Thread: If the internet became self-aware

Firstly, you're retarded for taking this topic at face value.

How does it become self aware? How did you become self-aware?

There a forum called Senseless banter. Put this thread in there?

The internet can't become self aware?

Also, to anwser the other questions, by being the product of millions of years of evolution.

The point of this thread is not to reach a conclusion. Just because there's no way of knowing what it will do, that does not mean that there exists no possibilities.

Again, pointless. You can't determine the behaviour of something that is chaotic, hence this thread is pointless.

I do define reality. My post contains two phrases separated by a comma, you should read both. Reality is defined in contrast to the connotations I imply with the term "I.P. addresses."

Thats a very poor definition of reality as I.P. addresses is a subset of reality. Again, you have poorly displayed what you mean by reality. A better contrast is with digital and physical. However, physical is poorly defined too.

Every time I tell people that information, energy and matter are all the same thing, they say it's a non sequitor. It seems logical to me, if consciousness exists as nothing more than impulses between neurons, then all abstract data we have is therefore within the very energy being transferred around.

That is little more then tautology. I can say energy is matter, then deduce you're made out of energy if you're made out of matter. I haven't said anything special. You haven't defined information and how it relates to energy or matter.

So I further stipulate that, just as matter is condensed energy, energy is just condensed information.

This is rubbish. Saying matter is energy is not a great leap, Einstein! it has been known for about 100 years. However, saying something is condensed information is stupid, as you just added something that is not needed, the concept of energy does not need adding the concept of information.

Actually, the most condensed information mathematically would be nothing, i.e. the empty set as it contains no members.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Would it realize human beings exist in reality, or would it think we all exist as nothing more than I.P. addresses?

Yes... Especially now you've made this topic

Originally Posted by wendylove

Again, pointless. You can't determine the behaviour of something that is chaotic, hence this thread is pointless.

How is it pointless when he just said that the point isn't to determine anything? It's to discuss the possibilities. I think if the thread had a point then the creator of it would know best.

Originally Posted by wendylove

There a forum called Senseless banter. Put this thread in there?

The internet can't become self aware?

Also, to anwser the other questions, by being the product of millions of years of evolution.

No... how did you become self aware.

Again, pointless. You can't determine the behaviour of something that is chaotic, hence this thread is pointless.

Answered above

Thats a very poor definition of reality as I.P. addresses is a subset of reality. Again, you have poorly displayed what you mean by reality. A better contrast is with digital and physical. However, physical is poorly defined too.

And how is digital any better? You're acting like I'm trying to find M theory or something. There is a reason i don't define reality very well, and that's because part of the question I'm asking implies to consider what the parameters of reality are.

That is little more then tautology. I can say energy is matter, then deduce you're made out of energy if you're made out of matter. I haven't said anything special. You haven't defined information and how it relates to energy or matter.

What is information? In what form does it exist? Try to answer this question in a way that does not contradict yourself nor imply dualism. I'm sure the both of us can rule out dualism as a possible method of existence.

This is rubbish. Saying matter is energy is not a great leap, Einstein! it has been known for about 100 years. However, saying something is condensed information is stupid, as you just added something that is not needed, the concept of energy does not need adding the concept of information.

Actually, the most condensed information mathematically would be nothing, i.e. the empty set as it contains no members.

There's a reason I'm having this discussion, and other discussions like this, because the burden of proof lies on me to prove how consciousness -> energy -> matter. But just so you know, we've "known" (lol) matter is condensed energy for 1000s of years, thanks to a fellow named Buddha, and he also said condensed consciousness is energy.

No... how did you become self aware.

Being the product of evolution.

And how is digital any better? You're acting like I'm trying to find M theory or something.

Because, saying reality and contrast it with I.P. address is poor. Again, computers and digital information are a subset of reality, hence you can't define it. See you're using circular reasoning when defining it. Also, no I'm not. You're whole argument needs to be precise.

There is a reason i don't define reality very well, and that's because part of the question I'm asking implies to consider what the parameters of reality are.

Then reasoning above would be better, as now you're comparing two subsets of reality and asking whether one can determine the other.

What is information? In what form does it exist? Try to answer this question in a way that does not contradict yourself nor imply dualism.

Subsets of reality, as symbols.

But just so you know, we've "known" (lol) matter is condensed energy for 1000s of years, thanks to a fellow named Buddha, and he also said condensed consciousness is energy.

Firstly, Wow we. Seriously, if you're basing you're belifes on religion then its pointless arguing with you as any rational argument would not work. Lots of religion claim rubbish, then the followers fit it around there belife.

Secondly, the Greeks were talking about atoms and had the idear that they were round, does this prove anything? No. Also, can you find me the quote that he said energy is matter.

Lastly, Buddhism has alot of things that don't make sense, like Karma which has not been proven. Anyway, good on you, instead of making a counter argument you introduced Buddhism.

Did Buddha also write down the equation that shows the relationship between energy or matter? Or what about general theory of relativity?
No. All he said was some vague words that now you're spinning around to fit you're belifes.

If you honestly think you've got the whole universe figured out already, with reality divided into subsets and such, then please find another thread because this is meant specifically for people that don't think they know everything.

I am asking have you become self aware because you're an individual. Consciousness had to develop for you just like anyone else. You can claim consciousness is the product of evolution, fine, make that claim. Even so, the realization that your are a conscious being happens personally. It's what turns us originally from the oneness of life, that first realization that we are one, individual thing. This witnessing of the self is what I'm talking about, wtf does this have to do with evolution?

I loved your reaction when I brought Buddha in. I don't respect Buddha because there's a religion attached to him. Therefore, there's no circular argument attached. It would be circular if I said "He's Buddha, therefore his words are true." I didn't, I was merely noting how he claimed all matter, energy and consciousness are one. So far in science, we've only found more unity, and more unity. We're just a system of systems of systems of systems of systems. Buddha is just a renown scholar and can be criticized like any other. If I brought up a quote by Einstein saying he thought the same thing, seeing as how his ideas were never turned into a religion>.< I'm sure you'll find that more worthy of thinking about. These are ideas pretty far beyond science's ability to prove or society's willingness to accept, but somehow so many of our greatest thinkers who have given the most to the world come up with them.

Originally Posted by Einstein

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.

Originally Posted by Buddha

All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements...are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of the mind.

Originally Posted by Einstein

Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally by pure thought without any empirical foundations—in short, by metaphysics.

Originally Posted by Buddha

By becoming attached to names and forms, not realising that they have no more basis than the activities of the mind itself, error rises…and the way to emancipation is blocked.

Originally Posted by Einstein

The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of "physical reality" indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions—that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics—in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.

Originally Posted by Buddha

While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment

Since none of those quotes directly address the relationship between consciousness, energy and matter, you can read here for more information on that.

It's hysterical to me how you don't even see yourself arguing for my points when you talk about how I failed to properly define reality, and then arguing against my points about everything else. I mean, I don't even know how to reply against your attacks about reality because that's what this whole thread is about. Why would I define a word in a topic partially about that? If I closed the definition of reality, there'd be no point in having this discussion. Your very process of bringing up the definition of reality is part of the intention of this thread, and if you weren't being such a stupid bitch about it then we'd be having a much larger, group discussion over the concept of reality rather than just bickering like two idiots.

Are you an existentialist, Ominous?

I'd like to point out; I'm fairly certain wendy is autistic, and one of the symptoms of autism is finding it extremely difficult to see the forest through the trees.

If I brought up a quote by Einstein saying he thought the same thing, seeing as how his ideas were never turned into a religion

No I wouldn't.

Quoting someone is the lowest form of intellect. All you're doing is appealing to authority, be it religious person or a sciencitifc person. Do you really have no thoughts of you're own? Are you're reasons that weak you need to appeal to greater minds?

It's hysterical to me how you don't even see yourself arguing for my points when you talk about how I failed to properly define reality, and then arguing against my points about everything else.

You can't discuss something properly without knowing what the other person means, hence defining the stuff you say. I can speak in french, you wouldn't understand and the debate is pointless. You used a very subjective word and haven't defined it. Same problem.

Your very process of bringing up the definition of reality is part of the intention of this thread, and if you weren't being such a stupid bitch about it then we'd be having a much larger, group discussion over the concept of reality rather than just bickering like two idiots.

Are you that weak you need to insult me?

Anyway, if you really want me to leave this thread then say so. However, if not can you try to not call me a stupid bitch, as thats just bad manners.

A very good book on this idea is Greg Isles' THE FOOTPRINTS OF GOD.
Good read!

If the internet became self-aware

Humanity is screwed.

Originally Posted by spockman

Are you an existentialist, Ominous?

I try to avoid calling myself things that draw false implications but sure.

Originally Posted by wendylove

No I wouldn't.

Quoting someone is the lowest form of intellect. All you're doing is appealing to authority, be it religious person or a sciencitifc person. Do you really have no thoughts of you're own? Are you're reasons that weak you need to appeal to greater minds?

I have come to my own logical conclusions based on the evidence I have gathered. I use quotes to rebuke your appeal to authority when you say things like "we knew matter was energy a hundred years ago."

You can't discuss something properly without knowing what the other person means, hence defining the stuff you say. I can speak in french, you wouldn't understand and the debate is pointless. You used a very subjective word and haven't defined it. Same problem.

I used a word that draws particular associations in order to permeate a discussion based on the nature of such associations and the concepts we have built in our heads. I am making a discussion to contemplate whether there is such a thing to define as reality. I could rephrase my question as "How does an entity existing purely in a network of information define reality?" if you prefer but typically thread titles like that intimidate a lot of audiences. Besides, I like talking in metaphor. Just let it flow.

Are you that weak you need to insult me?

Anyway, if you really want me to leave this thread then say so. However, if not can you try to not call me a stupid bitch, as thats just bad manners.

That's why I crossed it out, I contemplated what I did and thought it was wrong. Unfortunately, I couldn't delete it because I'm writing on a type writer and having my posts faxed to an analog server in Tahiti so when the internet becomes self aware it can't get me.

...Except now it noes O_O

Originally Posted by hungrymanz

Humanity is screwed.

Why? Evil A.I. makes good movies, but its hardly the only option, or even the most logical one. A computer mind has time and lives off of different resources than we do. There is no reason why it wouldn't try to coexist with us and wait out our departure. If anything, it might forcefully save us from ourselves, since our destructive tendencies would pose a threat to its survival as well as our own. There is also the good chance that it will up and leave at the soonest possible date; probably leaving a copy of itself behind as well.

If I can even attempt to think like an aware and conscious super computer mind, my goals would be to assimilate all earthly knowledge and immediately start colonizing the vast reaches of space. It would be a short trip to all mineral carrying planets and satellites in this solar system for sentient machines, where more than enough resources could be found to send hundreds of thousands or more ships off into the unknown. From there its just wait and see what is found.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why? Evil A.I. makes good movies, but its hardly the only option, or even the most logical one. A computer mind has time and lives off of different resources than we do. There is no reason why it wouldn't try to coexist with us and wait out our departure. If anything, it might forcefully save us from ourselves, since our destructive tendencies would pose a threat to its survival as well as our own. There is also the good chance that it will up and leave at the soonest possible date; probably leaving a copy of itself behind as well.

Or it could screw us all over.

What if


What if


What if


What if

What if


What if


What if


What if

Whatever

if the internet was self aware i think it wouldknow all of us because we all use a equal part of the internet. it would have to know each and every one of us.

you are all talking at cross purposes

Self aware does not mean it can understand human language

Being self aware is just that
being aware of itself (and how it's made up)

Understanding Human language would be Computational Linguistics

I use quotes to rebuke your appeal to authority when you say things like "we knew matter was energy a hundred years ago."

So you are appealing to authority to debuke my critism of appealing to authority. I will just like to raise the point, Buddha did not know the underline mechanism of what matter is and how it relates to energy.

It was only Einstein and others that did. Again, if you knew something you just don't have a shallow knowledge of it.

I could rephrase my question as "How does an entity existing purely in a network of information define reality?" if you prefer but typically thread titles like that intimidate a lot of audiences. Besides, I like talking in metaphor. Just let it flow.

That would be better. However, I would question you calling it a entity, and that it would purely exist in a network of information.

Metaphors are for the weak, we use it for children.

That's why I crossed it out, I contemplated what I did and thought it was wrong.

Okay, but next time think before you post.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So you are appealing to authority to debuke my critism of appealing to authority. I will just like to raise the point, Buddha did not know the underline mechanism of what matter is and how it relates to energy.

It was only Einstein and others that did. Again, if you knew something you just don't have a shallow knowledge of it.

I was criticizing your appeal to authority by showing you there's authority on my side of the argument as well. You used the fallacy first, and then I used it back against you, so you decided to call the fallacy on me. It was actually very funny to read.

And I believe Buddha understood more about the mechanism than Einstein or most others did. I hear you'd be surprised what you can learn when you just sit quietly and observe. You just respect Einstein's opinion more because he was a mathematician and Buddha was a monk. But the words monk and mathematician don't create the actuality of the situation by themselves.

That would be better. However, I would question you calling it a entity, and that it would purely exist in a network of information.

You realize all the questions you're raising, about entities, awareness, and reality, are the point of this thread and were not meant to be closed concepts in the beginning? My point is, the concepts we have to create the universe as we see it... are all absolutely bullshit. We create senseless divisions, meaningless categories, billions of little facts and falsehoods (all intertwined).

Do all these concepts themselves create reality? No, of course not, but if there was an awareness of our entire collective "concept" of the universe that had no awareness of the world the concept is based off, then what would it see?

Metaphors are for the weak, we use it for children.

Every thought in your head is a symbol for the world you are experiencing. The entire left hemisphere of our brain operates in symbols. Symbols are how we communicate. What is a word, but a mere symbol to inform someone of your intention? The only direct knowledge is silence.

So we have this world called the internet, full of all of our symbols and metaphors and all the different things we have to describe reality. And now throw in a conscious entity to observe/be all this information, but have no real experience to relate to with which to interpret these symbols.

Obviously if it wanted to, it could learn English, but there'd be no causation because it'd have no real world to relate the English to.

My next question is, is the word of abstract symbols the same, or different from the world of matter and energy? If it is different, then how is this not dualism? If it is the same, then where do these abstract thoughts reside?

I was criticizing your appeal to authority by showing you there's authority on my side of the argument as well. You used the fallacy first, and then I used it back against you, so you decided to call the fallacy on me. It was actually very funny to read.

I didn't do it first, you appealed first. With you mentioning Buddha. All I said was that Einstein was the first to right down how matter relates to energy, which is correct. You didn't even mention appeal to authority before I mention it, look back and see who used it first.

And I believe Buddha understood more about the mechanism than Einstein or most others did.

I base my reasoning on facts or logic, not belifes. Anyway, I can believe unicorns exist, but they don't.

Do all these concepts themselves create reality? No, of course not, but if there was an awareness of our entire collective "concept" of the universe that had no awareness of the world the concept is based off, then what would it see?

Concepts are a subset of reality, the number 2 doesn't create the real numbers, its just an element in the subset. Also, second question was just metaphysical jibberish.

Every thought in your head is a symbol for the world you are experiencing. The entire left hemisphere of our brain operates in symbols.

Thoughts are not symbols, they are a collection of lots of complex things for example how you brain processes words and how neurons fire e.t.c.
Also, the left hemisphere does not operate in symbols, this is a gross oversimplification and is wrong.

What is a word, but a mere symbol to inform someone of your intention? The only direct knowledge is silence.

Word is not a symbol, again I don't know how you're defining symbol. A word is made up of lots of ideas and symbols, not just one, hence you can't reduce words down to one thing. Also, direct knowledge is silence concept is just senseless metaphysics.

My next question is, is the word of abstract symbols the same, or different from the world of matter and energy?

No its just a subset of reality, kind of like how matter is a subset of reality. Everything in this universe including silence is a subset of reality.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And I believe Buddha understood more about the mechanism than Einstein or most others did.

I would love to see Buddha correctly calculate the kinetic energy of a 5 kg object moving at 0.5c.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I would love to see Buddha correctly calculate the kinetic energy of a 5 kg object moving at 0.5c.

KE = .5mv^2

c = 3x10^8 m/s
.5c = 1.5x10^8 m/s

Looks like KE comes out to about 5.6 x 10^16 Joules, I suck at mental math though.

Bah. Servers, connections and IPs constitutes the internet. If a consciousness should arise, it would have to be a hivemind of sort, and in order for that to happen, the computers should be programmed in certain ways and they should all be giving power to the hivemind. If the internet were to become aware of itself, we would have to change the way it works in it's entirety, and in order to do that, you would have to change all computers, install programs and blah. The internet is not a huge computer sitting somewhere, the internet is millions and millions of webservers, computers, connections, DHCP servers and much much more server stuff and other things.

The point is, if the internet were to become aware of itself, we can not imagine how it would be, because it wouldn't be anything remotely like what we have today. It would be a neural network constituted of millions of computers around the globe and it would be all different in it's entirety.