Sunday, 23 September 2012

Machines are already Intelligent



We could say that a partially biological construct called the computer-human-construct shows signs that it inherits consciousness from its biological parts (human brain) but also has access to formidable processing power and storage capacity/recall-ability of the computer. But why stop there. Most computers are hooked into the global net, so this individual entity has access to unknown amounts of knowledge and increasing storage capacity.

But lets not stop there, lets get a bit closer to where we need to get here. Is the internet a machine? Is it not just a collection of separate parts linked by wires, that all merge to create a single machine, much as a single computer is also classified as a machine? So all the online computers in the world are hooked up to one entity that is driven by biologically intelligent parts that drive it's learning and evolution. Would we say that the WWW (which I would say is not just a collection of computers linked up but a conscious entity with billions of biological parts as well as machine parts which all work together as seamlessly as any biological life) is not self aware already? Of course it is. It has a collective identity, as well as many collective identities, as well as individual components.

If we were to test the WWW to ascertain whether it is conscious, what would we find? Does this qualify as machine intelligence? I would say it could if we wished to define it as such. Can we separate an entity like the WWW, as in remove the machine component, or the human component, and still expect it to develop as any intelligent entity should? Of course we can't. Therefore this entity which is a machine, a very complex machine, is contingent on the fact that it has these two distinct parts. Therefore the machine that is the internet IS conscious?

Sunday, 16 September 2012

Afterdeath: Subjective Eternity


As the brain shuts down, those moments of maintained dreamlike consciousness, as the brain slows down, image sequences like 'life before eyes' could theoretically extend out to a subjective eternity? Is it at this moment one assesses and judges one's life, like an iboga induced self-assessment. You being the one who decides whether it is hell or heaven you deserve.

Traditions of hell fire could be told by people who came back from the brink. As hormones diminish the full senses of the body are magnified and the brain features pain as its default, or pleasure depending on body-type or something more psychological.

Maybe the absence of feeling from the body, like ghost-limbs lost, causes the now lone brain to replace with imaginations of untold ecstasy or terror; a release of adrenal hormones from zones of toxins giving pleasure beyond measure, or the loss of sensation from the body causing a phantom body to be created in the brain that burns like hellfire.

What will your psychology/physiology deliver?

Will the shutdown extend forever; or does the soul truly fly free? We will all find out, or think that we have . . .

Atheists Search the Cosmos. Theists search the Bible, Koran and so on.


A theist asked me: "Will science run out of steam?" 

Scientists will never desist as long as their findings/ideas work, are applicable. Theists will continue to spurn Science's principles and yet still drive their cars, watch their TVs, talk crap or sense on their computers; all devices created by scientific principles. I think there is only one camp here that is going to run out, evolve out, die out, of steam.

I come from the view that reality and proven facts are paramount in understanding the Universe, Reality, Infinity. Not fictions or sub-sets of spiritual mumbo-jumbo that have been purposefully constructed to manipulate the vulnerable.

Philosophy is amongst other things a pursuit of any possibility. But this produces cognitive conjecture, no matter how interesting. I am not saying that Philosophy or Fringe Science doesn't possess a theory that is correct. But they can't all be correct?

Science steps in to prove which theories are still relevant at whichever level presently attained.

Non-sensical babblings proffered to me on forums (regarding God and or religion) could cause any scientist to run out of steam, but only in his/her willingness to continue to participate pointing out the obvious to the unenlightened, uneducated, blind, ignoring envoys of a childlike state of humankind. Come on, it is time to grow up and wean yourself off the traditional controlling malefactors.

Saturday, 15 September 2012

The Monkey Took its Head Out of The Box

Will There Be A Religious Singularity?

If I was a god I am not so sure I would be so interested in the earth. If science has got it right and there are other cultures in the cosmos then it would mean we may not be the interest or simply one of many. I feel I would be pretty hands-off, let evolution run its course type thing.

So if we find evidence of life elsewhere or if we find aliens, is that a positive or negative for religions. Will they assimilate the findings and make it their own as they seem so increasingly ready to these days (except in America) or will the old religions fold or even evolve naturally away from present modes?

Why is religion so against these kinds of realistic, logical topics of discussion?

The discovery of life elsewhere would be a tricky one for religion to talk its way out of. Alien religions will be again as diverse as the Earth's. How can people entertain the idea of there being a creative force, which I do, but be so against the realisation that traditional religion is simply a mankind-muddled, even bastardisation of any type of realistic, believable-for-all theory of an intelligence behind the universe's workings. Some would say that the fact the universe computes makes it a computer, therefore it is only one conclusion/discovery away from being aware.

But what does traditional religion have to do with that?

I really do feel that for religion to flourish in an uncertain future it has to evolve or at least show willing to do so. I already get inklings of this happening. And mark my words, it will happen. Established religions are like any other form of social collection. They possess the drive for self-perpetuation. And people power (money), I feel, will push forward radically these changes. Almost like a possible Religious Singularity.

People's desires are more important now, and people want what they want. They want to believe in something that fits in with the world they see around them, and they see so much more these days.

The monkey took its head out of the box.

Friday, 14 September 2012

Strong Views on Prostitution



Me: Prostitution is fine; if one wears a condom.

But no, seriously. Prostitution isn't right or wrong. It's just a little sad.

But if people want to do it it should be legalised and regulated, it isn't going to go away. But it should most definitely not be openly pedalled on any street (as in Amsterdam) and remain behind closed doors.


Him: What makes it sad, and why should it NOT be openly peddled? To suggest it should remain behind closed doors is to suggest it is somehow shameful. What makes it shameful?


Me: I suggest no such thing. Why give really easy access to something that someone may be pressurized into doing by their mates whilst walking down the street is all. Something they may later regret.

It is sad because if you can't chat-up a girl in the conventional way then maybe that's the way it is.

If a man really wants to find a prostitute he can find one in any town or city. Why paint an area of a city with a no-go brush for people who are offended?

And whatever you say, people do find it shameful, that's why any self-respecting man would hide such activities from his spouse, potential girlfriend, mother, father, siblings, even friends. What you or I think on the matter (shameful or not) is immaterial. We live in democracy and the view of the masses is what's important?

If you did a survey of good cross-section of the community, male and female, how many people would say it's shameful?


Him:
"And whatever you say, people do find it shameful, that's why any self-respecting man would hide such activities from his spouse, potential girlfriend, mother, father, siblings, even friends."

Only because we live in a culture that demonizes it.

"What you or I think on the matter (shameful or not) is immaterial. We live in democracy and the view of the masses is what's important?"

Hardly, since the views of the masses can be swayed. It is up to responsible citizens to work to advance knowledge and understanding in others, not hide beneath the covers of the masses.
"If you did a survey of good cross-section of the community, male and female, how many people would say it's shameful?"

Continuing my point from above, that is irrelevant.

Consider this - both slavery and racism were for a long time considered acceptable practice - should we then simply say it is okay just because that was the will of the masses?


Me:
"Only because we live in a culture that demonizes it."

Are you serious?? You think that women don't want their husbands to see prostitutes because society demonizes it. That is seriously twisted my friend.

"Hardly, since the views of the masses can be swayed. It is up to responsible citizens to work to advance knowledge and understanding in others, not hide beneath the covers of the masses."

So the present views of the masses on such a fundamentally moral subject as this are wrong? One that people have had thousands of years to come to terms with and they are all wrong? You think you and others with your extreme views are going to sell the idea of prostitution as a morally sound exercise to a majority of monogamous functioning families? Ha Ha HA! Humanity has grown-up. Would be nice if people who think prostitution is socially acceptable could do the same.

"Consider this - both slavery and racism were for a long time considered acceptable practice - should we then simply say it is okay just because that was the will of the masses?"

This is nonsensical. Slavery was never the view of the masses. Was society democratic then? NO. Were lower class people (the majority) slaves then as well? YES. Was it the (minority) ruling elite that created the slave trade and could afford to buy slaves? YES.

How can you equate the oppression of racial groups to the right of women to sell their bodies to married men?

Will the abolition of prostitution laws remove people from oppression? possibly, but you ain't gonna change peoples view on this one. But you are not talking about that easy step, no. You are talking about teaching the world that prostitution is ok, come on everyone lets go do it.

Like I have already said. It should be legalised and monitored to protect the women. But it should be kept behind closed doors. This moral battle has already been fought.

Of course there is a possible argument (which I am not afraid to open up) that men with serious physical or mental problems rely on prostitution for release, so to speak. So these individuals that can't function within social norms would benefit massively from clean, regulated prostitution.

You are not going to win this one.

But I wish you luck.


Him:
"Are you serious?? You think that women don't want their husbands to see prostitutes because society demonizes it. That is seriously twisted my friend."

First of all, you gave far more examples than just spouses. Secondly, there ARE people in this world for whom prostitutes provide a welcome third person in their sex life. I have lived among many different cultures in this regard, and I assure you that it IS a cultural thing.

"So the present views of the masses on such a fundamentally moral subject as this are wrong?"
I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong. I'm saying that they aren't necessarily right. Just because it is the opinion of the masses doesn't mean a thing.
"One that people have had thousands of years to come to terms with and they are all wrong?"
Actually, it's only been considered "wrong" for a few hundred years. It was the Elizabethan morals (or possible Victorian - I can't remember which off the top of my head) of England that actually started treating prostitution as "bad". Indeed, in ancient Rome prostitution was an upper-class profession.
"You think you and others with your extreme views are going to sell the idea of prostitution as a morally sound exercise to a majority of monogamous functioning families? Ha Ha HA! Humanity has grown-up. Would be nice if people who think prostitution is socially acceptable could do the same."
Any chance you'd care to back up your proclamations with some sort of evidence? History, psychological studies, anything? I'm open to the discussion... but so far you aren't really providing any.
"This is nonsensical. Slavery was never the view of the masses. Was society democratic then? NO. Were lower class people (the majority) slaves then as well? YES. Was it the (minority) ruling elite that created the slave trade and could afford to buy slaves? YES."

I don't even know where to begin dissecting this. Slavery was an accepted practice in the constitution of the United States - you know, that document that actually GRANTED democracy to America.
"How can you equate the oppression of racial groups to the right of women to sell their bodies to married men?"

Re-read my post. I brought up slavery and racism as accepted practices until the minds of the masses were changed. I wasn't comparing them to prostitution.
"Will the abolition of prostitution laws remove people from oppression? possibly, but you ain't gonna change peoples view on this one. But you are not talking about that easy step, no. You are talking about teaching the world that prostitution is ok, come on everyone lets go do it."

No, I'm saying that people should decide what is right and wrong based on some compass other than the will of the masses.
"Like I have already said. It should be legalised and monitored to protect the women. But it should be kept behind closed doors. This moral battle has already been fought."

You still haven't answered why.
"You are not going to win this one.
But I wish you luck."

If people on this forum fail to think beyond the closed mindset you have exhibited, I don't need luck - I need to find another forum - one in which people are capable of thinking for themselves.


Me: I think you are arguing with yourself.

I have stated twice that prostitution should be LEGAL so people can use it responsibly but you seem hell-bent on convincing people it is going to be a future socially acceptable practice. I reiterate, grow-up. People do not want prostitution (in Europe, Uk, America, that's what I am talking about, not any far-flung society to reference to as it is convenient for a nonsensical argument) as a social trend to be passed down to their kids, it is at odds with the corner-stone of Western Society. That being, if you do not know, monogamous family life. That is the most productive model for society.

Prostitution, today, in successful civilisations is immoral. That is the place we are at now. I didnt say that all the people from thousands of years ago have this belief, if you read it in context (whole paragraph) you would see I was talking about modern populations, did you miss that lol?

If you don't respect the views of the masses then you're in the wrong country my friend.

On a side note: What about the cost of STD's? That is why it was frowned on by Victorians. Social evolution established to protect people. So now antibiotics clear it all up. Back then people died and suffered from contracting disease.

I live in England, and you would have to be an idiot to not see that the majority of people are involved in monogamous practices.

"This is nonsensical. Slavery was never the view of the masses. Was society democratic then? NO. Were lower class people (the majority) slaves then as well? YES. Was it the (minority) ruling elite that created the slave trade and could afford to buy slaves? YES."

You can't dissect this because it's true. True democracy is voting for all, not excluding racial groups. Come on man. Do you think that that was true democracy? You need a politics lesson.

I have already said why it should be kept behind closed doors but maybe I need to simplify it for you. People ARE offended by it.

You seem incapable of following an argument, and determined to bend things out of shape to your own agenda, whilst forgetting or changing the previous comments you make.

I think you need luck and to find another forum lol.

My mind is very open, but I respect other peoples' sensibilities. And I could respect your viewpoint if you had pitched it in a less forceful, more sensible manner.

Nearly half of the population of Britain are married, and of the remaining half a very sizable chunk are in monogamous relationships. I respect your right to seek out other people with your views and to start-up any type of relationships you wish but you are not going to re-educate the people of my country that prostitution is right and proper. Or, for example, that we should all go out and create three or four-way relationships. If you think any such doomed to fail crusade has a snowflakes chance in hell of succeeding then not only are you lying to me, but you're lying to yourself as well.

Not gonna happen. Sensible people do not want to slip down a doomed path of decadence. We do not want to share our wives with our neighbours, for example. Monogamy works for me and for most people, providing a sound family unit in which to bring up our children. The whole Western World evolved toward this point and it is a supremely effective model, adopted by all the most productive societies. Should we make similar mistakes to the Romans and doom our society to collapse? Would it work as well under a polygamous model? I think you'll find that all social groups that maintain polygamous practices are all flagging behind in development.

Unless you can up your game I consider this closed. If you are not going to bring anything intellectually sound then I am not going to waste my time typing out another response.


Me: Oh yeah, and by the way, you are in, and always will by in the minority on this topic in your lifetime, so get used to it.


Him: No response 

Me: 

"First of all, you gave far more examples than just spouses. Secondly, there ARE people in this world for whom prostitutes provide a welcome third person in their sex life. I have lived among many different cultures in this regard, and I assure you that it IS a cultural thing."

I made the original statement so attack one area of it then. The majority of any of the cited examples put into a socially acceptable situation with men and women present (not men joking in a bar) would be in alignment with an innate feeling of disgust at prostitution and what it represents and harbours.

Going back to a super-sexualised male (ego and sexual feeling) dominated roman-style society is not what women want. Would you reintroduce deep-seated male chauvinist attitudes that ignore women's emotional feelings? Our society has come forwards, why go back to that. Why decadence? Is that a way forward for economically successful society?

Disfunction of modern society already stems from the breakdown of the family unit. Would you have all women as single parents and all men as roaming phalluses? How is that economically viable? The services you enjoy are supported by the present economic model which is geared up for average people to cohabitate and share financial burden.

Again, I am confident that a massive majority of people find prostitution distasteful, that's why it remains illegal, though I reiterate again: Behind closed doors in a legal setting (without advertisement) could be more acceptable than the present situation of traditional pimp and whore.

Or maybe we should forget about all the productive social evolution that has gone on over the past couple of hundred years and push women back to being the objects too many men want them to be?

Sunday, 9 September 2012

Should I Believe in God?


There are many theories of god evolving today; if I was inclined to believe I wouldn't seek to butcher the bible into plausible metaphors (not saying you are, I don't know you well enough) to feel I could believe in god. I would look for a plausible mechanism of god and that would be enough I think.

There is so much room within the unknown frontier (quantum mechanics, particle physics, astral phy
sics, philosophy etc.) and beyond to hypothesize a god that no one can shoot down, as long as one doesn't profess belief (depending on the flexibility of the axioms of the philosophical discussion). Some religions can be shot down when they stick to illogical literal interpretations/doctrine whilst seeking to discourse within Sciences terms of engagement. Though many religions are evolving the way they interpret alongside Science's proven mechanisms. To go for a mainstream (though my knowledge of mainstream religion is far from complete) would seem difficult because I am not aware of one that is able to let go of literal "truths" that are inconsistent with Science's provens.

The beauty of the human mind is that it can manufacture meaning when there is little or none. Any religious text could be reinterpreted to agree with Science if one was willing to redistribute meanings as one wished, though the mainstream may not agree. Religions tend to drag their heels as their preachers in power are too old to adapt their thinkings quickly enough.

Why does one need to believe when one can say god is possible. I don't see the need to have the psychological crutch so badly, that one is willing to let go of a reasoning agnostic position.

One can explore and appreciate the beauty of "God" without believing. One can even understand the belief in god from a position without that position. If one has experienced belief in younger life or moments of weakness or if one has converted to atheism etc. and more besides.

The subject will enthrall atheists and theists alike for years to come no doubt.