• Daemon
    589
    There have been many studies where the mapped neural networks have been fed to the computer and the code was able to replicate the activity.
    That is, if I were to say, touch an apple with my finger, a set of localised neurons would fire up in my brain and that is recorded with the fMRI machine and the data set is transferred to a computer in hopes of replication.
    TheSoundConspirator


    In fMRI, brain activity is graphically represented by colour coding the strength of activation. What is in the data set that you imagine is transferred to a computer?
  • TheSoundConspirator
    28

    I suggest you refer to this article to potentially get the answer to your question.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210323150745.htm
  • Daemon
    589
    fMRI measures blood flow in the brain which is related to neural activity. It doesn't provide anything like the fine grain of data that would allow computer code to replicate the behaviour of neurons.

    A family member is a neuroscientist. He uses what's called "two and three proton microscopy" to image individual neurons. Here's one of his papers: "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864872/
    "Vision and Locomotion Shape the Interactions between Neuron Types in Mouse Visual Cortex." He can't feed this data into a computer to "replicate" vision. I can assure you, if he could do that, he would!

    You are just fantasising.
  • Alkis Piskas
    1.4k
    Aye!TheMadFool
    Sorry! I din't mean to offend you! Written messages sometimes do not show the writer's intention!
    What I wrote in the second para was a realization I had after we had all this discussion! Maybe if you had at least read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence, you wouldn't talk about AI in the way you did.
    I even thought that you should better delete this topic (although I don't think this is possible). For you, not for anything else. It doesn't do credit to you. And, believe me, there are only a few persons in here that I have "met" and to whom I can say this! So, as you can see now, my intention was the opposite of what it seemed! :smile:

    :chin: I have an idea: Since topic deletion is most probably impossible, maybe you can make some modications or additions, that will justify your ideas based on scientifically/technically correct data. I can help in that, if you like.
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    Since topic deletion is most probably impossible, maybe you can make some modications or additions, that will justify your ideas based on scientifically/technically correct data. I can help in that, if you like.Alkis Piskas

    I'll give it my best shot. It might take some time though. I'm not the brightest bulb on the chandelier.
  • Alkis Piskas
    1.4k
    I'll give it my best shot. It might take some time though.TheMadFool
    Good. No worries. We wlll be all still here! :smile:
  • 180 Proof
    10.2k
    "Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?" ~HAL 9000
    I wonder what lies at the end of that road?TheMadFool

    For almost fifty years, my all-time favorite movie – a cinematic masterpiece of speculation.
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k


    Just what do you think you're doing, God? — Job/Noah/Sisyphus
  • 180 Proof
    10.2k
    For "Humans" I would substitute Noah or Job ... or Sisyphus.
  • Gnomon
    2.7k

    Yes, cause and effect. Equal and opposites. The point is that humans, being that their ability to modify themselves and their intelligence is fundamental, not physical, makes them capable of true self-modification. Whereas a robot requires transistors, hard drives, memory or whatever it has to do it's processing therefore must depend on them working correctly to continue functioning.AlienFromEarth
    AFE, I generally agree with your position on the distinction between human intelligence (HI) and artificial intelligence (AI). But I just finished reading The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by physicists Barrow and Tipler, and with a foreword by famous physicist John A. Wheeler. Using the language of Physics & Mathematics, they argue for teleological evolution toward a far future "Omega Point". Even though there is no religious language in their argument, it's what would call "non-physical woo-of-the-gaps". That's because the Primary Protagonist of the argument is not an individual flesh & blood human, but the metaphysical abstraction : "Intelligent Life". (IL)

    The authors concede that the current form of IL (homo sapiens) may die-out in the not-too-distrant-future, but that some form of Intelligent Life -- including self-reproducing & self-repairing robots -- will continue the mission of becoming-the-universe (my words) at the Omega Point. "When life has encompassed the entire universe and regulated all matter contained therein. Life begins to manipulate the dynamical evolution of the universe as a whole". In other words, the non-physical abstraction "Life", will essentially become God. When summarized in such terms, this sounds like Science Fiction. And it is, in the sense that conjectures about millions of years into the future are inherently fictional. But the authors support their speculations with state-of-the-art Physics, as of 1986. Most of which still holds-up to attempts at falsification.

    I don't know if their positive assessment of the Future of Life, is correct. And I don't expect to be there to witness the apotheosis of Life. But it gives us a lot of positive plausible information to consider, when faced with hopeless negative apocalyptic worldviews. :cool:
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    Omega PointGnomon

    Read about it but only very superificially - it basically gives a scientific spin to the Christianity's prophecy of the Second Coming - resurrections en masse, technologically achieved of course.

    But it gives us a lot of positive plausible information to consider, when faced with hopeless negative apocalyptic worldviews. :cool:Gnomon

    Yep, it's a refreshingly optimistic view of the future, not the plethora of hackneyed doom and gloom predictions we're so used to hearing/seeing on TV and, don't forget, the lone individual on the street corner carrying a placard with the words "GAME OVER".

    I wonder which of the two futures will come true? It doesn't hurt to look at the bright side, does it? :chin:
  • Gnomon
    2.7k
    I wonder which of the two futures will come true? It doesn't hurt to look at the bright side, does it? :chin:TheMadFool
    Yes. The current mood, especially in the US, and on this forum, is pretty dismal. For example, it seems that the majority of movies in recent years have an end-of-world or post-apocalyptic theme. But downtrodden people are still motivated enough to push for positive change, despite their long history of struggling against all odds. So, for privileged people like me, pessimism is pretty petty.

    Physicist Neils Bohr, channeling Yogi Berra, once said “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future!” Typically, like weathermen, our future forecasts are merely short-term projections of current conditions. But history has a roller-coaster track-record of ups & downs. That's why I prefer to take the long-term view of Hegel, who despite the short-term oppositions, derived a somewhat optimistic view of the future.

    That's because he inferred an overall tendency or positive principle, the "World Soul", which keeps the undulating universe on an upward track. In my personal worldview, that positive trend or principle is labeled "EnFormAction". It's similar to Plato's Logos, in that it's not just aimless Energy, but also the Rational power to enform. It's not just Tele-, it's also -Logical. :joke:


    Hegelian dialectic :
    an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hegelian-dialectic

    EnFormAction :
    Logos & Spirit

    Logos …..pattern forming
    Spirit …….active principle

    En ………..direction, intention
    Form …….meaningful pattern
    Action …...creative force

    COSMIC PROGRESSION
    wpa5eda277_05_06.jpg
  • 180 Proof
    10.2k
    Pandeism is "my omega point".
  • Gnomon
    2.7k
    ↪Gnomon
    Pandeism is "my omega point".
    180 Proof
    That seems to also be the implication of physicists Barrow & Tipler in their 1985 book : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. It was a sort of scientific update of Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point theory. However, in my personal worldview, the Alpha Point or First Cause is also Pantheistic, or as I prefer : PanEnDeistic. The "Omega" term is sufficiently suggestive & ambiguous, that many interpretations would fit the tenuous evidence at the current mid-point of Evolution. So, I don't pretend to know exactly where this evolving organism is headed. :smile:

    The Anthropic Cosmological Principle : blog post
    http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
  • 180 Proof
    10.2k
    The link in my previous post sketches where my conception of pandeism (xaos redux) deviates from Chardin / Tipler's omega point (cosmic telos).
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    Pandeism is "my omega point180 Proof

    I can't parse how a deity becomes one or merges with the universe? Do you mean like a cyborg, one of the predicted futures of humanity when man and machine become symbionts?

    That's because he inferred an overall tendency or positive principle, the "World Soul", which keeps the undulating universe on an upward track. In my personal worldview, that positive trend or principle is labeled "EnFormAction". It's similar to Plato's Logos, in that it's not just aimless Energy, but also the Rational power to enform. It's not just Tele-, it's also -LogicalGnomon

    That's a pretty nice way of looking at it. Yes, there are peaks and valleys, like a sinusoidal wave but the wave itself has an upward trajectory. :up:
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    ???180 Proof

    the deity annihilates itself by becoming the universe in order to experience not being the deity.180 Proof

    God Became The Universe

    The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe — Wikipedia

    How? What does that mean?
  • 180 Proof
    10.2k
    How? What does that mean?TheMadFool
    I don't understand what you're asking, Fool. You've quoted my take on pandeism and a wiki too. I can't spoon-feed this metaphysical paradox any better than this:
    0. Deity (Boltzmann brain?) ...

    1. Deity becomes – fluctuates until symmetry breaks – not-Deity aka "planck universe".

    2. "Non-planck universe" begins @maximum degrees temperature and rapidly – explosively ("Big Bang") – expands as it cools off.

    3. Cosmic + thermodynamic entropy.
    (WE ARE nowHERE.)

    4. "Non-planck universe" ends eventually – dissipates completely – having become an absolute zero degrees vacuum.

    5. Absolute zero degrees vacuum – unbroken symmetry restored – is indistinguishable from Deity.

    0. "Omega point" > the universe (or multiverse) constitutes memories (or dreaming) of Deity
    (Boltzmann brain?)
    — 180 Pro0f's *pandeist fairytale* (in sum)
    This is how I imagine, even contemplate (strange loop-like), Spinoza's 'natura naturans sub specie durationis'. :fire:
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    Yours is a very interesting, not to mention profound, perspective indeed but aren't you just playing with the word "God"? I dunno, it feels like you are.
  • 180 Proof
    10.2k
    I said nothing about "God". The word isn't even mentioned.
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    I said nothing about "God". The word isn't even mentioned.180 Proof

    Deity180 Proof

    The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe — Wikipedia

    :chin:
  • Gnomon
    2.7k
    I can't parse how a deity becomes one or merges with the universe? Do you mean like a cyborg, one of the predicted futures of humanity when man and machine become symbionts?TheMadFool

    They seem to think that human culture will continue to evolve in intelligence and causal power, until their technological descendants become almost omniscient and omnipotent. For the details, you'll have to read some of the Omega Point theories of deChardin or Tipler, to see how they propose the transition from non-deity to deity.

    In my worldview though, the deity -- whatever else S/he might be -- is, and must be, eternal (BEING ; Brahman ; Tao), always existed and always will. It's our temporary world that is contingent and emerging. Also, the notion of a deity "merging" with its creation may be misleading. In my view, the so-called deity is not a physical thing, but instead the timeless immaterial Potential for enforming (creating) physical things. So, the merging was from the top-down, and from the beginning to the end, not as an after-thought, or bottom-up evolution. The deity doesn't evolve, but the creation does.

    Some versions of Deism do indeed imagine that the Creator "became" or "merged with" the Creation [1]. But the ACP is not overtly Deistic, only implicitly. On the other hand, in my view, the Creative Principle is PanEnDeistic. Which means that the Deus has always existed, but for some unfathomable reason, decided to Enform a temporary experiment in world-building. In that case, the "how" was probably like any other act of En-form-ation : eternal Potential (Platonic Form-giver) actualized the concept of an evolving world, maybe with "let there be light", or with "Shazaam!" or "Bang!", and suddenly a world (Matter) appeared in the midst of nothing (Space), and the clock of Time began ticking. "Voila!"

    The rest of the story is pretty much as the typical creation myths, and evolutionary theories, and Big Bang theories have laid it out. Of course, I was not there to witness the creation. And I have no divine revelation. So I'm just making it up as I go along, by piecing together bits & bytes of previous stories. And by binding it all together with the Enformationism Thesis, based on the latest scientific hypotheses, that shape-shifting Information (power to enform) is the essence of Reality. [2] :cool:


    PanEnDeism :
    "Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties."
    https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
    Note --- PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as eternal creative Potential, rather than the emergent Soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

    Enformationism :
    * As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
    * As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enform-ationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.

    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    Note -- If you don't like my story, try this one :

    [1] God's Debris: A Thought Experiment is a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.
    God's Debris espouses a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best. It proposes a form of pandeism and monism, postulating that an omnipotent god annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient entity would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris

    . . . . or this one :

    [2] The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
    http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
  • Gnomon
    2.7k
    ↪Gnomon
    The link in my previous post sketches where my conception of pandeism (xaos redux) deviates from Chardin / Tipler's omega point (cosmic telos).
    180 Proof
    This is the basis of pandeism: the deity annihilates itself by becoming the universe in order to experience not being the deity. The end of time, maximum universal expansion, "heat death", etc is the deity reborn? Works for me, closes the eternal loop ouroboros-like. If I was in need of such a (minimal) metaphysical extravagance, I'd be a committed pandeist.180 Proof
    That description sounds like the God's Debris story, in which the deity, due to a bad case of eternal ennui, made like an Islamic suicide bomber, and blew herself into smithereens. Except that in this case, the "debris" is not simply splattered blood & guts, but is our complexly evolving universe. Which, instead of dissipating into thin air (xaos redux), has developed into the highly organized & beloved world of living thinking beings, in which we now live & breathe & sh*t & love.

    For me, Deism was a rather vague & pointless alternative to the faux certainties of traditional Theism. And PanDeism is somewhat fatalistic, in that "what you see is all you get", and leaves the beginning & end of the story unresolved. Moreover, your notion of PanChaos pictures our world as "in a state of complete confusion and disorder". But I don't see it that way. I doubt that Steven Pinker is a Deist of any prefix. But he has written some well-informed & erudite books that dispel the cynicism of the intelligentsia class, and the despair of the downtrodden class. They include, The Better Angels of Our Nature, Enlightenment Now, and most recently : Rationality. These works illustrate that our world, which began in Chaos (Bomb Bang), but is now evolving & progressing, not only in technology (cybernetics), but also in moral progress and social justice. Fake news, from both Left & Right, focus their spotlight on the ugly underside of reality, ignoring the beauties of the upside.

    Therefore, as I see it, the world is far from perfect, but it is also far from worthless debris. So, the Deus, whatever its other qualities, is not an Evil Genius, or a bored know-it-all. Instead, it's more like a scientist experimenting with the volatile alchemy of random Chance & rational Choice (determinism & freewill) -- what could go wrong? Anyway, our world is a living growing maturing organism with innate Potential for both Good and Bad. Therefore, instead of hopelessly killing myself, I'm going to stick around to see what happens next, in the unfinished Story of Life. :joke:


    [1] God's Debris : A Thought Experiment is a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.
    God's Debris espouses a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best. It proposes a form of pandeism and monism, postulating that an omnipotent god annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient entity would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris

    Note -- I went through the stages of Agnosticism, then Deism, then PanDeism, and am currently in the unstable state of PanEnDeism. But so far, I have avoided the pitfalls of Atheism and Cynicism. Like the world around me, I continue to evolve.

    Sorry. I seem to have wandered off into sermonizing. :roll:
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k


    1. Deism: God as creator (of the universe) but who doesn't intervene.

    2. Pantheism: All is God.

    3. Pandeism: God became one with the universe [Deism + Pantheism].

    4. Panentheism: All is God but God is much more. [Pantheism + God transcends all].

    5. Panendeism: Deism + Panentheism = (Your) Enformationism

    Ultimately, in the very distant future, God will come into existence (The Omega Point).

    :chin:
  • 180 Proof
    10.2k
    Sorry. I seem to have wandered off into sermonizing. :roll:Gnomon
    It's all good (as the kids say). :up:

    I read God's Debris about twenty years ago and enjoyed the speculations. Not an influence really. My outlook is tragic by comparison, even absurdist, but not pessimistic. As Freddy points out: tiny, partial, perspectives like ours cannot grasp or assess the whole of reality / nature (e.g. Spinoza & Zapffe, Camus & Rosset say as much too). The cosmos ends well with the 'deity reborn' in my speculation; and the implications for 'us' or nature are simply unknowable, especially since 'we' (sapient sentients everywhere in the universe) are not the protagonists of this absolute epic, just among the countless, infinitesmal means to the ultimate end (i.e. "omega point"). Pandeism, for me, is only speculative and a recent position (derived from both classical atomism & spinozism and yet because it's simpler to convey than either of them) adopted for the sake of those arguments wherein I'm challenged to explain what I'm for once what I'm against (re: antitheism), and my reasoning, fails to be refuted by a religious / theistic interlocator. Epistemically, I am agnostic about this pandeity.

    :death: :flower:
  • Gnomon
    2.7k

    Ultimately, in the very distant future, God will come into existence (The Omega Point).TheMadFool
    In Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point, the future-god was imagined as the prophesied return of The Cosmic Christ. But his fellow Catholics were not impressed by his tainting of Faith with scientific evidence. First century Christians expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. So the idea of a trillion year delay is not very supportive of fragile Faith.

    Likewise, the Anthropic Cosmological Principle seems to be a stretch, if it is intended to reinforce any religious belief. The book took it on faith that the Big Bang was the creative act (insemination) of an eternal deity. And it seemed to view Evolution as as sort of gestation process to give birth to the Son of God. The authors didn't say that in so many words, but it's my takeaway.

    My own worldview is also based on the axiom of an eternal creative force. but remains agnostic about the deity's specific intentions [1]. I label that model as "PanEnDeism" because our current understanding of physics is information-centric. In that case, both the Creator (Enformer) and the Creation (Enformed) are essentially the same stuff : infinite Potential-to-Be. And Evolution is the creative work of enforming, as performed by EnFormAction. In other words, it's all Information from Energy to Matter to Mind, and from Alpha to Omega.

    That said, I still must label myself as Agnostic, because my personal worldview is just an educated guess, not a revealed prophecy. And it's not beholden to any religious tradition. So, this rather abstract model of Reality does not provide any of the emotionally appealing mythical elements, that would serve as a popular religion. It's more along the lines of Plato's LOGOS, and Lao Tse's TAO :meh:


    PS__I did at one time play around with the idea of writing a mythical version of the Intelligent Evolution postulate : beginning with a self-fertilized goddess. Unfortunately, I have no talent for dramatic or romantic Fiction, and I have scruples against pandering to popular beliefs. So, I'll have to leave the myth-making to someone else. Any volunteers?

    [1] One possible scenario imagines that the disembodied deity created a material world as a way to know itself through the metaphorical eyes of millions of little gods. But, for now, I am resigned to remain a Mysterian regarding the Creation. Although I do have a theory about the emergence of Life & Consciousness. Which is more amenable to philosophical & scientific methods than the God Problem.

    Mysterian :
    Martin Garner -- "I belong to a group of thinkers known as the 'mysterians.' It includes Roger Penrose, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, Noam Chomsky, Colin McGinn, and many others who believe that no computer, of the kind we know how to build, will ever become self-aware and acquire the creative powers of the human mind. I believe there is a deep mystery about how consciousness emerged as brains became more complex, and that neuroscientists are a long long way from understanding how they work."
    http://martin-gardner.org/MYSTERIAN.html
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    :up: That's a perspective I haven't seen in a long time. Good to know people aren't using their brains for just mundane activities. Imagination is a marvelous thing - there are so many possibilities to think about. Our abject ignorance is duly compensated for by the richness of our hypotheticals.
  • 180 Proof
    10.2k
    My own worldview is also based on the axiom of an eternal creative force. but remains agnostic about the deity's specific intentions [1]. I label that model as "PanEnDeism" because our current understanding of physics is information-centric. In that case, both the Creator (Enformer) and the Creation (Enformed) are essentially the same stuff : infinite Potential-to-Be. And Evolution is the creative work of enforming, as performed by EnFormAction. In other words, it's all Information from Energy to Matter to Mind, and from Alpha to Omega.

    That said, I still must label myself as Agnostic, because my personal worldview is just an educated guess, not a revealed prophecy. And it's not beholden to any religious tradition. So, this rather abstract model of Reality does not provide any of the emotionally appealing mythical elements, that would serve as a popular religion. It's more along the lines of Plato's LOGOS, and Lao Tse's TAO :meh:
    Gnomon
    :ok: ... very Hegel and Bergson, Whitehead and Heidegger, and perhaps David Bohm too, which seems, IMO, an idealist analogue for the epicurean-spinozist pandeism I've proposed (mostly woo-free) above.

    ... 'mysterians' ... who believe that no computer, of the kind we know how to build, will ever become self-aware and acquire the creative powers of the human mind.
    For our descendants' sakes, let's hope not. I think 'human-level artificial intelligence' without any unnecessary atavistic, evolutionary-baggage like the metacognitive bottleneck of "affective self-awareness" would be optimal.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.