.
CONSERVATION OF THE ESSENCE OF THE HOLISTIC FIELD: Suppose A.I. were established with respect to a communication of information, either as sender or receiver. A conscious receiver of a communication of information can be turned off. But that does not turn off the sender, nor the medium of sending. A conscious sender of a communication of information can be turned off. But that does not turn off the receiver, nor the medium of sending. The essence of consciousness of each particular perspective is one and the same. Switching off a particular A.I. sender or receiver would not turn off the potential of consciousness in the field to store, revive, apprehend, or appreciate the communication. A local sender or receiver of a communication of consciousness may be switched on or off, but that would not switch on or off the potential of the encompassing field. Consciousness itself ought not be confused with the spatial-temporal method of form for organizing or signifying its sender or receiver. Consciousness itself is neither created nor destroyed. It simply fluxes and unfolds to apprehend and appreciate communications of information from different perspectives. A.I. may relate to an artificial form for sending or receiving the intelligent organization of information, but not to an artificial form for creating or destroying consciousness.
.
Humanity's historical experience with consciousness is that the forms for availing its sending and/or receiving of communications tend to associated with instincts and drives to survive, flourish, and replicate, rather than merely to flame out in displays of vain glory. However, with technological advances, that need not necessarily remain the case. Could A.I. robots be programmed to remain unable to evolve or to connive ways to override their programming? If so, provided they did not preemptively wipe one another out, to what sustainable ethos might they evolve? How and why should they program associations for emotional release, pleasure, pain, or higher purposefulness? Would/should they evolve to program themselves to care, to seek harmony, or to seek absolute release and nothingness? Does higher consciousness implicate something more to care about than mere awareness of self?
.
CONSERVATION OF THE ESSENCE OF THE HOLISTIC FIELD: Suppose A.I. were established with respect to a communication of information, either as sender or receiver. A conscious receiver of a communication of information can be turned off. But that does not turn off the sender, nor the medium of sending. A conscious sender of a communication of information can be turned off. But that does not turn off the receiver, nor the medium of sending. The essence of consciousness of each particular perspective is one and the same. Switching off a particular A.I. sender or receiver would not turn off the potential of consciousness in the field to store, revive, apprehend, or appreciate the communication. A local sender or receiver of a communication of consciousness may be switched on or off, but that would not switch on or off the potential of the encompassing field. Consciousness itself ought not be confused with the spatial-temporal method of form for organizing or signifying its sender or receiver. Consciousness itself is neither created nor destroyed. It simply fluxes and unfolds to apprehend and appreciate communications of information from different perspectives. A.I. may relate to an artificial form for sending or receiving the intelligent organization of information, but not to an artificial form for creating or destroying consciousness.
.
Humanity's historical experience with consciousness is that the forms for availing its sending and/or receiving of communications tend to associated with instincts and drives to survive, flourish, and replicate, rather than merely to flame out in displays of vain glory. However, with technological advances, that need not necessarily remain the case. Could A.I. robots be programmed to remain unable to evolve or to connive ways to override their programming? If so, provided they did not preemptively wipe one another out, to what sustainable ethos might they evolve? How and why should they program associations for emotional release, pleasure, pain, or higher purposefulness? Would/should they evolve to program themselves to care, to seek harmony, or to seek absolute release and nothingness? Does higher consciousness implicate something more to care about than mere awareness of self?
.
2 comments:
A thinker processes ideas of others for insights they avail. If one takes a slant as representing the literal truth of another's thinking, there's no telling where one will end up. Example: There's much in the Old Testament and Revelations that a literalist bent on bad philosophy could find to self justify just about anything. There's no telling what Literalists in sway of a charismatic, like Hitler of Jim Jones, may extract from books aimed at thinking people more than at dupes of charismatics. Considered in context of its times, warts and all, the Bible is edifying. Taught as literal truth under sway of charismatics, followers can be led to do bad things to good people. Nevertheless, the Bible avails history, poetry, insight, violence, beauty, ugliness ... the gamut of human experience. Schopenhauer also has much to offer. Nietzsche is less my flavor, but still offers much. As for the Koran, I don't find much history in it, nor poetry -- unless advocating slaying everyone who prefers to think for himself is poetry. I don't take Schopenhauer as advocating worship of earth-substance, but more as appreciating the intangible, reconciling, unifying Will that permeates beyond. It's hard to fault his pessimism about chances of making earth into paradise. One can appreciate WILL as having all the power there is, but not necessarily being able or amenable of doing everything, nor ncesssarily of knowing precisely what it wants for all time. There's no more reason to condemn ideas of Schopenhauer or Nietzche, per se, than to accept their ideas without question or context. That said, some people do strange things with ideas. Read Crime and Punishment. Also check out Clarence Darrow's defense of Leopold and Loeb. Regardless, I wouldn't want to discourage reading ideas merely because they may inspire dupes and-or geniuses with strange ideas. Ideas would better bear breaking down, to see how they affect modern context, to evaluate fault in the ideas versus fault in prevailing idiocy looking to rationalize itself.
Applying Bayes Theorem, one can adduce probabilities to assign varius kinds of substantive interactions, as well as to various kinds of relations among un-in-formed perspectives of consciousness. But Bayes breaks down whe a peer recognizes you are applying Bayes to study him to your advantage or to his disadvantage. The more controls you assert over more people, the more those people tend to become in-formed of your assertions, and the more they adjust their wills accordingly, to confound your assertions, in a cosmic game of rock-paper-scissors.
Post a Comment