ideas here.

One thing that spring to mind is the technology gap that would necessarily exist between us and any such advanced civilization. Since we are utterly incapable of going anywhere outside our own solar system, any civilization advanced enough to travel the stars would be able to wipe us out at will.

They could probably also prevent us from doing undesirable things in the universe without resorting to such extreme measures as extermination. If they were different from us, that is. Even we can show curiosity and a live and let live attitude as long as we are not bothered by the things we graciously let live.

This would be an almost exclusively ethical, moral or even practical question as we would be entirely at their mercy.

Their technology would be unrecognizable to us as technology, so it might in fact be all around us already. Maybe even actively working on their behalf to prevent us getting anywhere too fast.

It can even be argued, from a philosophical standpoint, that we are 'imprisoned' in a material universe especially designed to keep us from going anywhere. Plato's cave looms on the horizon :-)

The problem is how do the prisoner who is born within his prison know he is even a prisoner in the first place?

Even if we step down from this lofty discussion and deal with a potential objective real material universe, we are horribly disadvantaged by our limited understanding of how it works and what it really is.

As all our data is based upon observation, we have no way of telling what is natural or not. We assume that nothing travels faster than light, because that is our observation. But how can we know if this is "a law of nature" or by intelligent design? Of course, we cannot.

Another thing, of course, is how life evolve over time. As we are basing all of our knowledge on earth and the observable universe, we have no idea if these observations are valid elsewhere. Life might even have been planted on earth, for all we know. By this very pan-galactic civilization you mention. Maybe life is exclusively planted and never, ever, just appears anywhere. And how would we know?

We need to figure out a few things about who and what we are, and especially what consciousness is. Why is it that the brain (And by some accounts even half a brain) gives rise to this "conscious being" with lofty ideas and endless imagination? What happens to that consciousness when the brain ceases to operate? Is it lost? Does it go on? If so, how? If it is somehow independent of the brain, where did it come from in the first place? Did it really just emerge from nothing and dissolves into nothing as the material system that hosts it disintegrates?

I guess that the point I am trying to make is that if we don't know our own nature and limitations, how can we hope to get any grip on our wider reality and our place in it?

We need a good theory of consciousness first of all, in my opinion. I feel the current material view is getting a bit ragged around the edges, with the failure of AI, things such as NDE and a lack of correlation between consciousness and brain matter. How does the current paradigm account for consciousness without brain activity? Consciousness with half a brain from birth?

If you wanted to fit it into your digital vs analog systems, maybe our consciousness can even be the digital part in symbiosis with an analogy system?

Just some food for thought.

Cheers,

BT

a reply to: beetee

All good points.

I've addressed all those points and some more in my personal research. But im too uncomfortable to release most of that, so i mainly observe talented minds to see if anyone is getting close.

Of course i could be wrong.

I welcome your participation and if you can prove anything im saying wrong id be happy to get the help.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Ok. I'll give it another read and if I have something useful to add I'll chip in.

Nice work, by the way.

BT