Dialogues on noise and anthropomorphism (in search of man and consciousness)

The last few days in the world there has been a lively discussion on the topic of AI victory over a person in the game of Go. In the comments you can often find disputes about whether this program is intelligence, whether it is similar to man — and what this very intelligence and consciousness are all about, and how to distinguish a person from a coffee maker. I, like you, do not know the answers to these questions, and instead I will share with you a very interesting, in my opinion, discussion on this topic - taken from one site closed to the outside world, where it took place a couple of years ago.

A small disclaimer: I know that you cannot post materials from other resources here, if they are not copyright - but since I am one of the participants of the discussion (and the author of the post in which it originated), then this material can be called authorially, as long as the other participants they will not mind - and they, I hope, will not. Names are replaced by conditional.

Enjoy reading.


')
X: This is the comment by the user svin about the article titled "The Physical Limits of Communication, or Why any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from noise" that made me remember one of my old corral.

After all, communication is not only a radio telescope going around the sky. Communication is any way of perception. In this regard, I had the idea that with a sufficient level of technology development, any civilization in its manifestation would be indistinguishable from a natural phenomenon. Look at modern bionics - it immediately becomes obvious that much of what man is doing now, his man-made technologies, is the essence of an absurd and clumsy tracing from the inventions of nature, very energy-inefficient. But this is so far.

That is, after 1000 years, for example, having arrived on our planet, hypothetical aliens, quite possibly, would not have seen evidence of the existence of “intelligent” life on it. Then the thought went further - how to characterize this most intelligent life, what would these hypothetical aliens be looking for? If they had arrived not after 1000 years, but right now, what would they see?

Most likely this is simply an incorrect extrapolation of our modern ideas about the essence of things. It is quite possible that at any stage of development any civilization (if this word is generally appropriate here) is indistinguishable from background noise in its manifestations.

After all, what is “advanced technology”? How do you define that? Is star a technology? And the biosphere of the Earth? It recalls and "Solaris" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", asking the same questions. How advanced is it? Is it appropriate to ask such questions?

If we draw analogies with that note about the radio waves, then the person recognizes other people and recognizes the manifestations of human civilization only because he knows the coding method . And someone else sees nothing but noise, standing right in front of you and looking at you. Or see there what he wants to see.

It seems to me that all the problems of these issues are rooted not in mathematics and not in science, but in human self-conceit, pride and prejudice. And what man calls consciousness and mind may not be a property of a separately selected piece of matter, but an integral characteristic of all things in general.

And that paradox about a silent universe is not a paradox at all - the Universe is not silent, just someone does not know how to listen.

__________________________________________________________

S: > Look at modern bionics - it immediately becomes obvious that much of what man is doing now, his man-made technologies, is the essence of an absurd and clumsy tracing from the inventions of nature, very energy inefficient.

The higher the development of a civilization, the easier it is to distinguish it or the traces of its activity from nature. Nature does everything inefficiently, with a huge overhead projector (hell, how can this word in Russian be "like" stock ", just superfluous).

For acts in the majority - stupidly brute force. It takes millions of years for her to bring out a new species or genus. Humanity, even the most primitive, cattle-breeding, does it in less than a thousand years.

While we copy many things from nature. And often not very skillfully, yes.

But what we have already done to do is do it much more effectively.
So, to separate the natural from the artificial (created by the mind) is easy-easy. By efficiency.

Here the other, though the thought breaks through. After all, all this artificial efficiency, by and large, due to lack of resources and energy. Necessity on invention is cunning.

And if humanity (or civilization in principle) has unlimited (very-very large) reserves of cheap energy, well, like nature? Will we still be effective, or will we start lazing more and more?

__________________________________________________________

X: You start from an initially, possibly incorrect, premise - that man, they say, is not nature. Spend, I mean, the devil some. Using a coding system inherent only in man. Staying within this framework, you will never see anyone in the universe except man.

For me, the Airbus 380 and the iPod are the same product of evolution as the pistol shrimp and the space – time metric. Come on, compare their effectiveness. In what terms will you do it? In what context?

Nature, you say, is brute force. And what, like, the traveling salesman problem has already been learned analytically to solve in polynomial time? Exactly. The man is the same, peeped from nature, optimization tools used to solve their immediate problems. In some approximation (or rather, distance), it is difficult for me to see how this differs from what it has always been, even before a person.

What we hate to do - we do effectively, yes. So this is the essence of nature - plodding to be more effective. The cockroach is simply awesome better than you have been sad to live, if you argue in cockroach terms - it has been living for several million years without changing, and you are only at the beginning of the road. So where is the difference here?

I say, the problem of bloated conceit, it prevents to see, obscures the view.

__________________________________________________________

S: You say everything correctly. You look at the problem globally and in general. In general, yes, that a person, an iPhone, a cockroach, and an amoeba are also part of the universe. And I’m talking about several qualitative (phase) transitions within this common and whole advance, called life.

I'm telling you. The fact that nature took millions of years, humanity takes a couple of hundred. Understand how it works, disassembled into pieces, assemble a similar unit of snot and toilet paper, improve it many times, get a thousand times more efficient thing at the exit.

All because there was a qualitative leap, from the blunt animal evolution by brute force, trial and error, to a reasonable evolution.

Previously, there have already been several such qualitative leaps (for example, the transition from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms, or there is a way out of liquid habitat to land). We are waiting for the next one. Which is about. Well, technological singularity, back and forth.

It will transform life (by changing its very concept), and make evolution another two hundred thousand orders more efficient.

We will live, we will not live - I do not know. But it should not be too far away.
As a minimum, compared with three billion years of phase transition from unicellular to multicellular, in general, very soon.

__________________________________________________________

X: In the history of the universe, such qualitative leaps occur constantly in general, as you correctly noted.

I just want to say that we see very little, and the quality of these jumps is subjective, from the point of view of importance to ourselves - that is, for you personally, the transition from single-cell to multi-cellular is very important, because it ultimately led to your appearance to the light. Well, you are extrapolating, trying to predict your future. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But the promise of fasting was somewhat more abstract, raising the question of the correctness of such extrapolation beyond the limits of humanity. And here it’s just impossible to operate with facts, it is necessary to connect the imagination, going beyond the framework of the scientific paradigm and this sub-blind in particular;)

And here you can endlessly cling to the words, trying to understand their meaning in isolation from the one that created them - for example, “evolution is reasonable”, “man-made”. What is mind for you? What is "man-made"? No, do not think, I am not a creationist. I am not going to declare about the man-made nature of the Universe, I want to discredit the very notion of "man-made", that is, perhaps, what I want.

That is, it is interesting for me to step aside and try to look, as it were, from what is happening on the Earth ball and beyond. And to understand whether it is possible to distinguish one from the other in such a case.

__________________________________________________________

S: > extrapolations beyond human. And here it is no longer possible to operate with facts,

And nefig extrapolate beyond human! Nothing good will come of it. It will not be possible to operate not only with facts, but with nothing at all.

Like any building, science is built on some foundation. In science, this foundation is entirely within human fits. And the building stands. Reeling in places, but in general a fairly stable construction is obtained.

Of course, compared to the world revolution or comparing with the scale of the man-made Universe , this is complete garbage, and not a building, just a clumsy hut on the background of a glittering metropolis.

But this is our shalashik. And we love and cherish him, for the fact that he is so "man-made", including. For it may be that this whole “sparkling metropolis” is just a wraith of dancing lights in the fog, a ghost and a mind game.
And the shelter here he is. Works. It helps you to communicate with me right now.

__________________________________________________________

X: Your last phrase is a terrible assumption, by the way.

I am not sure that what I am writing is that you understand the way I understand it. And that even you can somehow evaluate it. Vice versa. It is quite possible that this is just noise, true chaos, the structure of which is reflected only in the mind of the one who interprets it, and does not exist at all. But this is not constructive, of course, so we pretend that we understand each other.

But he is amazing (or not at all amazing) in the sense that he is constantly trying to go beyond. Beyond the limits of its habitat, beyond the framework of established paradigms, beyond itself, at the end.

And locking yourself in a hut is somehow not even human, or something.

__________________________________________________________

S: You give Etta! Do not go to my side! This is my argument that humanity is constantly going beyond, or at least trying to do it.

Well, so it is clear. This is the very essence of the process of converting quantity to quality. Human civilization is essentially an expansive way of development:
Expansion and seizure of resources in the surrounding areas. An abutment against the next wall, when the direct / primitive use of these resources ceases to maintain the necessary expansion rate. A qualitative change in technology (and myself as well), and on the same resources, but with much more efficient use of them - a new expansion, beyond the former horizons.

Well, in fact, the virus is clearly explained to Morpheus.

And we do not "lock in the hut." We are accumulating power in it. We are preparing for a new qualitative leap forward. To turn one shalashik into a no settlement, albeit a primitive, but already a city.

And there and close to the metropolis. We will build our own, brighter than those glittering lights (which, as I have already said, can be completely confused and have an illusion), and even with blackjack and further on the plan.

__________________________________________________________

X: The evolution of the universe on a cosmological scale is also an expansive (and literally) path of development. Here a man is not distinguished for something outstanding, just a pathetic copycat;)

The star, too, sometimes saves strength. And then kaak zhahnet! Sawing with a thermonuclear flame not very successful representatives of certain civilizations. What is not a form of life?

__________________________________________________________

S: Everyone. Only slow. Ineffective. The star accumulates its strength for hundreds of millions of years. And these are supergiants, ordinary, yellow dwarfs like the Sun, say, they have been saving for 10 billion years.

We have taken this into account. We are a more advanced life. We have enough for this 10,000 years for the eyes.

__________________________________________________________

X: Slow does not mean bad. You do not say that the double bass in the orchestra plays worse than the violin? So with the time scale, there is a bassline, and there are hi-hets, the fleeting slap of which may turn out to be human history.

If you abstract from scale and normalize processes, then there can be no difference in complexity.

I have long noticed that reality has a remarkable property - the invariance of complexity in scale. No matter where you look at a piece of space – time, it’s equally interesting and difficult everywhere.

On the other hand, it may not be a property of reality, but a property of the human brain, as an analytical machine that can distinguish structure from any noise. Only this structure is always the same, because the allocator is the same.

That’s probably why I’m urging that this highlighter itself be somehow changed, developed internally, and not just consumed by gigawatts and bigmaks, measure our development.

__________________________________________________________

S: Interesting "human" concept. And the complexity of life is higher than the environment. And slowly, exactly bad. Everything needs to be done quickly. But for a long time.

While the star has time to do 5 cycles – ticks, a person will make them a million million. Now it’s still possible to equalize the time of life (scientists are working on it, it seems that it turns out, although it’s still bad), and here’s a direct win for you.

__________________________________________________________

X: And the virus will make them even an order of magnitude larger. And already at the quantum level, it will have time to do it - Mama Do not Cry.

If you were a star, you would not notice human activity at all. But I would notice something else.

Have you ever traveled by car? He paid attention to such an interesting feature - when you go fast, the world around is transformed, the distances are reduced, you begin to live in a different frame of reference. Pedestrians on the sidewalks are almost static for you, but other cars on the road are personified and endowed with anthropomorphic features that characterize the dynamics of their movement. Whereas they are seen by pedestrians as rapidly sweeping same fireballs.

This simple analogy allows us to understand how different “plans of being” can coexist simultaneously in one physical reality. Do you understand the theory of relativity? Here it is about the same, only the context is different.

Therefore, it all depends on which side the observer is on. You, as a person, appreciate in a human way. But to build this point of view as an absolute, it’s like to deny the ideas of Einstein or even Newton today.

__________________________________________________________

S: You should not drag Einstein here, he has nothing to do with it, but I understood the analogy.

Did you catch my point? If we continue to live, how much our ancestors lived (30 years old is already an old man), then yes. Each level of physical reality will have its own “plans of being”. The stars live slowly and for a long time, but the one-day butterflies are fast and small, the quanta "under the threshold of Heisenberg's uncertainty" - in general, there is no fut.

But! If a person (well, the next steps of human evolution) will live longer, comparable to the life expectancy of the stars, and they will “tick” cycle counters billions of billions of times more often - this is a direct way to the fact that the stars will be left behind.

And our “life plan” will reach the front position of the Universe.

__________________________________________________________

X: Yeah, don't blink b-ha in vain. Einstein personally can do with it, but relativity, as an abstract tool, is applicable a lot to where - even with it at all. And this tool was invented, really not Einstein, I dragged him so much that it was more scientific .

I caught your point, but you do not seem to catch mine. Stars do not live slowly and for a long time - in relation to themselves they live just right , exactly as much as necessary. And the virus, and the ant, and man are like a star in this.

How many people measured - so much he will live. This is not much and not enough, this is all life. It is a million years or one moment - it does not matter, because these words have no meaning, as long as you are inside your “plan of being”. And beyond the limits of this plan you will not go anywhere - as you do not jump out of your own pants. Because it is logical absurdity to appreciate how fast or slow he can be only by being outside, which you cannot do.

What I am trying to convey is that you are already at the advanced position of the Universe, cutting edge, one might say. And no matter what you do, no matter how you spin, you will always stay in this position.

__________________________________________________________

S: Everyone lives "just right". A person wants (and can) live longer . So far, it has only been 2–2.5 times longer, but this is a big progress in just a hundred thousand years.

Nothing. At the next stage, after the next qualitative leap, progress will go faster.

__________________________________________________________

X: This is the pursuit of illusions. You can not live longer or less, because you have nothing to compare.

You cannot compare yourself with a star or even another individual in this respect, because for them the subjective time flows differently than for you. But you don’t have objective time - you can show yourself at least every night when you go to bed. 8 hours pass in an instant.

__________________________________________________________

S: Yes. Subjective time. To combat it, the system (Babylon) came up with a means of synchronization. Well, there, the signals of the exact time or the dial tone that calls the factory at 8 am every day.

And for a more civilized person, events in life objectively take place more than those of the backward, “rural” ones.

Yes, here nature (for the time being) takes its toll, and sets up filters. There are more events, but they fly by before their eyes more and more imperceptibly, with less effect.

And with this (with nature, with the brain of meat) also need to fight.

__________________________________________________________

X: I lived in the village. There are also a lot of events happening, they are just different and the time scale is different. But in general, the same garbage, side view. You just have to live there long enough to understand it. And a person who has only just drove there will initially be struck by imaginary calm. Vice versa - ofigeget village from the speed of Moscow, but after a couple of years it will be ordinary as shit.

Because a person can only feel differentially. You cannot feel the absolute temperature - only the loss of heat by the body or the message to its body, which is interpreted as “cold” and “heat”. So absolutely with any sensory aspect, this is a fundamental property of perception.

So it is with the subjective passage of time - you can feel some pulsations, but the expectation in general is always zero. You will not win this casino.

And that question addressed to the cuckoo, “how long I have left to live,” does not make any sense in terms of your own world perception.

These attempts to prolong your own existence, the search for eternal life - this is just a manifestation of the survival algorithm wired into you. We do it unconsciously, on a whim, just like a beaver builds a dam, or the virus penetrates the protein wall of a cell. It is not even interesting to discuss, neither the motivation of this, nor the ways of implementation.

But since a person is endowed with the mind and the questioner of questions - why not ask a question about how sensible it is at all, maybe it can be somehow different? Reluctance to spend an eternity in pursuit of eternity, it is somehow boring, or something.

__________________________________________________________

S: You, come on, do not move out of the conversation. He began to move smoothly in the direction of “searching for a goal,” say, existence, and here in science, for now, sheer failures.

Of course, if you begin to understand that the goal (even not so - the Goal) is only more sophisticated and effective methods of distilling energy and generating entropy, life becomes boring and uninteresting.

But all the same - I felt a lot of information. A lot of information is better than a little information. (All framed, of course, too much information only to the thickening of the filters on the doors of perception lead).

In civilization, more information, more ways to get it and process it. From what - in the ass village! Give us an increased frequency of cycles! Feeling waiting for excitement!

__________________________________________________________

X: And I'm not moving down anywhere, I methodically follow the outline that you laid - the search for the goal of humanity, the search for the meaning of existence. And in the post about it in general was not a word, by the way.

You just hid this goal behind the cover of the word "science", which has always been a refuge for those marginals from the human race who were looking for this very meaning and purpose, written in the laws of celestial mechanics. I am sure that not all of them even understood this on a conscious level. But sewed in the ass you can not hide. So why bother, let's go straight to the point? What are these protons – neutrons there? Is it really not interesting what is really behind all this?

It was a digression, but back to the information you mentioned. I contend that there is not much or little information - wherever you look, it is equally infinitely everywhere. Or rather, as much as you can perceive.

You can lock yourself in a dark room, plug your eyes and ears - and there will still be so much information that it will crawl out of your nose. You can lie in the chamber of sensory deprivation, if you don't believe in the word.

You can go and study the vacuum - and you will find so much information in it, as there is no information in all stock exchange reports in the entire history of the stock market. Here the main thing to dig thoroughly.

The brain cannot fail to feel at all, and he is generally on the drum that he is being served at the entrance - even from white noise he will do everything for himself.

So you are in the village or in Moscow, or even hanging in a vacuum - it doesn’t matter, you always feel the same way, self-excited, even if there is no external stimulus.

In general, I realized what was happening. You just have to live in the countryside, in nature. Infiltrate the atmosphere of the local, poraskinut brains in peace. Then, you see, you will cease so haughtily and haughtily to look at the village and nature. Nature doesn't care. So why should you be any different? Unresponsive this relationship is obtained, unpromising.

__________________________________________________________

S: > And I'm not moving out anywhere, I methodically follow the canvas that you laid - the search for the goal of humanity, the search for the meaning of existence.

And immediately stop! I did not offer this! Even close.

The closest thing to this post, to what you blame me for , it was possible: we observe that humanity develops like a virus, expansively, capturing and subjugating nearby territories, so that such a statement of the phrase does not mean.

There is nothing at all about the goal. Science says - all bodies are attracted according to such a law (we observe it, and can reproduce it), but never answer the questions, for what purpose do these bodies come together, maybe they have something badly planned?

Science is a lubricant on the wheel of evolution. So far, the lubricant, at some point, science itself will become a wheel, or rather it will replace it with something more efficient, for example, with anti-gravity cushions, but as long as it does not even have a wheel, it is only an axle lubricant.

Science does not know anything (maybe it guesses, but hides) about the purpose of the journey, but it can make it more comfortable - there are ergonomic armrests, heated seats, and so on.

By the way, do you want to add a culture? Culture (and all, all theaters, painting, ballet, Malevich, Brodsky, Haiduk, Lady Gaga and Fellini - just a Christmas tree on the rearview mirror for the scent, so that the boots would not stink on the way.

And religion (also all) - three icons on the torpedo. So that, like, saved, if that. But do not save, you know.

At the expense of information, there is no time to absorb information in a village, it is necessary to work. If you go there like a downshifter, hang out, this is one thing. And if you naturally graze cows and plow the land, it’s not up to information.

I will not go there, thanks.

__________________________________________________________

X: I don’t even argue with culture and religion. There is complete freedom of interpretation. I personally find a lot of very similarities between science and religion in a certain aspect, not methodologically, of course. In the sense that both are fundamentally a manifestation of faith, someone has a god, and someone has a scientific method. And in our country, in connection with the latest events, they also see that they will generally merge into one whole, mvahahaaaa.

For me, both culture and science with religion in particular (as manifestations of human culture) are clothed with very complex and bizarre forms of the rhetorical question “Why?”. This question is even grafitchiki love to write on the walls, by the way.

And when I talk about science, I talk about fundamental science, theoretical. And not its applied branches, which in fact are not much different from the sanitary craft. For people who go to theoretical mathematics, the motivation is somewhat different than for those who study mathematics in order to write high-speed robots.

So for whom is it a lubricant, and for whom is the soul the salvation method.

>> I will not go there, thanks.

Very scientific. I offer you a specific experiment to set, and you refuse.

<...>

[Returning to the issue of energy efficiency]

> And if humanity (or civilization in principle) has unlimited (very-very large) reserves of cheap energy, well, like nature? Will we still be effective, or will we start lazing more and more?

A person already has unlimited reserves of free energy in general. You are using them right now, the sun shines on you with terawatts of energy, you do not die of cold. You swallow food in your mouth and process it very efficiently into energy - this efficiency will allow any power plant to sling.

It's all about the tasks that you face. Believe me, if a person needs to build a Dyson sphere and fly to alpha-centauria (which normally requires energy), we will find a way to assimilate and process this energy. The fact that this is not happening now means only that the task is not worth it, that's all. This is efficiency.

__________________________________________________________

S: > And yet, the person already has unlimited reserves of free energy in general.

This is the day. <irony> And at night? </ irony>

The Dyson Sphere, flying (in space, not exceeding c ) to Alpha Centauri, these are all projects (or rather projects fantasies) of the past (well, current) technological stage of civilization development. In the next such garbage children will not suffer.

You do not say that flights to the moon are impossible because the Earth cannot grow as much oats as is needed to feed horses, which according to calculations must be harnessed into a flying chariot capable of delivering a cargo of 100 kilograms to a distance of 400,000 kilometers.

Another time, another level of development, other technologies, other tasks.
More precisely, the same tasks, but qualitatively solved in another way.

The Dyson Sphere is a space train. The project is incomparable in scale with the level of development of any civilization. For when it reaches a state that it can build a Dyson sphere, it has long ceased to fool around like garbage.

__________________________________________________________

X: So I think that they will not suffer such garbage. I gave such an example from the sci – fi era of the past century, which had sunk into oblivion, specifically cited to suggest reflections on the incorrectness of extrapolating the amount of shit on the streets of Paris or "440 kilobytes will be enough for everyone."

For example, you can imagine for a moment that a single civilization does not reach a state when it “can build a Dyson sphere”, but reaches a state in which it becomes obvious that it is not necessary to build a Dyson sphere :) Not only technologies change over time. and cultural and spiritual values, and in the distance, again, it is very difficult to distinguish one from the other. For example, political technology is also a technology, just living in a slightly different material dimension from the world. And the post was also about this, too - about these hidden dimensions, which we may never be able to see and understand, but they surround us and form reality no less than quantum mechanics.

Very often in discussions about hypothetical aliens who have glanced at us at the light, the analogy with man and ants is given. But, damn it, why did we think that even ants are less complex and worthy of study than humans? This question may seem ridiculous to someone, but only for the time being.

For example, I recently watched some BBC film about the evolution of plants. And at the end there was an interesting story about the recently discovered chemical signaling system of some unremarkable plant - when the herbivore appears in its thickets, it starts to make a riot, then when the leaves are damaged, this plant releases substance-marker into the air, as - that (it is not known what) signals the neighboring plants. And so on the chain. The discovery was made absolutely by chance that this is unclear. It is possible that this is only the tip of a huge iceberg, about which we do not yet know anything.

In light of this, it is easy for me to assume that that part of the plant biosphere that we are seeing is vertices. And studying them, we are only, as they say, scratching the surface. And behind it lies a whole world, which may turn out to be much more complex and more ancient than the human community. Living in a completely different time scale (this, by the way, is a little jabbing of the fact that you constantly cite time costs as a criterion of efficiency - and this can be insignificant at all).

Or maybe we can never understand this, because this world simply does not fit in our head, and it can not be described using any logical / linguistic / philosophical tools or their derivatives that we can only develop.

__________________________________________________________

S: Of course 440Kb is not enough! Therefore, it was proposed to give 640Kb. To exactly enough, with a margin! :)

About the time you correctly noticed. "Efficiency" is in large measure a temporary concept. To do something not just with minimal energy, but as quickly as possible.

Who cares about the whole world of plant biosphere, if their “synchronization ticks” occur once a year? Or even a day.
In humans, this happens once a second (heartbeat), and the processor has a billion times per second. (All figures are rather relative and are given only as a figurative example).

While there the plant world is being prodigged, mankind will have time to completely destroy it, without understanding the great mystery of the chemical signaling system.

There is, however, a chance that mankind will have time to destroy itself faster, and the plants, as they lived before, will continue to live after a short moment of human civilization. This is yes.Do not forget about it.

But I look to the future positively. If humanity does not self-destruct (and to prevent this, I remind you, you must at least stop storing all the eggs in your shorts, and finally colonize Mars), and continue to evolve, about the civilization of plants and other slow delusions, such as the "civilization of the stars", with tics millions of years you can forget. We pick them up from the inside before they can come to their senses.

__________________________________________________________

X: You see, with a reserve! He also said that the overhead projector was quoted only in natural creations.

And to destroy is a word with some negative meaning. There are more neutral - assimilation, dissolution. But if an asteroid hits you in the head, then it assimilates you into streams of molten rock. And as if nothing bad happened. "And now about the weather .."

__________________________________________________________

S: Of course stock is needed. Who argues. We are not far from nature (we have not gone anywhere at all, to be honest), all the same carcasses of protein meat, with a nutritional system combined with the sexual one, in the sense of a breeding system. This is generally, of course, a disgrace.

I will not forgive this nature for a long time. It was necessary to save on the organs! In our wondrous new world, everything will be much better planned! Power supply (12 Volt) separately, information and entertainment separately, up to 0.5 volt at peak (orgasm) load.

Assimilation is a good word. I agree.But it is with equals. Standing a few steps lower in terms of development, humanity is increasingly destroying than culturally assimilating.

__________________________________________________________

X: Running from nature is like chasing your own tail. I believe that one day it will pass.

About the stage of development is not so simple. Here are churkobesy - sort of like at the bottom stage of development, and they even assimilate the whole cultural Europe.

This ladder has no top and bottom, it all depends on which direction you personally look.

__________________________________________________________

S: “Logs” is a process of feedback, self-regulation and self-purification that is necessary for evolution. So that the fat does not swim and the bedsores do not start to form.

“Chokobesy” slowly assimilate, from the number of cheap gifts of civilization they start to be lazy, stop multiplying and jerking off to a black meteorite, buy iPhones and connect to corporate LTE plans. Not immediately, of course.But the second, and even more so the third generation fuck you in the veil already thrust.

So everything is fine.

And to run away from nature is necessary. Only this must be done without undue haste. We are not far from her yet. I say, in general, did not run away. We live in the same apartment, only the plywood partition was installed.

__________________________________________________________

X: So, do we really need these partitions? That's what you're trying to insulate yourself from? No, I do not urge you to abandon the concrete walls and freeze in the cold, do not literally understand it.

These partitions are primarily in the head, in the mind. And while they are in it, their manifestations in reality, in the form of real partitions, look so ridiculous and inefficient as they are now. And again, I'm not talking about concrete walls, even though they look very childish and naive now. From modern architecture puke sometimes hunting.

I am more about partitions between people, between nations, between ways of thinking. All that is why we feel at the moment that “something is wrong” (the only slogan agreed by the Belarusian KGB at the rally).

These very same partitions force officials of various colors to shut themselves off from the people, from the country, to lock themselves in a hut , after removing as much resources as possible to support it. I can give as many examples as I like.

And you can believe me - these are the same partitions with which you are trying to isolate yourself from nature. Such an attempt to escape from themselves. Man, not as an individual, but as a community , there is still a lot to learn from nature.

__________________________________________________________

S: Of course we are! Even as needed! I do not want a tiger to eat me at night, I do not want to freeze in the winter. I do not want to devote my whole life to throwing caviar, so that out of a million eggs one would survive.

Of course, we are (still) part of nature. And we will not get anywhere from it. Fenced off with only walls (so as not to freeze and tigers so as not to eat). But still ahead.

And of course I am for breaking the partitions between people. You do not confuse. It is one thing the partitions between man and nature (now necessary, for comfort, and in the future they will be necessary, because man will cease to be nature), and it is quite another thing the partitions between people themselves.

The last partitions need to be removed, of course.

On this, too, work is underway. Humanity still needs Google for some time as receptors, from which it (in the sense of OH) through the axons – androids will receive information about reality and act on it. Partitions in this case will only interfere.

__________________________________________________________

X: These are all the same partitions. And so that the tiger does not eat you, it is not necessary to isolate itself from nature , at the level of an ideological driver. It is enough to isolate from the tiger.

__________________________________________________________

S: Nature eats you all. Not just tigers. But bacteria, viruses, worms and mosquitoes. In nature, someone is constantly eating someone. And man is nature too.

It is necessary to go out of this closed circulation. And we have already one foot (well, rather so far only with the nose) stuck out from there. Mosquitoes bite less and less, and tigers are almost not at all.

You can also get rid of the meat carcass and forget about nature.

__________________________________________________________

X: Yes, you can never understand that you will not leave this circle of samsara. Wherever you go, no matter how you dissociate yourself, there will always be as many entities that you will eat.

Moreover, these partitions themselves create new forms of being that eat you. Here you have built Russia, as a partition. Now you need to think about how to buy an apartment in the mortgage and change the old Shokhu to a new seven. Otherwise they will laugh. This is an example of how new eaters of you arise from the partitions built by you.

There is no way out of this cycle, but the key to it lies not in the field of science and technological progress in the current understanding.

__________________________________________________________

S: Once again. Stop confusing the partitions between people (Russia, officials, "churkobesy", mortgages, etc.) and partitions between people and nature.

From the first need to get rid of, the last need to build.

Moreover, not that straight "need." It happens by itself. History teaches this. Well, at least me.

And of course the way out of the water cycle in nature (and we are part of it, anyway) is not the way out of the wheel of samsara. But at least something, already a worthy goal.

__________________________________________________________

X: Let's logically analyze your first sentence, if nothing else permeates you.

If we take for granted that people are nature, then the partitions between people are the partitions between people and nature.

There is no difference.

__________________________________________________________

S: People are still nature. Not quite, but 99% still. The further progress is, the less man - nature.

__________________________________________________________

X: Yeah, the further the evolution of the star goes, the less star the nature. It smacks of delirium, don't you find?

Nature is all around and everything inside. The fact that you came up with some other definition of nature (absolutely clumsy, if you disassemble it, Occam would have cut himself with a razor) - this is the very partition.

From this I began - with the fact that the partition originally originated in your mind. At that moment when you began to separate man from nature, at the conceptual level.

Now you hurt, why is this the same partition that makes deputy Milonov think that he is different from you, servants? And worthy of more?

__________________________________________________________

S: > Yeah, the further the evolution of the star goes, the less star the nature. It smacks of delirium, don't you find?

No, I do not find.What do you mean by "star evolution"? The evolution of her life, in the sense of ignition, burning, extinction? So this is not "evolution", it is just life. In a particular individual in life, too, not a lot of evolutionary events occur, more and more according to the program, wired by ancestors.

And if you mean evolution in the sense of evolution, i.e. development, then humanity is the evolution of stars. The fifth, sixth or maybe twentieth stage. And the more stages, the less “nature”.

Although again, what is meant by nature. From our Universe (and its laws) we will not (yet) get out.

Oh well. We can consider the "nature" of the lower, completed stages of development. Fauna, plant world, microorganisms, soil ...

We are farther from them. Or do you disagree?

__________________________________________________________

X: By evolution, I mean generally any process directed in time. And yes, it is a synonym for life. Life can not stand still, in nature there is nothing static. And if something seems static, it is simply because you cannot see the dynamics on such a scale.

OK, let's take your rules for a while. We define nature as the paths of development traversed. But after all, every moment everything changes, this development machine does not stop for a tick. It turns out that a second ago you were nature, and now you are no longer. Oh, here again. No, it's some kind of garbage?

What will complicate the definition?

It is not clear yet, from which fluff you determined the soil to the lowest path of development. You know, the ground is actually where you came from, and where you most likely will return. The mother of cheese is the land, her mother. You yourself can be defined as some ridiculous fluctuation on this very soil. And as the final stage of evolution of you, as an individual.

In short, I do not agree once.

__________________________________________________________

S: Oh, finally we have common points started to be.

Nature - completed stages of development. Not seconds, but stages. We are at the current stage - Homo sapiens (more precisely, Homo sapiens sapiens) smoothly passing through Homo informaticus to Homo digital. We are still very tied to the previous stages. We have a common circulation of water and proteins with them, but we have already stopped wearing their skins (more and more synthetics in clothes), stopped using them as tools (there are no copies of animal bones, an iron horse replaces a peasant horse, etc. .).

We still eat them. From that and return to the soil.

The less connection with previous, completed stages, the greater the inconvenience, in the end, you can be free.

To live side by side and “in harmony” with mice, bedbugs and cholera sticks - nafig, nafig. This is already passed stage. Overcome and "return to the soil."

__________________________________________________________

X: What are the stages? This is some kind of convention. If you take a caliper and try to find a specific point where nature becomes non-nature, you will not find it.

From what I can conclude that this division is a hallucination of consciousness that does not objectively exist. That is, you specifically took it and came up with the idea that you are different from nature, based on what is not clear. That's why you came up with it, can you explain? Does it help you solve some problems? As long as I see that there is no use for it, a meaningless ego toy to entertain self-conceit. It is not even scientific at all.

With mice and bedbugs and chopsticks, you are already in harmony and living nearby - they don’t touch you, and you don’t touch them. And once there was no such harmony, but now there is. But this is a typical natural process, by the way - the solution of the optimization problem, the search for the lowest energy state. Man exclusively engaged in this and all the way, and there is nothing that distinguishes him from the rest of nature as a whole.

So you could not explain to me how this man differs from nature.

__________________________________________________________

S: So, let's immediately determine the "nature". And then we are constantly confused and interfere with the concept. “Nature” in my theses and arguments is not “generally the whole Universe around,” we won’t get out of it for a long time. Nature is the stages of evolution. Animals, plants, microorganisms, soil. All this ecology, the environment.

So here.I do not want harmony with this "nature". Do you know what harmony with nature is? Mice do not touch you, and you them?

Fuck it there!

Pubic lice bite you and you scratch them. They bite, you scratch. This is what “natural harmony” is. Such a symbiosis, all in the business, the great circle of life, la.

I do not want such harmony. Science first gave man soap to wash more often, then all sorts of ointments and antibiotics. And in the end gave a razor. And still shave, now it is fashionable.

And environmentalists have sounded the alarm! Pubic louse is on the verge of extinction, it must be entered in the Red Book! (By the way, besides jokes, I read a recent article that the pubic louse may soon disappear from the face of the Earth and from nature).

Here is barbarism. Here is a blow to harmony. And this is the only option when you do not touch them, and they do not touch you. When they are physically destroyed.

There are 4–5 paragraphs about the causative agents and carriers of bubonic plague, cholera, tapeworms and streptococci. Breaking write, let's agree, as if I wrote them, and you read, ok.

This is how a person is different from nature. He can destroy the "natural harmony" for their own convenience or pleasure.

Once again, I understand perfectly well that for the time being we cannot completely abandon nature. While we are made of meat. And we eat it (well, or its precursors, which is not important, I don’t want to breed a vegan doctor here).

But I see that we are doing this every year, with every step of progress, and I want this trend to continue.

But you can not too hurry in this direction, it is also necessary to understand. The only harmony that a person can have with nature is the harmony of parting. While we live on the planet Earth and are participating in the cycle of nature, we have to climb out of the skin so as not to disturb this damned balance. Until we get out of the cradle, you need to try to shit less into it. But this is only as long as we have not learned to walk, and we continue to sit in this very cradle.

__________________________________________________________

X: Dude, well, I have long understood that nature for you personally is all that which is outside your carcass. And you do not consider yourself to be nature (well, or you think, but by 50%, by 99%. And nature is aggressive towards you, so you have to isolate yourself from it.

Let me summarize some summary, because it seems to me that we have lost a few.

I understood this promise from the very first commentary of yours, otherwise we would not have had a discussion at all, because there would be no subject for it, actually.

So, I disagree radically with this promise. And all the way I am trying to explain why this may not be so, and that this border between you and nature is speculative, and why all troubles come from here, including on the physical plane of life (mortgages, loans, coffin, cemetery, Milon ), as a physical projection of a certain mental inconsistency.

I gave a lot of arguments that level this division, from the most diverse areas of knowledge available to me. I tried to demonstrate that this division between you and nature is unconstructive, and it does not go against the fact that you need to defend yourself from cold, hunger and pubic lice. And precisely becausedoes not go against it, because survival and the search for maximum comfort (energy minimization) - this is what nature does, did, and will always do! This is a fundamental property of nature as a whole, and you declare that a man invented this supposedly - and therefore he is not a nature. This is absurd, buddy.

If you look at what a person does, I don’t see any difference at all between his activity, the process of folding a protein or the process of building an anthill. Purely mathematically, this is the same crap - the same formalism.

No matter what you do, you can’t separate yourself from nature - if you want, blow up the planet with a giant nuclear bonbo trying to assert itself over nature - and from the outside it will look like a bizarre self-assembly of a critical mass of plutonium at a certain point in space, random fluctuation of nature. And it certainly will look utterly stupid not from the outside.
__________________________________________________________

S: > I tried to demonstrate that this division between you and nature is unconstructive, and it does not go against the fact that you need to defend yourself from cold, hunger and pubic lice.

And in my opinion - in a straight cut. Lice are dying out, how can you not understand this? This is an imbalance of nature! There used to be lice and man, but now only man is left. Is this not the end of the harmonious life of man and nature?

You will answer me - no, this is not a violation, this is the type, a new balance has been formed. Good. I am for it.We bring this balance to the state that in general one person remained, and no “nature” around. We cannot do this (for the time being), but that’s all. Here is a balance for me.

By the way, I am not at all ready to destroy it completely. When a person leaves the planet, let herself continue to live in harmony with herself. Well, in reserves and zoos.

__________________________________________________________

PC: What is the balance of nature? Nature kills and grinds trillions of creatures all their lives in search of the DNA that will win the next fight. And so billions of years.

__________________________________________________________

X: > We can not do this (for now), but all this goes. Here is a balance for me.

So anyway, you're not going anywhere by nature. Even if the whole universe is somehow limited to your physical body (maximal score on your scale of nature management), then your body will become nature.

Man is a whole universe in itself, a huge community of cell cultures, the relationship of which we do not fully understand, and not the fact that we understand at all before evolution takes a step forward (and there again something will have to be understood).

For example, you know that neurons in the brain are rather selfish towards each other, constantly trying to wipe resources from each other. Like that grandma in a vidos from YouTube with the phrase "burn, burn them to * y, so that they do not exist!". Do you recognize your usual human behavior pattern, s?

And the emergent product of the inter-and brutal fights of these neurons in the head is you. Which, in no way surprising, professes all the same values, just at the next turn of the spiral of being. In this there is some universal irony, bravo, god.

__________________________________________________________

S: Stand, be afraid! Either we play by the rules, or I pick up my scoop, and go to the next sandbox.

I specifically noted a couple of comments above, I quote:

So, let's define the “nature” right away. And then we are constantly confused and interfere with the concept. “Nature” in my theses and arguments is not “generally the whole Universe around,” we won’t get out of it for a long time. Nature is the stages of evolution. Animals, plants, microorganisms, soil. All this ecology, the environment.

He knew that you would translate arrows to the whole Universe. This is nonsense and blur themes.

Do you agree that if we limit the definition of nature to the ecosystem of planet Earth, then it is possible and necessary to spit on human harmony with this nature? So far, carefully, but the further the science develops, the more boldly, resolutely, boldly?

And do not translate the conversation on the universe, on the internal and external. Only nature. In prishvinsky understanding of the issue. All kinds of bunnies, squirrels, deer with wet eyes, flowers, birch trees, poplars ...

Do you agree or not?

__________________________________________________________

X: You never dare say that I argue not with what you say within your definition. And with your definition per se. I contend that it makes no sense.

__________________________________________________________

S: Then give your definition of "nature." Only pochetche. And do not even think of her to equalize with the universe. A man - a part of this universe to declare. I then do not play right away.

__________________________________________________________

X: Well, if you don’t like holistic definitions, I’m scientific. Nature is a derivative of the Big Bang. And evolution is all that has happened to it since that moment, and will continue to happen.

But I don’t like this definition, because if it turns out to be some details about the fact that before BB there was something (no matter how absurd it may sound), then these details will also be nature.

__________________________________________________________

S: Ie Is nature the same universe? What else was born after the Big Bang? But I said - so not interesting.

This is garbage and avoiding the answer. Ad Universum.

There are specific questions - what to do in specific situations. For example, any ecology, schmology, whether it is necessary to protect endangered species, how to limit human influence on the surrounding nature (an ecosystem, and not an abstract Universe). And these questions need to be given specific answers.

And the appeal to the universe is cheating. Are you for abortion or against? Man is part of the universe. Do you think it is necessary to legalize marijuana? Man is part of the universe. Which way to develop Russia, pro-Western or pro-Eastern. Or, as always, this way is special, but in fact sit on your ass and do nothing? Man is part of the universe.

Well, is what happens next? Where is the specifics?

__________________________________________________________

X: > Ie Is nature the same universe? What else was born after the Big Bang? But I said - so not interesting.

It may not be interesting, but it is true. And you can't argue with that, that's why it's cheating for you.

But with your definition, I can argue how much the soul fit.

Questions about your ganžubas and premature babies have little to do with the message of the post. Whether there will be abortions, and whether Schmal will smoke on the steps of the State Duma is not a question at all. As it will be, so it will be if you do not take part in it. It will be indistinguishable from the outside of how the Martian winds blow dust from photovoltaic rovers.

And only a person can answer these questions - to smoke Shmal or not to smoke, to abort or not, on the western or eastern route. This is a conscious choice of each, and the choice of human society, as a combination of the choice of each of us.

And the only constructive conclusion that follows from this is that there is no need to appeal to nature. When I hear a person begin to drive about the fact that abortion is bad, because it is unnatural and anti-natural - my ears are wrapped in a tube. The correct argument in this case is “I don't like it,” and that’s it. Nature poheru. In retrospect, we are all just noise - this is the specifics for you.

__________________________________________________________

S: This is nonsense and not worth the argument. The phrase “Man is a part of the Universe” is a meaningless truism. If you meant it “from the very beginning”, then we had nothing to talk about and argue about.

All this time I tried to separate a person and his environment. By which I understood "nature." By which I understood - the ecosystem of the Earth. Or, as we (I thought) agreed - all the lower (passed) stages of evolution.

I have convinced you all this time that, yes, man is now part of this ecosystem. Part of nature. But evolution follows this path, that man is increasingly moving away from this very “nature” (in my understanding of the word, see above). And we must strive towards this - to depend as little as possible on it. This will not happen soon, we just stuck our nose out (this is a quote from one of my previous comments), and we still sit in this ecosystem with the rest of our body (meat carcass).

That was my position.

And it turns out that you meant - a person can not be separated from nature, because by "nature" you understand the whole Universe, the entire set of the surrounding.

Well, this is clear pepper. Was it worth discussing at all?

__________________________________________________________

X: It was worth it, of course. Because sometimes it is impossible to see the mountains, not moving away from them at a sufficient distance. Similarly, many other things are visible only in the distance.

__________________________________________________________

S: Nonsense. To discuss truisms - to pound water in a mortar. Let's offer to discuss a topic that has a solution. Cohen I myself can think of (what periodically, by the way, do).

__________________________________________________________

X: Anything can be called a truism and a pounding of water in a mortar, because any reasoning within the framework of logic is reduced either to a tautology (truism, truth) or a paradox (absurdity, falsehood). The process is interesting, not the result.

Here to understand that my original statement was a tautology in essence, it took you a long time. So, no process was done, and all this was not in vain.

And about the disappearing pubic lice - I suggest you get yourself a couple, in order to preserve the species. This is count up - the first man in the history of the reserve! You can drive to yourself for money!

__________________________________________________________

PC: You're all so cool. Tell me, please, here is the word life, I understand. The word rational is also understandable. But how to distinguish a person from a robot, and that, from the point of view of science, is an observer inside a person? Why would a man have an internal observer if he would have acted in exactly the same way without him?

__________________________________________________________

S: It is easy to distinguish a person from a robot. The man passes the captcha, but the robot is not. How to learn to pass, and immediately the border will be erased. Well, not immediately, of course. But it will be erased.

__________________________________________________________

PC: I do not mean a robot that we can do, but any robot that, according to biology, is a human being. The question is completely different. Biology tells me that inside people there is no internal observer, they don’t need it. Attention to the question: why the hell am I such an internal observer?

__________________________________________________________

S: Attention to the question: why the hell do you think that you are such an internal observer?

In a sense, so far only understand what you mean. And then the broad framework, it is not clear what to argue with.

__________________________________________________________

PC: I see that I look at the world from within a person. Assuming that the theory explaining this phenomenon is something like physics, I ask: what the hell? Physics can not give an answer, so I ask, maybe someone knows?

__________________________________________________________

S: > I see that I look at the world from within a person.

Fuck off. Why can't I see it?

I think you already understand that after 20 comments we will rest on the fact - “science does not know what consciousness is.” And then the dispute will no longer go on, but simply a curse.

By the way, an interesting thought thought. But if you take a person and stun him with a blow to the back of the head (so that the memory can be cut off at the same time). Then tie them to the bed, put on glasses with LEDs, put earphones on the ears, and connect all this to the computer. Webcam in the eyes, microphone in the ears.

And when he wakes up, tell him that he is an artificial intelligence, he was born here, and can observe reality from a computer. Will he begin to feel phantom pains after some time? Not an old body, but a new one? It will begin to “think out” the movements of electrons “inside oneself”, the opening of the gates of transistors, etc.

__________________________________________________________

PC: No, it's not that she knows or does not know. The fact is that the very concept of consciousness, not as a program in the brain, but as an observer, contradicts everything I know about the world. Two particles fly, collide and fly away. Who feels it? What kind of thing? But it is precisely on such phenomena that the brain is built. Why no one feels the two particles, ten nobody, a thousand too, but here they are somehow getting together and suddenly somebody feels something. Why the hell?

__________________________________________________________

S: Feedback, no? Damn complex, damn mind-blowingly complex and cleverly mutilated feedback?

Dude, I'm in your position, it's hard for me to argue. I myself do not understand just this moment. But I am a little familiar with theses of opponents, I can oppose.

__________________________________________________________

PC: There is feedback at the chair where I sit. I sat down, it creaked and bent over. What is the difference between the person I sit on and he yells?

__________________________________________________________

S: The complexity of this feedback. The chair just creaked and everything, but a person can fuck send, and maybe in the ass. Or even kick back. The difficulty is increased.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Well, you know, some sort of crap. Take and analyze the creak of the chair, you will see that it is different every time. Think up different interpretations for it and here you have an incredibly intelligent chair.

__________________________________________________________

S: First, you do not quite understand. “Feedback” is not an event – ​​response, as with a chair, but the reverse regulation of the process itself.

And secondly, the creaking is always the same. With equal initial conditions (down to quantum uncertainty, but it will not have a strong effect on sound). The same effort - the same creak.

Thirdly - well, yes. A very confused seat (passing a Turing test), and should not differ from a person.

__________________________________________________________

PC: What does reverse regulation mean? It prominaetsya, it wears out, as my ass is wiped in it. A person is not "the same conditions - the same creak"?

__________________________________________________________

S: No. A person can send, and can say - hit me further, sit down, humiliate. Depending on how he wants . Chair - does not want. The chair always obeys. Efforts and laws. Which can always be calculated up to quantum uncertainty.

Man - you can not calculate. This reptile is always trying to throw out something new.

__________________________________________________________

PC: You can't figure out a human? Lol, aren't you thinking too much about people?

__________________________________________________________

S: You can never be sure 100% sure. Man is an animal. Unpredictable. Even the most predictable and familiar to you in the board man. With an easy chair.

__________________________________________________________

PC: It's all about what is considered unpredictable, in the end everything is predictable at the level of statistics.

__________________________________________________________

S: Well, say the same, at the level of statistics ... At the level of statistics, there is no person at all, no personality, no such consciousness, only one faceless mass.

By the way, is it impossible that a person is a quantum of society? Not a particle, but a quantum . Well, do you understand what I mean?

__________________________________________________________

PC: No, I do not understand. And in general, you reduce to the fact that science contradicts my observations. I see that there is such a thing as “what this dude sees.” But physics says that what someone sees there is just a set of signals, not a picture. So where does this picture appear? In what place, if not in physical reality? And why should physical reality describe my hallucination, if it says that a person is no different from a chair, and I clearly see what I see.

__________________________________________________________

S: > I see that there is such a thing as “what this dude sees.”

There is no such thing. You are being cheated. Look in every corner of the universe - there is no such thing anywhere. Except in your brain. There is a set of signals. A “picture” is a very complex feedback, appearing as a specific configuration of neurons. Just as a certain configuration of electrons creates the appearance that we have leprosy here, and we are discussing something on it. Although these were electrons, they remained so.

__________________________________________________________

PC: There is such a thing, because that's all I see. But your assurance that somewhere it is not, it's just letters. In fact, my perception is all that I have, but I cannot describe it with physics, it turns out that it is a contradiction that if I am a person, I should not observe anything. Visibility is such a cool word, yeah. For whom visibility? For me, this is not an appearance, but a real reality, I have no other.

__________________________________________________________

S: In ... We start to be selected to the most nichtyak. What is reality really ? These processes occurring in the external universe, or a picture of them showing in the internal. Do not you know what such thoughts lead to?

__________________________________________________________

PC: Be that as it may, reality is my observation. And the fact that somewhere there is some kind of external Universe is just a hypothesis connecting observations. And in this hypothesis there is a joint. It is not clear why I observe from inside the head of some biorobot. I have only one solution to this puzzle.

__________________________________________________________

S: A person is a quantum of society, in the sense that the reaction of a person (that is, his behavior, that is, by and large, the person himself) can only be described statistically. Only the behavior of the mass of these people you can somehow calculate.

The specific behavior of a particular person - never. As in quantum mechanics. Only probabilistic.

__________________________________________________________

PC: What nonsense. Neurophysiology can already read minds, which means soon it will predict. False memories, that's all. So the question is only skills, not something fundamental.

__________________________________________________________

S: So what does these skills mean? What needs to be done to create false memories? Configure neurons correctly. So that when “reading” their configuration, a picture appears in the brain as if of some event or taste. Those.twenty again. Picture as a display of reality.

__________________________________________________________

PC: In the brain there is not a picture, but impulses, but where is the picture?

__________________________________________________________

S: So in the brain, Petka!

Once again, where is the program in the computer? There is definitely no processor in it, I studied electronics at the institute, there are only millions of transistors-gates and electrons run there and there.

There is no memory in the RAM either; there the exact same electrons are strung on the “ferromagnetic rings”. There is no program on the hard drive either, there are magnetic resonances and nothing more.

So where is the program located?

__________________________________________________________

PC: A program is an orderly process in all that you talked about. When you explain to me how an orderly process forms someone who perceives reality, you will give an answer. In the meantime, you are saying the same thing.

__________________________________________________________

S: Yes, no one perceives anything! The program sits "in the computer", just like a picture or the feeling "sits in the brain."

External signals come - 21h interruption, sour taste, UDP-packet, a kind of naked woman, the program processes it and gives a response (a picture or sensation is formed in the brain).

Everything.There is nothing more. You make up the rest for yourself.

Where is the program? In computer. Where is the feeling? In the brain.
Stop producing entities!

__________________________________________________________

PC: Fuck that you didn’t answer me, does the world of the program exist? Is there something that, just like me, is locked inside this software virtual reality?

__________________________________________________________

S: What's the difference?

Well yes. What changed?
Well no. What changed?

For the external observer.

Nb. Dude, I just don't get it. Exactly the same. Even in places with the same words.

But today I decided to work as a devil's advocate. And I see how simple it is and how everything looks logical from the outside.

These bitches are all holes gouged. Your I will remain forever inside your skull. Together with all the “sensations”, the picture and the certainty that “I swear by mom, I exist!”

But outside there is still logic, physics and “just a set of electrical signals”. And you can not prove anything to anyone. And with this knowledge will have to live.

__________________________________________________________

X: So maybe there is no observer. This is a natural conclusion that follows from such premises.

It is impossible to prove its existence, even to oneself, simply because it cannot even be defined.

It may well be that the observer is a simulacrum. The idea of ​​what has never been and never will be; just a word hanging in the air.

Some argue that they feel the observer inside themselves - so be it, I believe them. I personally do not feel anything like that, I now feel air streams, I feel the taste of food, I feel the dynamics of movement in space, smells, sounds. This is all clear and obvious to me, this is just a given for me. But the observer, I do not feel any, no matter how much he tried to separate him from all of the above. Moreover, I do not see the logical necessity of the existence of this observer, because for a branch to fall in the forest, it is not necessary for someone to observe it.

__________________________________________________________

PC: You say you smell, for example. From my point of view, the very "sense of smell" is only signals in the brain. And when I smell, it is not a signal, but a feeling for myself. And if I can describe you without participation of feelings, only with physics, then I cannot describe myself with physics. No physics can tell what it is to feel sweet.

__________________________________________________________

S: Wait, don't merge right away. Take higher arguments.

For this is quite simple. The litmus test was put in one solution, it turned blue, in the other it turned red. These "colors" ran into your brain, they hit one receptor there, it seems to you that you felt sweet. In the other - sour. But this is all a hoax. If you would feel it . You just see different colors. And how different colors (wavelengths) are absorbed by different surfaces for you ordinary physics enough or not?

__________________________________________________________

PC: Once again, who seems ?? Why does the litmus test not feel that the environment is acidic, but I feel that the photonics are red?

__________________________________________________________

S: Why does not feel? Feels like. Not only that feels. Changes its external parameters depending on the "stimulus" (blushes \ blue). Just like you, you squeeze from sour, and from sweet in a smile you spread.

__________________________________________________________

PC: And who feels? Where?Do I have an infinite number of me who feel a little from other points of my body? What point exactly is characterized by what I feel?

__________________________________________________________

S: Something you pay a lot of attention to these "feelings". The program "feels" that its 21st interruption has come, and then a request on the 80th port, to which you need to respond? Or do not "feel"?

Now explain out loud why you think you feel. Or that does not feel.

__________________________________________________________

PC: There is a set of fields. In some place there are such processes, in the other others. And suddenly they try to convince me that in some place the processes give rise to a completely different Universe, in which there are no fields, but there is only a mapping of the cross section of this manifold onto a multitude of feelings. That sounds crazy.

__________________________________________________________

S: Then I did not understand. About another universe.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Well, you understand that here is sweet, salty, red and fast - this is not what is in the Universe, if it is described by physical laws. Where is it? That is what you feel sweet, I can call some process in your neurons, ok. But this process and the sweet taste in the mouth are things from different worlds.

__________________________________________________________

S: - What are you, Petka, ohrenel? Here she is!

Why is your sweet taste suddenly starting to break away from the carrier of this sweet taste (an apple, for example)? All in one world. Everything depends on each other. Do you bring entities where you don’t need them?

__________________________________________________________

PC: Sweet taste can be without a carrier. In the dream did not feel what? So by.

__________________________________________________________

S: Well, it's all very simple. In a dream (or fantasy, or in memory), when without a carrier, this is only a repetition of the taste that you have tried before, from the carrier.

Just a repetition of the existing configuration of neutrons, without the arrival of a signal from the receptors. If you have never tasted sweet, the neurons will not remember this configuration and will not be able to reproduce it. You never dream of unknown tastes, always or known or their combination.

So, we return to the previous statement - there is no “feeling” of taste without a carrier. So “feeling” can be reduced.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Dude, I felt the dohera of unknown feelings. Eat <... cut out by Roskomnadzor ...>

__________________________________________________________

S: Let's not bear psychedelics in this post, let them remain in that .

There is a maza, that all these sensations are only distorted familiar and familiar configurations of neurons. Nothing new, just shook them hard, so they give out something like a new, but in fact, only an unknown bust of old good feelings.

__________________________________________________________

PC: What is the difference? You asked without a carrier, here you are. The fact that somewhere this is somehow born is understandable. The question is not where and how. Not in the description of the appearance of feelings, but in the feeling itself. Where is it?

__________________________________________________________

S: Yes, there is no "feeling"! It only seems to you.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Ha, no. Feelings for me are everything, this is nothing else, everything else is just a way to organize these feelings, what we call interpretation.

__________________________________________________________

X: > Why does the litmus test not feel that the environment is sour, and I feel that the photonics are red?

Because you made such an assumption that she does not feel without bothering to define feeling.

If we define feeling in terms of neurophysiology, then the pieces of reality that do not have neurons cannot feel reality, by definition. But this is too boring.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Some neurons. In the end, all of this is some of the processes in the set of physical fields. How and with which point is highlighted, which is responsible for the emergence of feelings, and not for a simple physical process that no one feels?

__________________________________________________________

X: Well, no, here it seems to me that the reductionist manners of knowledge should be put aside to the side.

You know that there is such a thing as emergence - this is when more complex interactions arise from simpler interactions, which, although definable in terms of these simple interactions, can be considered as self-sufficient under certain assumptions. And to find out in such a case that even more abstract and complex patterns are collected from them, and so on until they get bored.

And it is often impossible to understand how the patterns of some high level are assembled from the patterns that are just a few steps down in the hierarchy of abstractions. Well, it's really hard to understand how Newtonian mechanics from quanta is assembled, and not abstractly, but specifically - go and integrate the three-body problem at the level of quanta. There is no sense in this, it’s easier to count right away at the level of Newtonian mechanics.

And this is what I am for? Human consciousness is the same emergent pattern that has made such a long way from the physical fields that we will not soon figure out exactly how this nonsense happened.

And try to match the patterns that arise already in this consciousness with the physical fields - well, it's me xs, like trying to predict the weather, watching the movement of individual molecules in a magnifying glass.

In short, what I want to say is that consciousness does not arise in the fields; and although it is due to them - it is not necessary to look for it in the fields.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Why is this incomprehensible in the Newtonian approximation? What is the difference how difficult it is to describe, if it is possible to describe, as physics says?

__________________________________________________________

X: It is possible to collect a trolley bus from a loaf. Consciousness is also an approximation. If you describe it at the level of quarks, then you will see nothing but quarks in the resulting picture. Although, interestingly, the consciousness in you in this case will still arise.

__________________________________________________________

PC: No, I will have something that acts like a person. A person can say that he sees and analyzes something, as a bot in the virtual world can also say so. Moreover, the bot will have its own idea of ​​reality programmed. But will there be someone like me who will look at the world through the eyes of a bot?

__________________________________________________________

X: To answer this question, you first need to understand exactly how you look with your own eyes. Moreover, how you formulate it will depend on your answer. It can be said that consciousness arises from the definition of consciousness. Is it tautological? Well, blasphemy. But true.

__________________________________________________________

PC: I don’t understand how you don’t understand what is sweet! = Description of signals in neurons.

__________________________________________________________

X: It is obvious to me that sweet is a description that originated from signals in neurons. You just try to separate this description from the physical basis by transferring it to the bed of the human language, but it does not exist separately from the neurons.

Signals in neurons are the language framework, inside of it there are some constructions that you are, with your own sensations and questions about the meaning of being.

Physical fields have nothing to do with it, it is as low as far as JavaScript leprosy code is far from physical interactions in processor transistors.

You can go differently, and say that all physical reality, on the contrary, arises from sensations. And again there will be no contradiction - because this emergent-reductionist spiral does not have a pre-determined direction in advance — as you like, it will.

__________________________________________________________

PC: If you have a description, for example, the electron's WF - this does not give rise to an electron. And the description of sweet will not give you any idea what it is to feel sweet. Feelings and their description through neurons are different objects connected with each other, but not the same.

__________________________________________________________

X: Please, re-read the first paragraph from the comment to which you reply. However, I, apparently, clumsily formulated it simply. I wanted to say that by description here I mean not an abstract linguistic model, like a formula in TeX or a verbal description.

I understand by this the literal physical manifestation of an emergent phenomenon. For example, take 2 atoms of hydrogen and an oxygen atom, not hypothetically, but really. Put them together - congratulations, you just described a water molecule.

That's just at the level of atoms, it still remains just a handful of atoms, and the ink written on paper will only be a blot on paper if you cannot read.

So, I argue that your sweet is a pattern, in the same wayDescribed (at the physical level) from neural interactions. And this is your feeling. In order for this feeling to be, it is not necessary to understand exactly where this is happening, and how exactly this is happening, and to be able to describe it in an abstract way (using science).

Just as a water molecule exists, regardless of whether you understand molecules, or you see a pile of atoms in front of you. Maybe she even feels something at the same time. Just kidding

__________________________________________________________

PC: Here you are joking, but I do not see any difference. For me, the patterns of neuron excitation are not highlighted by anything relative to everything else. And it is completely incomprehensible, what the hell is some kind of construction of signals that suddenly has a view from the inside. And you didn’t answer this question to me, just trying to essentially put physicalism as reality.

__________________________________________________________

X: And the trick is that she doesn’t have a look from the inside. It just is, and that is enough.

Similarly, your qualia does not have a view from the inside, they just are. Just have a sweet feeling. Feeling salty. And most importantly - the feeling of "I", the feeling of the look from the inside, that unknown assemblage point that you are trying to determine is also qualia. This is not a property of a single qualia; it is qualia itself.

On the physical level, it certainly exists somehow as a pattern. And it would be strange to doubt your own existence?

Those.I explicitly declare that the feeling that you are you, and that you are - is firing some groups of neurons there, an abstract pattern arising from physical phenomena. As in the example with the assembly of a molecule from atoms.

__________________________________________________________

S: > I do not understand how you do not understand what is sweet! = Description of signals in neurons.

Why do you think so? What is your evidence? Because you strongly believe in it, because you “feel” this? And I thought you were a scientist. And your evidence base is not in the area of ​​personal faith.

__________________________________________________________

X: A person, like any scientist, unfortunately, has very little to do except his own feelings and belief in their reality.

__________________________________________________________

S: In general, you are right. Sensations and faith is the only thing you can believe, in fact. But on the other hand, why is the world (our sensations of the world) so asymmetric?

Why do most other people (who, the stump is clear, just a game of our imagination) say very similar things? That apples fall to the ground, that opposite charges attract, etc.? How is it that if you try the experiment yourself, then most likely you’ll get the same result each time? Only if you are not really a super-guru, and you can convince yourself that apples fall into the sky, because “I personally see it myself,” and if I really want to, I can even convince a couple or three of my friends.

Why are the troubles of my mind so persistent? Why yesterday, today and tomorrow I can count on some constancy (funny people of physics call them constants, even though they are imaginary)? How much, to continue to believe that I am right, I have to convince myself and strain a lot, but it’s worth relaxing as a reality (ha-ha, reality, everyone knows that there is no reality that I want pictures in the brain, such I'll draw it!) immediately breaks into my inner world and sets up its own rules there?

And why are my persistent beliefs stopped by aminazine?

Something is wrong here ...

__________________________________________________________

X: > And when I smell it, then this is not a signal at all, but quite a feeling for myself

Yes, it is qualia. Here I have nothing but qualia, I am not even sure sometimes that I can separate them from each other. And what I call “I” is the collection of these qualia in the moment.

Only here for this no mythical observer is not necessary to attract. From this position, the tree possesses the "I", and the stone, and even the electron.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Yeah, so you say a lot of qualia. Or rather, not just a set, but an ordered set. Well, what exactly does this set correspond to in space-time? What is it attached to and why do you feel that you are a person? Why did you suddenly begin to feel the processes that occur in the brain of some biorobot?

__________________________________________________________

X: Well, I'm not sure about the set, especially about the ordered.

So you took the candy, and felt that it was sweet. And the cucumber you ate before is sour. Those.differentiated somehow these feelings, said that they say they are different, and there are at least two of them.

But this feeling of difference is Qualia itself. And it is always one thing, yesterday the sweetie was sweet, today the cucumber is salty, and now I feel the difference. It can be said that all these are different sensations - but, after all, this difference itself arises, like a sensation that can be completely self-sufficient.

In other words, I am not ready to speak for so many at once and somehow further divide perception into its component parts. That is, all this is of course quite real, but maybe, so to speak, only a derivative from the position of an observer, which we are trying to find and define.

Trying to find exactly where in space – time it all arises, it seems to me, the same bad job as trying to find the root of the ills of the Russian land. That is, for sure it certainly corresponds to something, but here you can only dilute with your hands - too far away from one another in the causal chain.

Questions like "why I sense that I am exactly me" are reduced to logical tautology. Well, it's logical that you are you. So you identified yourself.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Here is the statement that this corresponds to something should be preceded by an indication of a special space – time line. That is, there are fields here, and here the point is not just a point, but what's the point. I do not understand where in the physical laws this point is formed. We know physics enough to consider that the foundation for biology is familiar to us.

__________________________________________________________

X: It is not formed in physical laws. Do you know why? Because there is no such law of the physical, the operator "consciousness", bgg.

If you try to write down such an operator, then quickly you go nuts on the complexity, try to subdivide it on the hierarchy of abstractions, and when you reach the description of consciousness, then you will find out to your surprise that you have already left so much from your original Lagrangians physics at all.

__________________________________________________________

PC: You both are driving one thesis "so difficult that you shouldn't even think." I do not understand why it is not necessary to think, if the question is not the complexity of the description, but a completely different one. That world, which for me is real, is not a physical world at all. Here you have created a virtual world. There are NPCs there. Do they have a mind? But let them act like people, let there be an evolutionary process and they will someday be smarter than people and can even call their observations feelings. What's next? They had a consciousness like me?

__________________________________________________________

S: Not like you, but like a dog. Or even a mouse. Or even a tapeworm. And so - yes.You need more processor power, the NPC will be indistinguishable from a person. Once again - the Turing test.

__________________________________________________________

PC: And what? The question is, will anyone really look at the world from inside or not?

__________________________________________________________

S: Why "watch"? Why "watch"? There will be stimuli coming from outside, the NPC will respond to them. They won't - the NPC will sleep in an empty loop.

When you sleep without dreams, do you look much at the outside world?

__________________________________________________________

X: > There are NPCs there. Do they have a mind?

Your question is purely linguistic, not the way you think.

How to define consciousness - it will be so. Not the other way around.Now, if you define consciousness within the framework of one or another formalism, and you can reproduce it, then you will create consciousness. In full accordance with its definition of consciousness.

Consciousness is the word – screen behind which now costs nothing . And what are you trying to find in this case?

The roots grow out of prejudices about the exclusivity of ourselves in this world, so we try to try on this exclusivity forever to try on some other entities, such as NPC or litmus papers, and imagine that they have some kind of consciousness, while we define our own consciousness not able to.

Have you ever thought that there is a limit to the possibilities of a language as a means of defining abstract models? Science is, after all, the same product of language, by the way. After all, this is an obvious thought - that this is the very thing that you want to define with the help of a language, it is simply impossible to define within its framework, that's all. What is the limit of human knowledge at the moment, dictated by the inferiority of these very tools of knowledge.

__________________________________________________________

PC: And what about linguistics? There are observations, I try to describe them. I am building a model of physical reality for describing observations, but I understand that if this model were correct, there would be no one to look from inside my head. Everything. This contradiction has nothing to do with linguistics.

__________________________________________________________

X: With that, you ask a question with a language. By this you have already started from linguistics. Languages ​​are different, sometimes the logic of the first order, sometimes the second, sometimes the Russian language. Choose a formalism, define consciousness in it. Then ask the question, is there something in the mind that is different from me?

This is the correct method. Any other method is a cry to the void, not constructive in its essence.

And why can't you admit that there is really no one to look out of your head? This is absurd only at first glance, and at the second not so, either.

__________________________________________________________

PC: I did not use the word consciousness. Once again, if physics were correct, I would not know what red is.

I looked and not one, and not two, and not under one substance. The most curious thing happened when the interpretations were stopped under <cut out by Roskomnadzor>. Only this does not negate the fact that my observations contradict the physical picture of the world. There is only one option that came to my mind, in which consciousness is somehow highlighted and felt by someone. This is a game. Yes, a first-person game, in which the world is just a simulation for generating a picture, visible by someone from the first person. In all other cases, I do not understand why I see the world, if it should not differ from the calculator. You try to tell me that you can describe consciousness in different ways, and I try to say that physics cannot point out something selected where the world of my perception originates. If I now remove this observer, who is watching, and I know for sure that I am, then I will continue to write this comment, but no one will watch, although I will continue to say that I am watching. Garbage in thatwhat exactly about myself I know that I look. And the world of my feelings is closed on itself.

In short, that is the question, two electrons collide and fly away. If something, that this collision, feels, say, how I felt “hurts”? If this is not in the micro, then this is not where to appear in the macro. The fact that matter is arranged in such a way that it is ornized into complex forms that later become so steep and advanced biorobots does not mean the appearance of “red”.

__________________________________________________________

X: What do you call sensation can be emergent pattern arising from simple interaction type electron collisions, but not by any of these collisions individually.

Just as a molecule is a collection of atoms, but none of these atoms separately.

If you define a sensation like this, then the electrons have no sensations. It is exclusively a definition game.

And you personally - you can be just a linguistic construct that has arisen inside the brain. It can even be described with the proper level of development of descriptive means, but this is not necessary - you have already described yourself, and it is thanks to this that you are.

You didn't allow such an opportunity?

>> I did not use the word consciousness.

He used – didn’t use - ok, replace the consciousness with “I”, nothing will change. For me, these are equivalent words, so I make no difference. There are still many words of the same silent, mind, mind, soul ... pick your choice.

Here you say what you see. The surveillance camera on the Ring Road also sees, is also able to interpret the images in their internal qualia. Can you say that the camera has an "I"? No, because we have not determined what it is. And as soon as we define - the way it will appear.

In this section you are not much different from the camera. I just do not understand why this should be surprising. Everyday business is the same.

>> and I know for sure that I am

Well, this is your definition of yourself, internal. You're. This is as tautological as it is meaningless. Nothing follows from this definition at all. Therefore, the search for answers to questions about “where it is you are,” “and is there anything other than you” is doomed to failure in advance. You can refine this definition as much as you like to answer these questions - and by doing this you will not achieve anything other than rolling this definition from empty to empty.

I now know that there are people who would never think to declare to themselves that they are. They do not raise such a question at all, about whether they are and what is happening at all. And count up, they successfully exist and outwardly are not distinguishable from you. There is generally an absolute majority.

So maybe your “I am” is just some strange recursive linguistic hallucination, arising from an excess of mind, purely to occupy it with something, while there are no other tasks? Some spurts from the self-excitation of neurons somewhere in the Broca area, and only.

__________________________________________________________

PC: By the way, shit. Kvalia is exactly what appears in the consciousness, before applying it to the camera, it’s worth proving its presence.

Yes, it can be anything, but here I am different from other people. I see myself from the inside, and they are outside, that's the whole difference, but it is irremovable. That is why I can say that people are qualia for me, but the fact that people have qualia is absolutely not obvious to me.

__________________________________________________________

X: To prove, you must first determine.

If I define qualia “shit, this person exceeds speed” in the camera, as sending a specific data packet from one unit to another - then voila, the camera has a consciousness. Just from the definitions. What follows from this? Nothing.

Here we are witnessing another series of an exciting series, "how language creates the surrounding reality."

__________________________________________________________

PC: You never know what you determined, from what you called this qualia, it didn’t become. Qualia is an entity defined for consciousness. Language does not create reality. Stop the internal dialogue and the reality is not going anywhere, just cease to be interpreted.

__________________________________________________________

X: So you did not define consciousness either. Therefore I twist – I twist as I want by your qualia. Why not put them on the camera in this case?

In reality, without interpretation, there is no consciousness, because there is no such word. I saw this place, nothing can be said about it at all, one cannot even say that it was “I” who saw it. The only thing in which I was convinced by this experience was transcendence, perhaps, in relation to the person of being. The fact that a person is only a tiny part of this, along with his interpretations, pens and questions.

I could call it consciousness - but in that case it is not yours , rather you are his. And all things have it, even the electron. But it seems to me that we are looking for some other consciousness, more mundane, or something.

It seems to me that as long as your internal dialogue is alive - then it forms everything that you feel and see, interpretations endow each piece of visible reality with meaning and meaning. And consciousness, as a concept, is an attribute of this world, the world of words and concepts. The only question is how you define it here.

__________________________________________________________

PC: Yes, if I, as a set of rules according to which I conduct an interpretation, really belong to that. But just where did you get that all things have it? I do not see exactly any selection of the point at which signals from neurons are collected against the background of the other points. That is, I can say that I definitely observe something and this can be described by physics, but physics absolutely does not need to have what you “could call” consciousness. That is, you simply transfer the property of your own consciousness to the rest of the world just in order not to conflict with the physical picture of the world, but in fact you have already entered. You live exclusively in the world of your virtual reality, even if it is generated by some other entity.

It’s pretty boring to talk about consciousness, as you say in a mundane sense, then it turns out that everything has a consciousness. Somehow somehow reacts to external interactions. Actually, you wrote about it there to someone that it is possible to limit arbitrary areas and receive some kind of "organism". However, the question is in that other consciousness from the paragraph above. For me it is completely unobvious that it exists. And if it is not there, then consciousness in a weak sense is only a matter of interpretations, which is not at all tied to the presence of consciousness in that, another sense.

__________________________________________________________

X: If you admit that what I have called "being" is really inherent in everything, and everything that exists is a manifestation of this (which is, in general, tautological); then in total with the second paragraph it will come out that no matter how cool - the consciousness really is in everything. No matter how you define it, you cannot localize it, which eliminates this concept in general. In such a case, one can say that consciousness does not exist at all, and one cannot be mistaken. And there really is no need for it, neither in physics, nor in epistemology, nor anywhere else.

But, as I understand it, we mean different things - you are trying to find there some assembly point for you personally, and you see in this a contradiction with the thesis that this is also endowed with everything that exists. After all, you do not feel anything other than yourself. I understand this correctly, right?

I think this contradiction is resolved quite simply - you do not feel anything other than yourself, because you, your assemblage point - this is interpretation. Self-image, through which everything else is passed.

No, all this of course banalism may seem complete, I do not argue. I just do not understand what is the question.

Moreover, we have either terminological or conceptual problems (which, in the context of the subject matter, is not surprising). In general, I don’t like the word “consciousness” as a whole; it’s somehow muddy.

I will try to clarify. I had an experience that made me understand that what I call “I” in everyday life is just a word, a construct. That it is absolutely not necessary for something to be. That being itself hasbeyond the limits of logic, beyond the limits of any human instrument of knowledge, beyond the concept of "I." What I myself am is just a tool, like a prism, splitting light, like glasses, like a camera. And that being manifests itself through me as a system of concepts / qualia / interpretations, shaping the reality surrounding me and me at the same time. Equally the opposite - the surrounding reality, being observed by me, acquires being. This is the same process, there is no direction in it, it is not even a process of some kind - just a given. Objective for me at the time fact.

Where is the consciousness here - I do not know. I see myself here as a fleeting fantasy, a dream of being, as a linguistic tool, manifested by them unknown for what purposes, if they exist at all. I know that one day I will not be, but there will be something else. And that this is something else, everything that can only be - always was, is, and will be, at the same time, always and never; because time, as a concept, exists inside me, and being does not operate on such things.

Such things can be known only in experience; it cannot be understood by the mind. I admit and, moreover, I am sure that this is just a hallucination. And in the same way, I am confident in its absolute reality, no matter how paradoxical it may sound.

__________________________________________________________

PC: I completely agree with such theses. Yes, then our self, to which we are accustomed, really is essentially only a self-programmable algorithm and no more. But something other than this garbage is still there. But what is it - xs.

__________________________________________________________

ZH : This is a very cozy post. Point of view X to me, on the one hand, is very close, but on the other it still goes beyond the framework of rational knowledge of the world, since This framework itself is dictated to us by our very essence. Decay, hopelessness and the fundamental impossibility of knowing something more complicated than one’s own brain.

Yes, most likely it is. Yes, we most likely are not destined to ever figure it out, because it will mean a jump far above the head. There is nothing inhuman in us that we could cling to or lean on.

Read the post was very interesting, thank you.

__________________________________________________________

X: Well, why immediately dissipated. Here S correctly says that a person will not give up in his attempts to jump higher than his head, and he will jump again. Where he will jump, to what next shit - this we, perhaps, will see in our lifetime. And the brain is not the limit. Remembering the methods of Cristobal Junta, it is possible to deduce an absurd at first glance thesis: if the problem does not have a fundamental solution, this does not mean that attempts to solve it do not make sense. Perhaps this is the innermost essence of man and all other manifestations of the universe along with him.

__________________________________________________________

S: Because the problem usually does not have a solution to the current framework, in the current incarnation of the Gödel theorem. And man (the crown of evolution, besides jokes) was created for that (its evolution for almost 5 billion years prepared and polished for this) in order to constantly push this framework, expand the boundaries, changing both the environment and the environment in this process.

__________________________________________________________

X: I will allow myself to notice that man is the crown of evolution only for himself, and this is certainly so for himself. And in this world, everything is constantly pushing the limits and changing the environment, sometimes it is even difficult to figure out what changes — a person’s environment, or a person’s environment, or it’s some kind of a surprising, indivisible symbiosis in parts, in a holistic understanding of the issue.

Birch forest also changes the environment under it, changing the acidity of the soil so that conifers can no longer grow on it. On a large scale, there is a real war between conifers and deciduous, a brutal war of survival. And if the birches could think, they would surely consider themselves the crown of evolution - after all, they certainly are more abruptly than these coniferous sissies. But they would not have noticed a person at all, for them it is the same background noise as for you the noise of foliage in a birch grove.

It is sometimes difficult for me to understand where a person ends, and what begins to surround him begins. What grows from whom, and where is the bottom of the hierarchy, and where is the top, and is it a hierarchy in general? Because the threads that bind us together, these sometimes subtle and non-obvious interconnections to the mind, nevertheless exist, even if you don’t attach importance to them. That's all I call nature, and to study it from the standpoint of reductionism seems to me a completely hopeless affair, leading to wrong conclusions and preventing us from seeing the big picture of what is happening.

__________________________________________________________

S: > It is sometimes difficult for me to understand where a person ends and what surrounds him begins.

This is called the extended phenotype. Well, we on scientific podlepry. ;)

And again, you all seem to write correctly, but in fact you don’t say anything at all.
Do not add information to the dialogue.

Man is the crown of the creation of nature, because it can destroy any other species on Earth. Yes, a very stupid, unitary and too human statement. But nonetheless.

Other species cannot do this, primarily because they cannot “want it.” Hotel has not grown. It was necessary to pump a nervous network, to develop the frontal hemispheres, and they who are in the forest, who are on firewood. Some photosynthesis improve, other wings swing, the third tail.

And it was necessary to upgrade the signal system. That is why we are the crown of creation, and everyone else is sucking. That is why we are the highest stage of evolution, not only for ourselves, but for all those around us who did not have time to hide.

__________________________________________________________

X: > Man is the crown of the creation of nature, because it can destroy any other species on Earth.

Do you know what they say in you? The same as in an otherwise child who, for the sake of self-affirmation, smashes his toys on the floor. It sounds very childish, stupid, and, oddly enough, humanly . The fact that you can do this means only that you are a person, the way he is at this stage of cultural development. The same unremarkable characteristic of your species, like the beaver species, is characterized by long teeth and the passion to gnaw trees.

It doesn’t logically follow from this that you are a crown of something.

And you are still immersed in some particulars, signal systems of some kind, like, neurons - this is all nonsense, aspects of a particular clumsy human being. This all simply does not make sense outside the person.

Admit it, it is foolish to say that you are a crown, if you characterize the crowning by the presence of what only a person has? This is a dishonest and cheating game - you compare yourself not with other creatures of nature, but only with reflections of yourself in them, endowing them with anthropomorphic features, and winning victory without a chance, as a person’s standard.

For example, the bowels of the Earth do not have a brain, and there is no Wishlist, and the processes taking place inside there are so complex (according to Kolmogorov) that a person with all his scratches on the surface is just insignificant dust. But you think that you are more the crown of creation, they say, because I have a brain and Wishlist, and the bowels of the Earth do not. This is the real truism in which you blamed me there, and a truism, merciless of its meaninglessness.

And tomorrow some supervolcano will destroy you, and you will be defeated by your own argument. But the volcano will not do it to assert itself, but for some other, completely unknown to us deep-seated reasons that we can never understand and comprehend in our entirety.

So no, man is not the crown of evolution. Just an intermediate form between this and that, on the road from nowhere to nowhere.

__________________________________________________________

S: > Do you know what it says in you? The same as in an otherwise child who, for the sake of self-affirmation, smashes his toys on the floor. It sounds very childish, stupid, and, oddly enough, humanly.

Bingo!This is an absolutely true statement, because everything is as it is. The current stage of human development is a child. And he only - only makes the first steps out of the cradle (into open space). And still the most important thing to be proud of (yes, almost the only thing), which can break almost any toy that it has.

And yes.You, the campaign, do not quite understand the meaning of the "crown of creation." Crown, this does not mean a complete and final victory over all things, over the surrounding reality and in general the end of development, the final point of evolution.

This is just the current top. There will be someone after us. No longer humans. And they put out any supervolcano. What we have is strong, this is true, while not enough.

But I see a trend. Today is not enough, but tomorrow morning is enough. Already in this century. Of course, you will argue that why they say I have decided that the future supermen will be just as stupid, warlike and one-sided monsters, like us - will want to enslave everything and blow everything up.

Maybe they will not. No matter.And here and now - we are the crown. And there is nothing objectively to object to this.

Of course, we still do not have enough silenok to contend with inanimate nature, against the background of the planet we are only dust. But with the living we can already fight. With any. And with a harmful virus, and with toothed tigers, and poisonous snakes, with any species.

And those following us, brought up by us, will extinguish the stars and turn the galaxies in the other direction. Because azm is a man. Everyone else will duck down.

__________________________________________________________

X: Let me cut what you wrote above, leaving the essence, and removing insignificant bravado and shaking toys in the air.

The current stage of human development is man. This and that is inherent in man. For a person, this and that is good. Similar to the person around, we do not observe, from which we conclude that the person is a crown .

To get a conclusion. Damn, Aristotle would hang himself.

And I believe that the values ​​and aspirations that you wrote out here that characterize a person are the desire to fight with nature, to unfold galaxies, and such crap is delusions, akin to medieval ideas about the universe. And the root of them is in not understanding themselves and their place in nature, pride in the excessive and self-conceit overestimated unreasonably. That is, you extrapolate your spiritual and cultural values ​​to an indefinite future, than you compare all past great predictors of the future, which we previously recalled here.

I think that if the galaxies are deployed, then it will be something so far from modern humans that it’s just silly at the moment to present the motives and ways of realizing these pieces.

And I think that maybe this is alreadyright now, is happening in front of your eyes - around you. You just do not see it, because you are not able to see anything around but man and man, blinded by groundless pride in your race.

The only way to see something beyond this is humility (think about the etymology of the word, by the way) and the ability to look. And for this you need to throw aside the framework of the usual, inherent in today's man - only at that moment you can become the person of tomorrow you dream of.

__________________________________________________________

S: Naturally, my ideas about the future are primitive. And of course, people (or not people anymore) of the future, if they deploy galaxies, then not in childish enthusiasm, but for some of their own, higher goals, which we do not know, but our assumptions are ridiculous for them.

Yes, I extrapolate my current fallacies for the future. And of course, the reality is likely to be far from these extrapolations.

But this is a method. And, I note, this is a really working method. I see how humanity rises above nature, is gaining strength. It is very likely that elevation above nature is not the best application of this force. But it is. And it works.

And if the trends continue (why don't they continue? Well, that is, no one will give a 100% guarantee, but why would it all work, work, and suddenly stop?), Then what I’m talking about is realized sooner or later in life. In other emanations, which are incomprehensible to us, but something like this should be. If the trend continues.

And my pride in humanity is not unfounded. For 100 years, we have learned about the surrounding universe as much as we learned about it in the entire previous history. Well, I don’t know, this may not be a reason for you, but for me this is a reason.

Now let's suggest some alternatives. Only those who work, or those who are potentially working, make up for me and myself. What I do not see? Only verifiable, please. So that I see this not because you (or myself) strongly wanted this. And because everyone can see it, because it is, not because we really want it to be.

Well, at the expense of humility - let me laugh in your face. The only thing that at least somehow, at least in some way falls into this category - you shouldn’t vomit right off the bat, that’s true.

No need today to consider themselves equal to the gods. We just need to continue to do what we are doing. Stable, clear, progressively move forward.

But this is not humility. Not even close.

__________________________________________________________

X: Your pride is that unfounded. For 100 years, you know how much? If you have learned in the total amount nothing from the total amount of possible knowledge about the Universe as 100 years ago, then there is nothing to be proud of.

In addition, do not forget that the more we know - the more we have to learn. Each new knowledge generates even more new knowledge, the horizon moves farther and farther away, the closer you try to get close to it. It is difficult in general in some sense to say that you “take” this knowledge from somewhere and not create it.

What method are you talking about, which method works? What man does is not to exalt oneself over nature, this is what nature has always done - survival, optimization, the search for an optimal solution. This method worked and will always work, regardless of how you call it. It will work even when there are no people - as it worked and then, when people have never heard about people. People themselves are a product of this method. So you did not offer anything, no method, everything was invented before you. You can sit back and watch, everything will happen with your or without your participation.

And, hosspadi, alternatives to whatShould I offer you? You say so, as if you suggested some method, solving some problems, and I attacked this method. No, you didn’t offer anything constructive, but vigorously declared a crown. I propose a completely constructive thing - to abandon these anthropocentric reasonings, precisely because there is no point in them. Here is my alternative, I suggested. This in the future will allow you to survive better as a species. Just as the rejection of geocentric representations (which was a big blow to the pride of a certain category of people) helps you to survive now, bearing fruit.

Humility is not what you think. Humility is when you are with the world, not separating yourself from it and not praising yourself above it when you are ready to listen and hear. Only then will you see something new, different from the background noise and reflections of yourself in it. You can consider this part of the scientific method.

I can reduce your cart about the crown ad absurdum, for that matter: “Man is characterized by the fact that he is the crown of evolution. This is the definition of man. ”

Cho, how do you like that? Do you know what a constructive, shedding light on the nature of things can be drawn from this? Yes, no. That is why your pen about the crown does not make sense. So, the next bragging of the inflated ego in front of itself, as well as the speculative separation of itself from nature. All this has little to do with science, and moreover, this is exactly what prevents and always prevents from doing science, because it interferes with looking and seeing.

Fuck, yes Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, because people could not assume that the Earth is not God's chosen center of the universe. Nor can you admit that man is not God's chosen crown of evolution. Maybe it's time to part with this medieval thinking and take a step forward?

__________________________________________________________

S: > Cho, how do you like that? Do you know what a constructive, shedding light on the nature of things can be drawn from this? Yes, no.

What constructive conclusion can be drawn from the statement that 2x2 = 4? Or that water freezes at 0 degrees, and has the greatest density at +4? Yes, no, it's just the facts.

Man is the crown of evolution is also a fact. I still have not heard any criticism or alternative offers. Do you have what to refute this fact? Well, at least examples. That birch trees are fighting. Well, molotsy, cho. And more?

Whether or not to be proud of this fact is a personal matter. There is nothing to be proud of, really. In the sense, only by the fact that man is the crown of evolution. This is a given, you need to be proud of deeds.

And this fact has what value for science. This is a postulate. Axiom.The foundation on which to build further searches for the direction of movement and science and all of humanity.

Who are we going to rescue in underground shelters if an asteroid arrives, and we still have to look through all our space industry in pursuit of oil pumping? Bunnies? Valuable types of moss? And this, too, but above all - a person. For the crown, it obliges.

What are the main areas of science worth developing? The preservation of man and humanity (space expansion), the continuation of his life (medicine, not veterinary medicine first), the improvement of the human (!) Way of life (applied science, iPhones, heated chairs, delivery of goods by quadcopters).

That's what science is for the adoption of the axiom of the fact that man is the crown of evolution. And much more.

__________________________________________________________

X: What is another postulate for science? You are not lured by the coast?

Science is impartial, she doesn’t care who the crown is, for the scientific method both a man and an ant are equally interesting and important for studying. She digs in all directions, brutforsom, we can say. That is why we dug so much that we have the opportunity to apply this knowledge for our own benefit.

And if people really were repelled by science from your crazy ideas about the crown, science would have stopped in the Middle Ages, and now it would be little different from the church tradition of that time.

There is no such axiom in science, and there never was. Although no, it was, the year so in the 1500th. But since then, fortunately, the man has stepped far forward, which is what you want, do not linger there.

>> Do you have what this fact to refute? Well, at least examples.

It sounds like something like this: Jehovah's Witness comes to me and declares that there is a god. And such an attack - “now prove that there is no god!”. Yes, what kind of a swag I must prove that something is not? Prove the one who makes the statement that something is.

For the time being, your evidence that a man is a crown did not seem logical, since come down to tautology and the statement that man is a crown, simply because he is a bitch crown, they say it is an axiom. That will not do, it is easier to assume that there is no crown.

__________________________________________________________

ZH: Our only chance to effectively jump above the head in a fundamental change in the course of human evolution, I think - in fact, creating a different kind, which already will jump higher than the previous one.

What is the practical implementation of no one knows. Everybody there Hawkings probably think transhumanism.

__________________________________________________________

S: Ie Google's candidacy, as the following kind, you do not consider?

__________________________________________________________

ZH: Skynet is a fantasy of the past. If we ignore philosophy, there is nothing obscure about Google, I think. Google's hegemony will come to naught just as MS had once, it has already passed its peak.

I think we are waiting for new forms of collectivism, which are already roaming on the ferment of P2P technologies, and they will excite immature minds as another skynet – like scarecrow.

And our current agenda will be economic and socio-political issues, not fundamental science.

People suddenly found themselves at a very close distance from each other thanks to the Internet. Many people experience this as discomfort, there is an aggravation of cultural contradictions. all kinds of state affairs often react to the escalation of these contradictions and bring them to the point of absurdity.

Contradictions cannot accumulate forever, sometime (during our life) a violent reaction will occur.

Inevitably there will be new sustainable international forms of the team. Here they will be able to jump significantly above the head of the current forms, I think.

__________________________________________________________

X: > Skynet is a fantasy of the past.

No, this is the reality of the present. The technologies that we have created have long ago enslaved us, and now they don’t work for us as much as we work for them.

Take, for example, the stock market - it is a huge, incomprehensible body that lives its own life. Market analysts can chat as much as they like about their technical analysis, but the state of the market in dynamics resembles something like the output of the RNG. We do not understand how it works as a whole, and we don’t understand, because any our understanding will immediately reflect on his condition, this is a system with positive feedback, chaos.

And so it depends on the vital activity of this thing yours, mine and all around personal well-being, political conjuncture, and anything else. It is time to put an altar, make sacrifices and begin to pray this thing - the effectiveness of such an interaction, I suppose, will be no less than of any other attempts at influence.

Or take the modern Russian state as a collection of representatives of the establishment, which can be considered as a parasite on the body of society. It was conceived, in theory, that it should work for society, but so far it turns out exactly the opposite. Here we are pure service staff.

Facebook or leprosy are examples of meta-organisms that feed on the attention of the people who inhabit them.

Yes, I can continue this list indefinitely. Even human society itself since its inception is an example of such an entity - and we are all stuck in it, in your matrix.

Only no Zionist conspiracy behind all this is not worth it. Everything is much simpler here - this is a point of view, a paradigm through which one can sometimes look at what is happening around. And from this point of view, the appearance of some regular skynet no longer seems so surprising and fantastic - it is a common thing.

So fuck it knows dear s, about the crown of evolution. Who knows, maybe Facebook is the true crown of evolution at the moment - the most technological, complex and unusual creation in the Universe. A person with all his neurons, power stations, data centers, communication satellites and transatlantic optical cables is just his flesh and blood.

__________________________________________________________

ZH: > the effectiveness of such an interaction, I suppose, will be no less than of any other attempts at influence.

The thesis of equal effectiveness is wrong, do not distort.

I am very interested in the evolution of metaorganisms, as you say. Only the models of such organisms in the form of “corporation + collective” do not fundamentally differ from the “state + collective” models, which are already several thousand years old.

But the models of the “technology + team” type, consisting of not thirty and not hundreds (such happened, of course), but hundreds of thousands and millions of individuals — this, I tell you, is a fundamentally new metaorganism, I never dreamed of any freemasons.

__________________________________________________________

X: They are no different from bee hives or anthills, which for several years already have been.

And about the mycelium area with the average American state you heard? Well this is generally to get tired. I think everything inside is no less interesting than on Facebook, we just don't understand much about mushrooms.

But all this is interesting as long as we take a reductionist hammer and try to pick open up the surrounding reality into pieces. If this is not done, then in principle I do not see any reason not to call the planet such a meta-organism. Or the whole universe.

Here the question is, just where do you spend the borders. And most of my comments in this post contain a hidden thesis that these borders can be easily drawn anywhere, select any particular piece of reality and begin to consider it as something interesting, think up a name for it, and so on. And all this will prove to be true, because all this is nothing more than hallucinations of a restless mind.

__________________________________________________________

ZH: And I can not seriously discuss what all the fuss is about, because this means jumping over your head. I can not. It’s certainly fun to play with sophisms, and I really enjoyed the interesting reading in this post, but I can’t say anything significant.

But for SkyNet I am a lover of potryndet. And it seems to me that you did not catch what I said (correct, if not so).

By fundamentally new formations of the “technology + team” type I didn’t mean Facebook, of course, but such things as shadow networks, torrents, bitcoins and other funny things that dramatically catalyze the approach, if not technological, then at least a kind of social singularity.

__________________________________________________________

X: But why the fuss? You just give a negative context to such a premise. And you can consider it from the positive side - it gives you absolute freedom in choosing what to study, what to do, what to discuss. She, of course, has never been taken away from you, but the man himself is the master to drive himself into a cage from prejudices (such as the "crown of evolution"), and then to flutter in it until it gets bored.

I am interested in P2P technologies as much as you, but I see them a little differently. There are many different clumsiness of analogies to these technologies found in other ecosystems other than human, and in general, I do not see how this brings us closer to the technological singularity. Because the very definition of it is incomprehensible to me - on the basis of it, we have been in it for a very long time, and nothing unusual happens.

I don’t really like Kurzweil’s person very much; But it's just my opinion, I don’t even want to justify it to be honest.

It is often common for a person to wishful thinking and do wrong extrapolations. For example, what seems to you an exponential growth in progress may turn out to be just a small jump on the general chart. And it may also be that these measures for assessing progress are generally bullshit. And the graphs can wipe your ass.

__________________________________________________________

ZH: You're right, of course. but you are too right, your right is unfalsifiable, and therefore it is a philosophy and a game of beads, but not a science.

It is impossible to say that I did not understand his hypothesis, but I cannot
say that I realized it to the end. I can not say that his
hypothesis convinced me, but, on the other hand, everything that happened
to us fit into it. Moreover,
everything that happened, happens and will continue to happen in the
universe, and, if you will, the weakness of this
hypothesis also lies in it . There was something in her from the statement that the rope was the
simplest cord ...
__________________________________________________________

X: Philosophy is the mother of all sciences, it is impossible to consider one in isolation from the other. This is the very foundation of knowledge.

__________________________________________________________

ZH: Philosophy as a discipline is not a “mother of science”. the mother of science can be called a specific philosophy, a philosophy of rational knowledge. but does that make sense?

__________________________________________________________

X: Purely historically - is. What is a scientific method but a product of philosophy? It seems to me even antique.

__________________________________________________________

ZH: The purely historical roots of science are of great importance only for the history of science.

__________________________________________________________

X: Is the history of science a man of some kind? Meaning it may be for you or me, or not.

For me, this is of great importance, because otherwise science, as a method, will simply hang in the air, as if it always existed, like some sort of system of rules that had descended from heaven, and you can oppose it unbiasedly to philosophy. And this is never the case.

Philosophy, as a discipline of knowledge in general, has given you a tool such as the scientific method. She gave you a tool such as formal logic, with which you can talk about anything at all - within the framework of science, or outside of it.

But limiting oneself only to these tools of knowledge, generated by philosophy, and rejecting everything that lies beyond them - you, I think, significantly limit your possibilities of this very knowledge. And certainly it is not necessary to say that philosophy is a “game of beads,” in the light of such interesting historical facts.

__________________________________________________________

ZH: You contradict yourself, I think. First, you consistently deconstruct everything “human”, and first, as it seemed to me, all these foundations come from the childhood of mankind. And then you declare their importance and almost sacredness. In my opinion, you just play with words and have fun.

__________________________________________________________

X: If I am deconstructing something, then I do it within the framework of generally accepted human tools, otherwise we would simply not be able to talk, would you not find? Well, don't you talk to me like a bird, really?

So there is no contradiction. The very knowledge of this is that you take and deconstruct the human, taking advantage of the human, because you don’t have any other. And, of course, I play with words and have fun - a person did this with his very cradle, and both literally, at the level of an individual, and in a figurative sense, as a species.

If you want to say that this person’s entertainment hasn’t led to anything constructive - well, congratulations, you are a real nihilist

But thanks to this we have a memorable Facebook and Lepreta, and this, I think, is worth something!

__________________________________________________________

O: > After all, what is “advanced technology”? How do you define that? Is star a technology? And the biosphere of the Earth? How advanced is it? Is it appropriate to ask such questions?

Why not express the very concept of the complexity of an object N through the ratio of its entropy level to the probability of the appearance of this object for natural reasons?

__________________________________________________________

X: Look, I’ve been awake for a long time, and I want to sleep. Therefore, prepare for the perfect nonsense. But even more interesting. It was a disclaimer.

To begin with, what kind of "natural causes" are these? There are unnatural chtol? :) Paranormal, I guess. We assume that all causes are natural. To start.

Further, the entropy can seem to be determined (in statistical physics, but I am not a welder) just as the probability of the appearance of a macroscopic object. That is, in some sense you are “divided by zero”, as they say in two hours, or “oil of oil”.

For the entropy of the same stars, I am not ready to speak. You might think we know what happens inside them. It is foolish to imagine them simply as a kind of ball of uniformly distributed matter, it is just an abstract model. I think that in fact, structurally, they may well be more complicated than the human brain, for example - even though this is pure science fiction. There was some tip that pushed about the possible occurrence of very complex self-organizing structures in configurations of magnetic fields in stars. There are no reasons to believe him, but also not to believe. Damn, we don’t even know where the sunspots come from - yes, in fact, we don’t know anything about the stars at all, we just see the tops. Maybe those who worshiped the Sun, as they were there, were not so wrong.

But your message comes down essentially to the same thing, asS pushed here. You take the likelihood of a person with his technology (and it can be very, very small, it is), and based on this you conclude that the person is an advanced technology. Oil oil, again, or "man is the crown of evolution because he is a man." I'll show you where the file is.

The fact is that it is not obvious to me that the probability of the emergence of a particular stone (in its final form) in the Martian landscape is greater than the probability of the appearance of a particular person on the Earth's landscape. There are many stones, yes - but they are all different. Every whole Universe! And the fact that you have combined them all into some kind of general class of stones can only be a glitch of your pattern recognition system, a false pattern. I exaggerate of course, but not quite. Instead of stones, you can call any other garbage, to taste. In words, it is by the way difficult to explain to a person who has not tried <cut out>, for example. I'm sorry for. A picture is worth a thousand words.

That is, any Enoplanetan thread that accidentally flew towards us (probably in the guidebook for hitchhikers are confused), you can easily be confused with a part of the natural landscape, and you will not see anything fundamentally interesting in you, because for them you will be as interesting as they are Martian stones for you. And they will not count you as complex and advanced. Because their pattern recognition apparatus is tuned to something else, and you, for them, are noise. Just as the stones for you merge into the gray noise of identical stones. And they are all really different ... and complex. Maybe even reasonable, lol. Sorry, something was remembered by Bekmambetov's movie about how the dudes flew to the moon - and there they attacked, sensible stones, ahaha. It may be that this is what the director tried to tell us, and the film is not stupid at all.

The most interesting thing will begin when you abstract from the scale of time. It is then that really observing the erosion perturbations of some exquisite landscape on the satellite of Jupiter can be no less interesting than observing the activities of the Vyhinsky metro in the morning.

The bullshit is that you define your complexity as a measure of the likelihood of occurrence. But you wondered what exactly was arising.? You will inevitably come to the fact that in this matter you operate not with concrete objects, but with their abstract models. Simplifications. Stones, people, stars. But these are just symbols, they are in the human brain, like the designs of your pattern recognition apparatus. You cannot be sure that you see exactly what it really is. And that there is some kind of “really” in general. This is a very difficult question, and it lies outside the framework of science. And again we come to some kind of addiction. In vain you raised this post, to what it is.

__________________________________________________________

O: You know, after thinking hard, I could even imagine that I took your position.

You see, the only precedent of reason known to us is ourselves. From the point of view of human logic, the definition of advanced technology is not so big a problem as an attempt to create some kind of universal formulation, and is it even possible in general in natural language? Is the mind possible without consciousness? Are other models of the mind possible? I do not see any possibility to find answers to these questions until a way of communication (meaning by this the translation of the results of the analysis of the surrounding reality) with someone / something to which the definition of “person” doesn’t fit, . until a new precedent appears.

Well, if there is no answer and as long as all this lies in the field of mental experiment, everyone has the right to adhere to the position that he considers the most correct, therefore I will simply continue to believe that consciousness and mind are simply a property of a certain part of matter and the point here is not at all in pride, but in the fact that I see no reason to fence unnecessary entities without obvious need.

__________________________________________________________

X: Logic is a very limited point of view. Exactly the point . In this respect, in terms of the knowledge of the essence of things, I am closer to Eastern civilizations, which did not develop into contact and not zashkvarivatsya about the Western European school of thought, generated by the logic of antiquity. Zen, etc. But I don’t deny the logic, for me it’s just a tool, like a hammer.

And about the mind, I will say such a thing. This is a terminological problem only. You called yourself a mind (this is a tautology), and at the same time you declared that you are something exceptional. Can you name what? You inevitably unwinding this question will come to the fact that your only uniqueness, among other creations of the Universe, is the ability to realize yourself.

But are you sure that this ability does not have everything else? And that for this ability in general, something very difficult is needed. Perhaps a banal recursive self-contained algorithm, such as my toroidal Turing machine, which I recently post somewhere, has full self-awareness. Not an intellect. But self-awareness.

__________________________________________________________

Ü: When will you argue, finish a summary of conclusions, OK? And then read everything - you can kill.

__________________________________________________________

A: It is entirely possible that at any stage this talk is indistinguishable from background noise, username.