Ten oz

Trump is very shallow. Ivanka is clearly his favorite person on earth. Trump probably assumes Jared must be a brilliant mind to have landed Ivanka. I am not even joking. I don't think Trump considers individual factors like disciplines in fields, experience, expertise, temperament, and etc. For him their is just winners and losers. Kushner landed Ivanka so in Trump's mind Kushner is a huge, big, enormous, very good, the best, type of winner. As such Kushner is more than qualified for everything in Trump's mind.

Insulted DrP Insulted me Instulted Strange Save the denials. Your tone throughout this thread has been dismissive and brash. You repeatedly challange us to prove negatives while hold yourself to no outlined standard. Rather, you are presenting opinions, agreeing with your opinions, then treating those opinions as proved. It is circular reasoning. In this case it actually fits your speculations about consciousness well considering you are convinced reality can be manifested. Perhaps this is your experiment. To see if you can aggressively force your speculations to be proved through persistence. In my opinion, and I feel the opinion of other in this discussion, you have still yet to explain why consciousness isn't a function of the brain. Do you have a clear way of expressing that without abstractions?

@Dave Moore, you know that consciouness is projected, there are multiple realities, and have figured out many of the big questions the rest of haven't so why are you here? Your fustrated posts full of challanges and insults pointed to the mental faculties of others to understand you seem rather petty since you have already resolved these matters of philosophy and science. Perhaps this is less about Schroder's cat and more about you? A projected universe of preference. Your take seems to go beyond choices in a universe which is bigger than us and into a universe which is nearly at ones command. A grand scale that it is instantaneously undermined by your confused analogies and metaphors. Can you boil down a couple of keys points you believe without adding on philosophical pretext or state a philosophical question without pseudo science or anti educational views attached?

@Kiplngram how much free will does someone with motor neurone disease have when they can't speak or move? How much free will does someone with epilepsy have? People who are afflicited with conditions that confine them without choice are still aware. Determinism is a philosophy that deals with actions, morality, external events, and what's really responsible for what happens. That is much bigger and interconnected concept that attempts to answer questionsabout everthing and not just individual awareness. Awerness exists be it free will or determinism. Awarness exists whether there is a god or isn't a god. Awareness exists whether life is a dream or not. Awareness is a single window and the whole universe incarnate. A plant leaning towards light can be a conscious act or just a biological process. Some Humans with brain injuries, who are brain dead, still breathe, their hearts still beat, and etc. Think about the famous case of Terri Schiavo. She was brain dead. She was in a persistent vegatative state. She wasn't aware. She was alive but had no consciousness. She had biological processes happening but no awareness. Eventually doctors removed her feeding tube and she passed 13 days later. I am not trying to answer the big questions. Whether all humans have this or that. I think the big questions are several steps beyond where we are in terms of knowledge. My comments are confined to attempting to tie down the mechanism of self awareness. I don't believe self awareness and life or humanity are synonymous. Not all living things are aware and not all things which are aware are human. So the bigger questions about detrminism vs free will become rather self indulgent in my opinion but they make many assumptions and they are narrowly considered through human perspectives. We don't need to understand how gravity effects time to observe the passage of time. Accurate calanders were made to record the passage of time on earth by humans long before humans knew what gravity was. Long before humans knew what the sun, moon, and stars were. We don't need to know everthing to know something.

@Kiplingram, life on earth is all related. It sprang up from a single type of lifeform. Life on earth doesn't have nurmerous origins. So we (life on earth) have things in common. Free will may very well by the source of human consciousness but does that mean it must be the source for cousciousness period? The notion of choice is a human construction. Why would it apply to AI? It can be true for us (you and I) and totally irrelevant for other types of cousciousness perhaps. Do trees make choices, do insects, do cats, do dogs, do machines? I don't believe consciousness is choice or free will. I think consciousness is knowing the existence of self. Realizing there is such a thing as me, myself , and I. A slave, captive, prisoner, or etc my not be able to choose but they can still know self.

Plants like people need their bodies so it makes sense for a plant to have a centeral system. We have all put celery in with a little dye and watch the water move. Plants like humans are also maybe of of cells. A rock isn't. A rock doesn't need sunlight, water, air, or etc. To our knowledge a rock does nothing. Solid state devices used to for processing don't have cells or need light, water, or air but the do serve a purpose which we can messure and require the movement of electrons. So there is big difference between a what the solid state devices are and can be vs what a rock is. Ultimately I don't think we are close to known the answer regarding lifew. To our knowledge life was only created on earth once. We only have one example to work with. Assuming there is other life in the universe and we eventually come across it I think that will be a big step forward. AI, the way we are attempting to design it, won't work in my opinion. I don't believe life is purpose built for anything we understand. It happens it isn't planned. meanwhile its processes exist out of necessity. That might be separate from awareness though. We might be able to design awareness.

Which bring me back to what I mentioned in my initial post; does something have to be alive to be aware? Does something have to be mortal to be alive? A computer can't die so there is not use for a cumputer to feel as they it were dying. You are projecting human attributes and by doing so implying only humans and perhaps domesticated animals like dogs and cats who adequately mimic our behavior are self aware. I don't feel that is accurate. All mamals feel pain. It is messurable. Chop a rats leg off and its pulse will accelerate, it will scream, twitch, and brain activity will race. Everything a human does when feeling pain. We all know that biological the sensors that transmit pain are nerves. Animals have nerves. They experience pain. It is provable. I am my body. If I do not take care of my body it directly impacts my brain and vice verse. My brain is link to ever part of my body via my nervous system. My brain has entire functions that serve no other purpose than to allow me to see, hear, breath, and etc. The same isn't true for a computer. The screen and keyboard on my laptop are not vital to the CPU. I can use other hardware and software with my laptops processor. I cannot use another body with my brain. Because my body and brain are one it makes sense for there to be a nervous system. Why would a computer need such? If a CPU became self aware which parts would be vital? Probably none would be. First step of a self aware computer might be to replicate itself over and over which would render the need for any specific phyical place moot along with the need to care about any physical place. AI wouldn't/won't need to experience the emotions and feelings we humans experience because AI will have a completely differentway of interacting with reality. AI won't need a sexual partner to reproduce. So feelings like attraction, lust, love, rejection, heartbreak, and etc won't need to exist or evolve. AI won't need to breath so it wouldn't ever need to develop a fear or sensation of suffocation. AI simply put wouldn't be human. No feling or emotion I experience is applicable. So how would we know AI was aware? We could ask it but for all we know AI may have no use for communicating with humans and ignore our questions.

I don't expect Trump to be impeached. I wasn't commenting on likelihoods. I was commenting on right & wrong. If Trump's campaign colluded with Russia why should Pence get to become PUTUS he part of Trump's campaign?

I agree with all of that within the context of the reality one believes within their own mind. A person with schizophrenia can believe the vioces and visions they have are real. Considering schizophrenia is a disorder one doesn't have free will over their delusions. You obviously are referencing people with mental disorders but why not? You already have said more than once that consciousness is not manifested by the brain. So why should it matter if someone has a mental disorder?

This is how basically all life on earth exists. A fish doesn't care about what is messurable. A fish just knows what it knows and feels what it feels. A fish swims around responding purely to positive and negatives. A fish spends it whole life trying not to die. Not to lose the "deadly serious game" to those above them in the food chain. Like a drone programed with ones and zeros (positives and negatives). What you are carrying on about is the simplest form of a program. What have you discovered?

I understand that you referencing self awareness on a uniquely personal level. The singular moment experienced where one know it is, was, and one day won't be. As you read this you are aware of yourself. Last night you were aware of yourself as well but that moment, last night, is gone and perhaps never was. You have a memory of last night but memories are imperfect, they aren't real. So all we ever are is right now as we are aware of right now. Who am I, what am I, why am I, is reality real, and etc are questions we don't believe any other life on earth wonders about or in capable of wondering about. Our ability to wonderis a product of our curiosity which drove our intelligence and not vice versa. Curiosity often leads to knowledge (or it kills the cats ) but knowledge does lead to curiosity. Curiosity is emotional and knowing something isn't. So how we feel important. I honestly see no difference between basic human emotional responses and that of other mamals. A wolf pack, orca pod, lion pride, and etc are all comparable is structure and socail interaction. All containing traits exhibited by our hunter gatherer ancestors. I see no reason to assume the basic mechanism for awareness is different between a human and a wolf. Clearly we are more intelligent but also clearly evolved via the same process. It is important, in my opinion, not to assume we (humans) are more evolved or superior. That isn't how evolution works. It isn't a system that moves species in a linear direction lesser to greater. That we are special or the pinnacle of evolution is a indulgence which through our history has create much strife. I don't understand why you think pain and happiness are special? In my opinion emotions and our responses to them are some of the simplest aspects of consciousness. It is why we use reward systems to train animals. Just create a positive like a treat which provides satisfaction and a negative like a spray bottle blast to the face and we are able to influence behavior. That works on seemingly all mamals from mice to horses. If by automation or otherwise all mamals proactively work to avoid pain while seeking comfort. Insects however do not. An ant or bee will sacrifice themselves in an instant. For many insects dismembering or killing themselves is often part of collective problem solving. Which leads me to believe their sensor perception of pain and comfort nonexistent and as a result they lack any comparable emotions.

If I say you are driving me up the wall where is the wall you are driving me up? Is it in your home or mine? The is metaphorical. I am substituting annoyance for wall. When a person feels like they have low energy the word energy is substituting the standard biological process. If you are tired it could be that you have an illness, are hungry, deficient in a essential nutrient, or etc, etc, etc. They are numerous ways to describe it. You say low energy and I say the feeling of being rode hard and put away wet. It is all the samething. Consciouness is more real than a brain you claim yet altering a brain alters ones consciousness. What examples do you have of the existence of consciousness is the absence of a brain?

Yes, you are using energy as a metaphor. Problem is all you have are abstractions. You are lashing out against standards which would confine your view to something we can discuss and using poor examples and oddly implemented metaphors. When I asked if your real question was "why does the brain release dopamine at that moment" I was actually attempting relate your abstraction to the topic. I thought perhaps you were making a bigger point about the way our perception of the world controls our chemistry and not vice versa. A position which anecdotally could be used to support your veiw about the brain not producing consciousness. I now realize I was putting far too much thought into what you are trying to say . More han you seem to be. You're well off script and no longer referencing the use of consciousness which was your initial purpose in this thread.

As the one attempting to state that which was imagined in your own mind the onus is on you to explain it. Why you think anyone would be able to wrap their heads around your private interpretation of reality which explicitly rejects what is commonly taught or known is absurd. You dismiss education as beneath the experiencing of feelings (pain and pleasure are feelings) yet are using text which means you were taught to read and write. You have your own definition for energy but bother to stay with english as taught to you to complain which shows you understand that one can't purely manifest whatever they want. You must follow the rules of language to post.

I don't view the euphocric feeling one receives when winning a prize to be energy, no. It is dopamine being released in the brain. I asume you know that. So what is the real question you're asking; why does the brain release dopamine at that moment?

@Kiplngram, I think a lot of people (not implying you) confuse intelligence with self awareness. We even see this in religion where many believe only humans have a spirit/soul. Of course awareness and intelligence are not the same. My cat is self aware. She is aware is aware that I can hear her when she meows which is why she meows to me at various intervals and volumes pending on the situation and what response she is trying to get. She is also aware she can be seen which is evident by the fact that she hides. Is my cat aware of all things I am aware of like she is a cat, lives on a planet, will die one day, and etc; of course not. Does that make me more self aware than her, maybe/maybe not. For this discussion I don't get the impression that matters? For this something is self aware or not. You aren't attempting to create degrees? Other conflate being self aware with life. That self awareness only exists amongst the living. Computers are a series of solid state switches which respond to inputs. They are not alive. They do not have the ability to do more than what they have been programed to do or operate without inputs. Many devices have a variety of sensors which create inputs but that is still based on programing and isn't truly self generated. Many insects merely exist responding to inputs though. The only variance in routine being created by their environment moment by moment. Free will, choice, exhibited independent behavior, evident acts of self awareness, and etc aren't clearly present in all individuali insects. That said insects are alive and collectively are able to problem solve and exhibit other acts of an awareness. Cells would be another example of a living thing with doesn't think, responds as programed, and aren't apparently self aware. So for AI the questions I ponder are. Can something which isn't alive be self aware and can something that is completely nonorganic be alive? I apologize for the ramblings and unfortunately there is no brillant payoff. I am not sure AI would need to be sentient to be self aware. At least not for AI to make decision regarding self preservation or expansion. All life on earth came from the same place. Life was only created on earth once. We only have this example. It is either the exception or it is the rule. we really don't know (at least I don't).

Of late, inspired by propaganda most obvious in England and the U.S., many have begun denying any and everything as a legitimate source of information. As a result all debate now seems to start within a single mutal point of agreement. It makes honest debate very difficult. In the case of debating evolution it is almost impossible. One can state the science but if science in general as a discipline is rejected as a source of information there is no debate that can be had. Prior to entering a debate I recommend first determining what the people you are talking to believe and what their sources of information are. Then explain what your sources of information are. If they reject your sources of information that that is what I recommend focusing dabte on. No point in arguing biology with someone who believe all science is corrupt nonsense. Once, if, a ground work can be laid for what is considered accurate (types of studies, specific authors, fields of research, etc) then you can start to build your case. Otherwise I don't feel debate is useful. In the case of those who reject known science there really isn't anything to debate anyways. They either are willing to learn or they are not.

@Dave Moore, you are inviting us all to prove a negative. That isn't the way evidence is logically assembled. To prove anything there must be accurate points one can research and build upon. The reason ghosts, UFOs, god(s), bigfoot, and etc can't be disproved is because nothing accurate exists is discussing them. Your idea is built on what ifs which you seem to think collectively create something more precise but that isn't how reasoning works. If you study Bayesien Statistics a little you quickly realize that uncertianty dimishes likelihood. The odds that several pieces of questionable anecdotal evidence are correct is far worse than the odds of any individual one being correct. Because of that you only make your argument worse by continuing to add on unverifiable bit after unverifiable bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem The foundation of your idea seems to be that awareness/consciousness is more that just biology (meat you called it). The evidence for this you insist is "obvious" and is known self evidently by everyone their our minds. That assertion, in my opinion, hasn't been supported by you in this thread. Challanging us to see things your way notwithstanding. What proof is there that the brain is anything but biology? We have dissected brains, put pieces under microscopes, we operate on living brains, etc, etc, etc. In a very provable and tangible way we know it is biology (meat). Awareness, which you have referrenced, is uniquely influenced by the biology of the brain. That is why pharmaceutical companies can design medication to that influence emotion. Because it is all chemistry. It is why when parts of the brain gets damaged people loss their ability to see, hear, move, remember, learn, and etc. Our consciousness is directly attached to our brains. Change the brain and consciousness is changed. You also seem to be loosely speculating that what one dreams, hallucinates, whatever other mentally manifests of the mind can be real provided they are real to the individual. That is redundant. You are basically saying that people are able to believe what they believe. Yes, people can believe anything. I can write down 10,000 predictions for the future and then when one of the 10,000 predictions comes true I can believe I am able to see into the future. That is why in science information is peer reviewed and experiments must be repeatable. We know how easily one can convince themselves of something that isn't real. What is your standard for real?

Everything mentioned in your link has been brought up and thoroughly discussed multiple times. This thread is 40 pages long. Please browse the thread some to avoid merely repeating early discussions. If you have new or additional information please, by all means, post it.

That is what I was alluding to.

This is a very poor example and I feel it reflects a large error in you overall view analyse evidence, "mumbo jumbo". The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Evolutionary Biology was more akin to philosophy during Washington and Jeffersons who died decades before legitimate research into species begun. "Smart people" in the period you are referencing didn't have structured disciplines to weigh race (black vs white). Jefferson and Washington aren't examples of people who were educated (smart) on the subject. Mentioning their racism isn't​ proof of anything useful to this discussion. Additionally "learned men" of the time "all" didn't agree that whites were superior. Black astronomer Benjamin Banneker was a "learned man" and he wrote several letters to Jefferson pleading justice for slaves which he published in addition to his other published works.

I think a lot depends on how one feels about their govt. When we trust our leaders and believe they manage ethically our tolerance is higher than when we distrust. Ideally we'd always be able to trust our govt (in a Democracy) and just vote them out when we don't. To address the question more directly I believe we have to allow ourselves (govt represents us) all the tools and capabilities of criminals and our enemies. Hackers are constantly improving their ability to read our emails, look through our pictures, steal account information, put software on our devices, and etc. They do so with no oversight and without court issued warrants. Our privacy is being exploited already and telling the govt they can't have similar technical ability, because we can, doesn't stop millions of others who don't answer to us or operate with our best interest in mind. Rather than demanding the govt not have what's becoming a common technical ability people need to do their Civic duty and ensure the govt we have is an ethical one we can trust to intrude upon individual privacy only when reasonably justified.

Is it even ethical for a sitting President to ghost write news segments? Isn't that why we (the people) pay (Taxes) for the President to have his owner press Office? This is another thing that annoys me about Trump. Seemingly everything he does seems to either conflict with the law or challenges the status qou for what's considered ethical. Forget the obviously issues been investigated and battled in court like Russia and the travel ban. We still have nepotism with Kushner and Ivanka, the encouragement of people to buy Invanka products, refusal to release Taxes, directing people to watch news programs which may or may not speak directly him, and on and on ad nauseam. It annoys me.

Impeding when we are already a few decades behind is still Terrible.

A red heirring supporting circular reasoning. Asserting that environmentalist hate hydroelectricity changes the topic (red heirring) and then the empty assertion is used to imply (circular reasoning) some sort of inequity in the environmentalism broadly. Glaciers continue to melt, the ocean temp continues to rise, mass extinction proceeds, and etc while we (humans) debate the issue and refuse to allow actions. Petty sarcasms about hydroelectricity merely support doing nothing.