Could the internet become a conscious mind

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;76430 wrote:

The uncalculatability lies within the mathematical nature of these systems.

Are you saying that no math can work with complex dynamic systems?

Exebeche;76430 wrote:

Calculating them is not logically impossible. However it does not make sense. Because you have no tool of how to find which of the results is correct. All results are valid.

I think I understand what you are getting at here. In the game of life for example, you could be given a plot of cells meant to show period - 15. And ofcourse, one wishes to find period - 1 and well, there are many possible cell plots of period - 1. It becomes unpredictable when the period is differentiated too far simply because the possibilities are all equal.

And I suppose you're saying there is no way around this, mathematically/logically speaking???!!!

Ofcourse there is.

Exebeche;76430 wrote:

This is a logical limit that will not be transcended by the progress of science.

But why?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;76661 wrote:

Are you saying that no math can work with complex dynamic systems?

... no math to-date can analytically make anything but broad statistical statements about chaotic systems ... if you want to find out the particulars, you have to run the system ... simulations (e.g., weather forecasting) can only predict short periods into the future, mainly due to rounding errors and such ... but due to Heisenberg, simulations will always diverge from the real system in principle (you can never know the initial conditions with absolute accuracy) ...

Holiday20310401;76661 wrote:

I think I understand what you are getting at here. In the game of life for example, you could be given a plot of cells meant to show period - 15. And ofcourse, one wishes to find period - 1 and well, there are many possible cell plots of period - 1. It becomes unpredictable when the period is differentiated too far simply because the possibilities are all equal.

And I suppose you're saying there is no way around this, mathematically/logically speaking???!!!

Ofcourse there is.

... take the earth in its (slightly chaotic) orbit ... run a simulation to predict its exact location in, say 100,000 years ... that far out, the error in your simulation will have grown exponentially to the point that the error is larger than the path of the earth's orbit itself ... so while you can say with confidence "The earth will still be orbiting the sun", you cannot say with any confidence exactly where in that orbit the earth will be ... and due to Heisenberg, there is no way around this ...

Holiday20310401;76661 wrote:

But why?

... how can science do anything but explain the inherent uncertainty in the universe? ...

(apologies to Exebeche for speaking out of turn Wink

)

@Holiday20310401,

paulhanke;76668 wrote:

(apologies to Exebeche for speaking out of turn )

Thank You Paulhanke, i always appreciate your posts, no matter whose turn it looks like.
In fact i have hardly anything to add.

Holiday20310401;76661 wrote:

Are you saying that no math can work with complex dynamic systems?

I don't know too much about what complex mathematics look like, but it seems to be a mathematical branch of its own.
Before computertechnology it was widely unexplored land.
Nowadays computers have the power to calculate deep inside this area.
Due to the nature of complex dynamic systems however the output is not what we are used to.
One of the most reasonable reactions to the confusing nature of complex systems is creating scenarios.
You may have noticed, that in these days scenario calculations are taking place more frequently. For example scientists create several scenarios for the future of the global climate. One of the most important facts to realize about such systems is, that scenarios that are completely contradictory can have the same likeliness.
Politicians still tend to pick one believe and defend it: "I don't believe the temperature will rise by more than 1 degree". Then they will find reasons for why anyone who believes something else is to dumb to be even a person to discuss this topic seriously with.
Some scientists (unfortunately only some) are more progressive:
Complex systems have taught them that out of two (or even more) completely contrary scenarios each can be as valid as any other.
For example northern Europe could turn into a mediterranian climate with palmtrees like in Italy. While southern Europe like spain will have growing deserts. This is a possible scenario.
Another possible scenario is that Europe turns into an ice box like Alaska because the gulf stream dies. It's another possible scenario.
While a politician is going to pick one and call anyone dull who has a differing opinion, a more progressively educated person will realize that one is as valid as the other.
Scientists could actually say scenario one has a probability of x% and number two has y%, however ONLY from the momentary perspective, because due to the nature of chaotic systems the numbers can be precisely the opposite tomorrow (or in a different state of the system).
It's a systematic thing, meaning what we observe here is a result of the universe' logic.
Many people still insist on the idea of everything in the universe being determinated and this effect that we just described is only a result of not having enough data about the system.
But they normally just haven't understood the nature of so called 'Chaos'.
We nowadays know enough about complex mathematics to know that the output will principally be the same, no matter how much we increase the computing power.
Uncertainty can simply not be removed from the universe.

(Hello Alan, sorry for not having given a reply yet, my answer will follow)

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;76464 wrote:

"If the universe in all ways acts as if it was a computer, then what meaning could there be in saying that it is not a computer?"

Wow...
This is taking me really, really deep into to the rabbit-hole.
It is something that can only be understood by a mind that is philosophically or in a similar way spiritually prepared.
I do not know too many people who will be able to follow you into this depth of the burrow.
I am also kind of confused and have to get a few of these points sorted out.
At least the statement quoted above sounds reasonable to me and is a concept i feel familiar with.
However i need to check if you and i are actually talking about the same concepts.
Step 1:
The first thing we probably have to deal with is to realize, that a simulation could be as valid as any reality.
The further we go in breaking down our material reality the more we come to a point at which energy and matter kind of dissolve into logical units. I remember having listened to quantum physicists who described this as everything getting reduced to information.
Everybody's home made interpretation of matter is normally that matter is 'what is solid'. Viewed from the perspective of a radio however matter is mostly transparent and pervadable but not solid at all.
Our perception of reality as the 'material' world is totally subjective.
There is no reason why a powerful simulation should not be able to create particles that interact the way we know it from our reality.
In fact there could be a universe in which the simulation takes place, mirroring precisely the same conditions as the 'outer' universe.
From a logical perspective the simulated reality in this case, if really conditions were precisely mirrored, wouldn't be less real than the 'outer' one. From a logical perspective.
Creatures who lived in such a simulation would be suffering no less than those on the outside.
A tear in a simulation would be an exact equivalent of what a tear is outside.
In fact we have to go a little further: Even if a tear was not the exact equivalent, for example because the physics are slightly modified, we have to consider that something logically equivalent would still be a tear.
All our suffering takes place on a logical level after all.
It doesn't matter if a tear is made of water and salt or of olive oil.
To make a long story short, if we were able to create a computer that can compute information at the amount of our universe, meaning simulate every subatomic quantity in our universe at the planck size, we might simulate the big bang and the whole evolution of the universe.
In this case we would have to consider all living creatures in this universe as much alive as we are (from a logical perspective).
Stanislaw Lem has written a story based on this idea ('Non Serviam').
The creatures in such a universe would have emotions just like us.
They might have concepts like dignity, pride, sin...
And each of these lifes would have a value like our own life, given that we assume a life has a value.
Step 2:
Let's consider we live in such a simulation.
There would be no reason to try to reach the outside reality for getting a higher state of being real. Because the outside reality would not have a higher reality 'index' from a logical perspective. If the simulation is a precise mirror of the outside world, this outside would not feel any different, and might not be any better. And if it's better, it may be better, but it's not more 'real'.
Step 3:
It's not unusual that people run virtual machine based systems on their computers. Which means they simulate a computer which really does not exist. The virtual computer has everything, an operating system, hardware, etc, or actually believes that he has all of this, but the hardware is not existent. It's only emulated.
It has a mere logical existence. This is already a common fact.
Let's consider the creator of our simulation does not run this simulation based only on a physical computer on the outside. He might have created the system in a way that it runs the 'virtual machine' without a superior computer. Something that unfolds like the DNA. Only based on a logical substance of the 'outside'.
Starting the big bang, the algorithm is going to create its own quantum computer. It is going to create a virtual computer based on evolutionary algorithms (or whatever it takes). From my point of view the result of this computation would be very open for any further progress, meaning not determined. It's difficult to say to what level the creator would be able to regulate how determined the machine will be.
My guess would be, that it can never be one hundred percent determined, at least given the conditions of our simulation (universe).
Our universe could be a computer in a sense of a virtual machine.
It has been created to design its own setup by itself, based on the primary rules. It keeps calculating and evolving the rules (increasing complexity).
Step 4:
It is not necessary to assume a primary creator.
Logically there is no reason to exclude the possibility of a creator. He could have been there, designing the virtual machine.
However, if there is a system that CAN create something that is able to logically unfold and create its own reality, creating new realities, it could as well be based on a system that is simply based on such a logic.
You see, if our universe unfolds, creating new virtual machines, they might have completely different physics and logics. But they might be just as powerful as our reality or even more regarding their (computed) output.
The origin does not have to be a humanlike mind (god). It could have been a logical something like a DNA.
Our universe could be seen as a computing something.
No need to ask why it is computing and what it is calculating for.
There is not even a need for a reason.
I started this post with the quote:
"If the universe in all ways acts as if it was a computer, then what meaning could there be in saying that it is not a computer?"
In fact i have to ask: What else is our universe, if not a computation? A processing of information?
My question would be:
Is there any reason not to see the universe as acting like a computer?
Regarding this i wonder if you have seen the discours i had with Paulhanke in the thread 'Intelligence - a form of self organisation'

If you found my thoughts on this interesting up to this point you will certainly be curious about that thread.

And by the way thank you for this interesting conversation, i really enjoy it.

@Exebeche,

Hi Exebeche and others,

I agree it would be very difficult to separate an advanced computer simulation with that of an actual human brain. Could we ultimately program into a simulator those attributes that make us the beings we are. Such as?

Altruism?

Love?

Hate?

Compassion?

Good?

Joy?

Evil (or could we leave this out?)?

God?

Self preservation?

Self actualisation?

Art? (creativity)

Need?

If you get my drift!!

@Alan McDougall,

I hope you don't mind if I step into the discussion here. :bigsmile:

The original question of this thread was whether or not the internet could become a conscious being, or something of the sort. My thought on the matter is no, it couldn't. Reason being is that the internet is not its own entity. It is an extension of ourselves, a massive cache of information we've accumulated. Is it possible for a computer hard drive to become a conscious being? No. Similarly, I don't think it's possible for the internet to become a conscious being, either.
If it did, then I don't think we would have a problem. The internet doesn't have any power except within itself. It does not have any physical power, i.e. it can't control vehicles, missiles, soldiers, etc. If it "rebelled" it wouldn't be able to do anything against humankind. It would only be able to be aware of billions of people using it to communicate with each other.
That's my take on the matter, anyways.

Alan,
I'm not very well educated in the terms of computer science and advanced mathematics. However it seems unlikely for a computer-like entity to be able to be programmed with those kinds of concepts.
However, I would like to ask the question; Are those ideas all that makes us human?
Alfred Adler made an interesting point when discussing a person's style of life. He said that, "To be human is to feel inferior to others, and to use that inferiority to encourage ourselves to become better."
I have long wondered what defining characteristic humans have that sets them apart from other creatures. Of all the ideas I've heard on this matter, I find Adler's take on the matter to be the best.
The ideas and concepts you listed, Alan, are certainly attributes that humans have. Some of them are held only by humans (as far as we know), but some are also held by other creatures.
Love, Joy, Hate, Good, Evil, Compassion, Self Preservation; I would say many other animals carry these attributes. Self Preservation, especially.
I think that a more interesting experiment would be making a computer capable of the idea of inferiority. To feel lesser than something else, and to feel like this should not be. If we were able to make a computer feel this way, then I think we would have successfully simulated one of the very core aspects of human beings.

@Smiley451,

Smiley451;77035 wrote:

I hope you don't mind if I step into the discussion here. :bigsmile:

The original question of this thread was whether or not the internet could become a conscious being, or something of the sort. My thought on the matter is no, it couldn't. Reason being is that the internet is not its own entity. It is an extension of ourselves, a massive cache of information we've accumulated. Is it possible for a computer hard drive to become a conscious being? No. Similarly, I don't think it's possible for the internet to become a conscious being, either.
If it did, then I don't think we would have a problem. The internet doesn't have any power except within itself. It does not have any physical power, i.e. it can't control vehicles, missiles, soldiers, etc. If it "rebelled" it wouldn't be able to do anything against humankind. It would only be able to be aware of billions of people using it to communicate with each other.
That's my take on the matter, anyways.

Alan,
I'm not very well educated in the terms of computer science and advanced mathematics. However it seems unlikely for a computer-like entity to be able to be programmed with those kinds of concepts.
However, I would like to ask the question; Are those ideas all that makes us human?
Alfred Adler made an interesting point when discussing a person's style of life. He said that, "To be human is to feel inferior to others, and to use that inferiority to encourage ourselves to become better."
I have long wondered what defining characteristic humans have that sets them apart from other creatures. Of all the ideas I've heard on this matter, I find Adler's take on the matter to be the best.
The ideas and concepts you listed, Alan, are certainly attributes that humans have. Some of them are held only by humans (as far as we know), but some are also held by other creatures.
Love, Joy, Hate, Good, Evil, Compassion, Self Preservation; I would say many other animals carry these attributes. Self Preservation, especially.
I think that a more interesting experiment would be making a computer capable of the idea of inferiority. To feel lesser than something else, and to feel like this should not be. If we were able to make a computer feel this way, then I think we would have successfully simulated one of the very core aspects of human beings.

Hi Smiley :bigsmile:

I wonder if feeling inferior is such a good idea, with all due respect to Mr Adler. What about self esteem? is that not a necessary attribute for a human?, could we program that into a computer? I very much doubt it.

But self preservation would be easier to program into a computer, to the extent that it would beg a human not to switch it off

Maybe with the internet, it is already too late, can the World Wide Web be switched off?, no is the answer already humanity is reliant on it to the degree that losing it would lead to all sorts of national disasters, especially monitory

Like it or not, although it is not intelligent at the moment, we need it more than it needs us.

Have you noticed that already websites or forums request you to perform a certain action such as keying in a code to prove you are not a robot program?

@Alan McDougall,

Exebeche,

Let's say we have a weather simulation A, and another that is congruent to A being called B. Two weather simulations that start at the exact same time with the exact same scenario, so at say, time = 0. They also have the exact same data, kind of data, and exact same external influences (if this is possible).

We run each simulation until time = 1. Will both simulations not end up at the same result? If so, is this not enough to prove determinism? I understand that since isolated systems or even closed systems are not technically possible 100%, there can be no absolute determinism. But practically, can we not assume determinism here, when I say that there is a 99.999999% determinability? Chaos does not rule out determinism.

@Alan McDougall,

Only when it can feel pain.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;77886 wrote:

Only when it can feel pain.

At the moment we humans are the mind of the internet and it is the brain. So by proxy it already feels pain.

When some guy insults one via the net it hurts does it not?

Peace Alan

@Alan McDougall,

Alan; Consciousness is not the problem...The problem is consequences...We can build computers with senses, and they are able to reason... Until they can know death they will never respect life...

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;77045 wrote:

Chaos does not rule out determinism.

... that's right - that's why it's full name is "deterministic chaos" ... let's go back to your weather simulations ... suppose simulation A differs from simulation B in that one initial condition in A is 1000000.00000000001 and the same initial condition in simulation B is 1000000.00000000002 ... now run both simulations a year into the future ... if the weather were a linear system, simulation A would differ from simulation B by some minuscule amount - say, a raindrop ... but the weather is not a linear system ... it's a highly non-linear system (and in fact chaotic) ... and so the ever so slight difference in initial conditions could mean the difference between a tornado and a sunny day ... now let's say that the accuracy with which you can measure this initial condition is +/- 0.0001 ... so you're basically screwed ... you do not have the capability to make predictions a year out ... and if you didn't know that there was such a thing as deterministic chaos, you might attribute this fact to some sort of inherent randomness in the weather, yes? ...

---------- Post added 07-17-2009 at 07:35 AM ----------

Fido;77903 wrote:

Alan; Consciousness is not the problem...The problem is consequences...We can build computers with senses, and they are able to reason... Until they can know death they will never respect life...

... nor disrespect it ... they'll just be oblivious to it ... unfortunately, we've already got machines that know of death yet still disrespect life ... they're called actuarial tables Wink

...

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;77045 wrote:

her that is congruent to A being called B. Two weather simulations that start at the exact same time with the exact same scenario, so at say, time = 0. They also have the exact same data, kind of data, and exact same external influences (if this is possible).

We run each simulation until time = 1. Will both simulations not end up at the same result?

---------- Post added 07-19-2009 at 12:02 AM ----------

Just to prevent fights about a definition:
I have to correct myself:
There are simulations that try to simulate the progress of a system in ONE particular situation, given a determined situation.
For example simulating the take off of a space craft.
This kind of simulation does not factor in random data.
Using precisely the same data, the result will always be the same.
However the purpose of such a simulation is that you CAN run it with slightly changed data.
For example choose a different weather scenario.
In this case you will consciously run two different calculations to see if the output will change.
It's obvious that this kind of simulation is being used due to the knowledge that such a system is not 100% determined.
You will also find computer games called 'simulations'. In this case the player himself is the random factor. The player will create the varying input.

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;77904 wrote:

... that's right - that's why it's full name is "deterministic chaos" ... let's go back to your weather simulations ... suppose simulation A differs from simulation B in that one initial condition in A is 1000000.00000000001 and the same initial condition in simulation B is 1000000.00000000002 ... now run both simulations a year into the future ... if the weather were a linear system, simulation A would differ from simulation B by some minuscule amount - say, a raindrop ... but the weather is not a linear system ... it's a highly non-linear system (and in fact chaotic) ... and so the ever so slight difference in initial conditions could mean the difference between a tornado and a sunny day ... now let's say that the accuracy with which you can measure this initial condition is +/- 0.0001 ... so you're basically screwed ... you do not have the capability to make predictions a year out ... and if you didn't know that there was such a thing as deterministic chaos, you might attribute this fact to some sort of inherent randomness in the weather, yes? ...

---------- Post added 07-17-2009 at 07:35 AM ----------

... nor disrespect it ... they'll just be oblivious to it ... unfortunately, we've already got machines that know of death yet still disrespect life ... they're called actuarial tables ...

You cannot know death abstractly, nor abstract death...There is only one death, and it is your death...

@Fido,

Fido;78231 wrote:

You cannot know death abstractly, nor abstract death...There is only one death, and it is your death...

If you look at it from this perspective you could also say there is no death instead of one.
Because YOU will not be there when YOUR death arrives.
Death can only touch your life as much as a tangent touches a circle. In an infinitely small point.
But this kind of thinking is ontological and honestly ontological ideas to me look a little bit like culturing roses.
It certainly has its value but it won't bring mankind any further.
In a scientific discussion you can of course see multiple deaths from a biological definition.

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;78269 wrote:

If you look at it from this perspective you could also say there is no death instead of one.
Because YOU will not be there when YOUR death arrives.
Death can only touch your life as much as a tangent touches a circle. In an infinitely small point.
But this kind of thinking is ontological and honestly ontological ideas to me look a little bit like culturing roses.
It certainly has its value but it won't bring mankind any further.
In a scientific discussion you can of course see multiple deaths from a biological definition.

Life is real, and death is unreal...It is like saying something is real, and nothing is unreal, but still, we characterize both death and nothing as if they are something, because out of the spiritual conception of man comes the spiritual conception of death...

@Alan McDougall,

Back to the topic:

Alan McDougall;76914 wrote:

Hi Exebeche and others,

I agree it would be very difficult to separate an advanced computer simulation with that of an actual human brain. Could we ultimately program into a simulator those attributes that make us the beings we are. Such as?

Altruism?

Love?

Hate?

Compassion?

Good?

Joy?

Evil (or could we leave this out?)?

God?

Self preservation?

Self actualisation?

Art? (creativity)

Need?

If you get my drift!!

Do You think we can?
My feeling was you are telling me that we CAN be resurrected by the Omega point.
But how could we be resurrected and taken to a virtual world if these things can not be programmed (What i understood was that the Omega point is a merely information based reality)?
If you didn't have at least a little bit of faith in this theory you probably wouldn't have come up with it.
In case you are not sure about wether or not this is possible and you would like to see other peoples' ideas about it:
Personally i do not really have faith in this idea, but...
the problem would not really be programming the mentioned things into the computer.
However...
I don't like this Omega thing because, you know, things like love, hate, Good, Evil - they can only emerge.
It doesn't make sense to program Good and Evil into the system.
If we really were able to simulate our universe (including planet earth) 100 percent, we wouldn't have to program any good or evil.
These concepts are human made. Humans would create them.
Joy is not created by humans. It has already been there but still it is an emerging phenomenon.
You don't program it into the system. It will emerge.
I don't want to dismiss your question, but in a way it just won't make sense from a programmers perspective.
You can start a simulation of our universe (You can not but let's assume we can)...
If you do not start it at the big bang, but prefer to begin at, say 1969, you will never have a simulation that fits the behaviour of our universe.
It will not be a 'real' simulation of reality but only a game.
Why?
The only reason not to start at the big bang would be, you don't know the essentials of our universe.
If you don't know the essentials of our universe you can not create a 'real' simulation of our universe.
If however you know the essentials of our universe you can not start at 1969 because you have to know each and every state of any particle.
This however is impossible due to Heisenbergs uncertainty.
You can not create a determined universe at 1969. Because the universe is not determined at any point.
If however you decide to start the simulation at the big bang, you will run zillions of quadrillions of possible universes.
Assuming this could be possible at any point, you would be creating an incredible amount of realities.
Into which of these realities do you want to be beamed?
You can not even assume that this simulation will create ANY possible universe. (We would have to know the essentials of the universe to assume that. However given just a complex dynamic system, still there would be zillions of quadrillions of possible universes.)
It's not even likely that mankind even appears in this simulation.
That's why i guess from a quantum physical perspective you can not create a 'real' simulation of 1969.
This is why this theoretical simulation makes no sense.

The other issue however:
love, hate, good, evil...
From my point of view there will be intelligent creatures in these simulations which also develop concepts like good, evil and so on.
However not because they are 'programmed'.
They just emerge.

@Alan McDougall,

Maybe what really separates us from the apes and other animals is our capacity to destroy another species, but on the other hand our ability to save another species from extinction

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;78376 wrote:

Maybe what really separates us from the apes and other animals is our capacity to destroy another species, but on the other hand our ability to save another species from extinction

Why do you think there should be anything that seperates us from the apes?
What seperates an apple from a pear?
The differences are there, but are they on two different sides of a border?
There is no line that puts humans on one side and apes (animals) on the other.
There are just differences, but those don't draw a line.
Just like it wouldn't make sense to ask what seperates man from woman.
Difference yes, border no.
Further we are not on top of the genealogic tree.
If you want to keep the tree idea, look at it like we are all sitting on trees in a big garden, and the humans' tree is slightly higher than the apes'.
Looking for the one thing that seperates us is a waste of time.

@Alan McDougall,

Quote:

There is no line that puts humans on one side and apes (animals) on the other.
There are just differences, but those don't draw a line.

Beg to differ. There is a difference in kind. In Greek philosophy, man is recognised as superior due to his rationality. In Buddhist philosophy, only humans are able to apprehend the Teaching and so avoid an unfortunate rebirth.

I prefer both explanations to yours, thanks.

Philosophy Forum

Could the internet become a conscious mind

Quick Links

My Account

able2know