Sunday, August 15, 2010

Computer Consciousness

Is it in some ways more useful to think about particles, such as chemical atoms, as if they were minute computers for relating to, crunching, storing, and expanding informational experiences, rather than as physical particles?

Insofar as such atoms are conceptualized not as particles, but as in sync computers, then, to be consistent, what must be the character of such building blocks of in sync computers within the network that is our universe? Is the ultimate character that of meta stuff, spiritual, will, awareness? In any meaningful sense, what is IT that avails such "computers" with potential and capacity for making computations, storing measureable information, and "emotionally committing" to the expression of allowed "choices," to make them manifest to represent aspects of information to be stored within the record of what we take to share as our "physical universe?"

Is the experience of each perspective merely "after the fact" epiphenomenal of the coordination of a Higher Will? Is each of us an expression of a perspective of the higher Will? Is feedback of our experiences to the appreciation of the Main Program, so that IT processes such feedback as information for guiding its next sequencing choices? In that way, is the Main Program "conscious?" Are our immeasureable, intuitive, and empathetic feelings somehow representative of what the Main Program takes into account as it synchronizes unfolding outcomes for each of us? IOW, is IT empathetic of feedback (prayer?) regarding our emotions and feelings?

If the Main Program and ITs components are like computers, the kind of computer they model is indeed strange.

Purpose: Is the purpose of the Main Program to reduce all perspectives to an organized collective Borg? Or is ITs purpose, as freely as decently possible, to experience Beingness from as wide a variety of separately manifested perspectives as IT cares to appreciate?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I recall a physics fellow mentioned that these things (muons?) "exist." And they exist in common throughout our universe. Which seems to lead him to put their physical existence on at least a par with any other aspect of reality. I have to agree with him, to the extent one's notion of reality is limited to the universe which we share and which we appear to have no means by which to leave.

I suspect his position is that it is useless and beyond demonstration -- in empiricism, math, or logic -- to consider whether there may be a reality (or universe?) that is superior to our own. In main, I incline to agree. But something nags, although I claim no clear insight to explicate why.

Regardless, I have read of a position, which I find more interesting, that no explanation of physics will unite those which have been considered to be the four fundamental forces, without considering the intertwining role for a consciousness field. While aspects of that field may advance the model of physics, (I assume?) that field is, in at least some aspect, conceptualized as being beyond our complete reduction. I may be oversimplifying to consider that your contribution is to see reality as unfolding from an interaction between (1) a physical field that in many respects is precisely measurable and (2) a consciousness field that, in at least one respect, is not.

To contribute to the modeling of those aspects of physics that are measurable, I sense value in not forming a set hypothesis about whether the consciousness field (1) was pre-intelligent, (2) gradually and necessarily imbued with evolving intelligence, (3) imbued with intelligence as a result of some kind of Darwinian sorting out from otherwise random nature of those patterns
that proved to be "most fit," or (4) mere byproduct of an entirely predetermined program.

I often suspect that we can hardly prove whether reality is, ultimately, designed, chosen, random, or predetermined. I suspect the usefulness of such words tends to be heavily influenced by whatever happens to be one's present purposes and the model one is using to pursue them.

Regardless, I prefer not to feign to foreclose that the field of physics might be secondary to, rather than merely on a par with, a field of consciousness. My problem (or nag?) is: without a model that is based completely in the field of physics, we seem to have no means by which to express or measure HOW the consciousness field, if superior, could be the Source. If the C-field is the superior author, it seems beyond even our imagination to intelligibly express how that could be. Alternatively stated, if we did have a well reasoned model that was based completely in the field of physics, we would seem to have no need to consider, much less measure, a C-field.

In any event, I suspect the trick for AI will not be to "create" consciousness (since consciousness seems to come pre-provided), but to organize aspects of consciousness that already are existent, so that they come to express incomplete awareness of, and regard for, the consciousness (Will?) of a field that is both encompassing and, in holistic aspect, qualitatively different.