Thread: The more I learn and the more I think about the existance of aliens

wouldnt it imply that they are concious if we can communicate ideas with them and consider theirs and possibly argue? Baring of course that they have instead sent some very sophisticated AI to talk to us.

Originally Posted by Sandform

What will be interesting if indeed we ever do meet intelligent life out there will be deciding whether or not this life is conscious or not. We can assume that humans are conscious since each of us evolved from the same beginnings and we ourselves are conscious, however if these new beings are fundamentally structured differently then the only way to truly know that they are conscious is to understand what (in depth) makes a human being conscious.

That's a very fair point. I can't claim to know exactly what consciousness is, since it is very abstract and "air-y", but I can say it's not "made of" anything, it is basically a product of the processes in our brain. I believe it has something to do with the complexity of how our neurons work. Defining complexity, I think it's when neurons don't fire completely randomly, or fire at the same time by coincidence, but when they do have patterns coming up, and, specifically, complex patterns (this time "complex" really is used in layman's terms). For this reason I can't say that my processor or, for a better example, some cellular automata programs (look up "Conway's Game of Life" for an excellent example) aren't also conscious, but in a different way to us. But I digress. I think if we are to look for something like it, it shouldn't be consciousness exactly, and perhaps not even self-awareness. If they are able to use reasoning, logic, maths, etc, then that should be satisfactory. Furthermore, if they want to find us, they must have some sort of imaginations (which, if organisms with some form of brain of "processor" does arise, I suppose imagination would follow, as it is useful for planning ahead, which is useful in Darwinian terms... Very useful infact).

The best way to test if something is conscious or not is to ask it. If it thinks it is then who are we to say otherwise? Consciousness does have some physical manifestations.

Zo-toaster your theory doesn't hold up to reality. That's the only problem. If it were possible to prove it there would be no question. But there is always a question because we did not evolve from any animal we were implanted by extraterrestrials and genetically created from their species to be their slaves. That's why our evolution can't be demonstrated and that's why animals are not getting anymore intelligent then they already are. I don't see monkeys going into humans. It's a fantasy world. Petter pan and never never land. Jumanji. Bunny Rabbit and santa claus dreams. Monkeys or apes never turned human and they never will. Sorry.

Face the cold hard truth. We are a slave race created from a higher species. We don't belong on earth we were implanted here un-naturally and they are using us as a resource by the art of deception. Our society is a battery for their wealth. We run on treadmills like mice then die. Our prison is unseen and unfelt so we don't rebel. The best and most superior kind of slavery. A trick. A cruel illusion. A fake reality for us to live in. A presentation to squeeze the labor out of us. The truth hurts.

A quick plea for everybody to pay no attention at all to the above post.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Zo-toaster your theory doesn't hold up to reality. That's the only problem. If it were possible to prove it there would be no question. But there is always a question because we did not evolve from any animal we were implanted by extraterrestrials and genetically created from their species to be their slaves. That's why our evolution can't be demonstrated and that's why animals are not getting anymore intelligent then they already are. I don't see monkeys going into humans. It's fantasy world. Monkeys or apes never turned human and they never will. Sorry.

You really are primitive arent you.

OK, your "theory" holds up to reality? Where are these aliens? Where is your evidence? You're aswell just saying we simply poofed into existence and that would be as valid as your current hypothesis, since neither holds up to the scientific method.

Evolution can be demonstrated, and it has. In the past 15 years, over 40 different species have evolved. Did I forget to mention the Nylonase evolution in Japanese bacteria? Remember Nylon was only invented in the 20s (or was it 30s?). Regardless, in that amount of time, these bacteria have evolved the ability to eat nylon.

As for animals not getting any more intelligent than they already are: Evolution doesn't prefer intelligence necessarly, it's the environment that prefers it. Intelligence is a very complex idea, and takes a very long time to evolve. It has taken 2 million years as it is for our brain size to double. How can you expect to see it happening in a single life-time?

Monkeys didn't "turn into humans". You will never see a monkey give birth to a human - that would go against everything evolution states. Would you agree that there is variation within a species? Of course you do, because no two humans look exactly the same. This is caused by mutations in your genes. This can be proven, because if two humans do infact look exactly the same, then this is because they are twins, and guess what, twins have exactly the same DNA. In normal circumstances, we get around 130 genetic mutations affecting our body. Usually, as you can tell, these are useless, and sometimes they are bad, for example, down-syndrome. Occasionally you get a good mutation that will, for instance, give you longer arms. A monkey with longer arms will be able to survive better in the wild, and quickly it's allele (changed gene) will take over the less useful alleles, as he will be able to suvive longer and pass down these beneficial genes. This is called natural selection, and, apart from being obvious, is observed. So how can I prove that we evolved from monkeys and apes? Well, aside from the fact that humans and chimps have 99% the same DNA, which is over-whelming evidence as it is, humans still have genes to grow a tail, it's simply been "switched off", and occasionally, these occurs a genetic mutation that turns it back on, and, hey-presto, you have a human with a tail. Do a google search for that one if you don't believe me. If that's not enough, do a google or wikipedia search for "chromosome 2", which is overwhelming evidence that we are apes.

Now please, stay out of my thread. This doesn't regard you or your crazy beliefs.

Do you really think if you were to create a slave race that you would want that slave race to know that you existed? lol. That's inviting danger and an uprising. Ofcourse they want to hide. Yet thousands of abductions to monitor us. Yet you're still living in dreamworld trying to think up half baked theories about how we got here and how we invented such advanced technology. Humanity is not as smart as they want you to think. Sorry to disappoint.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

wouldnt it imply that they are concious if we can communicate ideas with them and consider theirs and possibly argue? Baring of course that they have instead sent some very sophisticated AI to talk to us.

Ah but what makes an AI different than a human being? Which is my point. If consciousness is something understandable then creating a conscious machine shouldn't be a problem. Thus your assumption that the AI itself wouldn't be conscious is in itself a false statement. The reason it is my point (because I don't think I have clarified) is that if we as humans have been able to create machines that can actually fool people into believing they are communicating with a human being (It has been done on computer chatting before) then the very notion that something made of separate components than ourselves as conscious is important to discuss. What is it that makes a human being conscious? I would say it is the patterning in our brains, which would lead to the possibility of differently compiled entities to have consciousness. However we have created technology that is by definition "intelligent" because it can solve problems (Turing machines such as computers are examples of intelligent tech.) however isn't "conscious."

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

That's a very fair point. I can't claim to know exactly what consciousness is, since it is very abstract and "air-y", but I can say it's not "made of" anything, it is basically a product of the processes in our brain. I believe it has something to do with the complexity of how our neurons work. Defining complexity, I think it's when neurons don't fire completely randomly, or fire at the same time by coincidence, but when they do have patterns coming up, and, specifically, complex patterns (this time "complex" really is used in layman's terms). For this reason I can't say that my processor or, for a better example, some cellular automata programs (look up "Conway's Game of Life" for an excellent example) aren't also conscious, but in a different way to us. But I digress. I think if we are to look for something like it, it shouldn't be consciousness exactly, and perhaps not even self-awareness. If they are able to use reasoning, logic, maths, etc, then that should be satisfactory. Furthermore, if they want to find us, they must have some sort of imaginations (which, if organisms with some form of brain of "processor" does arise, I suppose imagination would follow, as it is useful for planning ahead, which is useful in Darwinian terms... Very useful infact).

As for not "made of" anything, I don't know if that was in reference to something I said or not, I do not believe consciousness is directly related to the physical components that it is made of. By this I mean that something other than what is known to be the proponent of consciousness is, at least I leave the option open, capable of being something other than what we have currently observed. (I apologize for use of the word proponent but it was the only word I could use to closely articulate what I was trying to get at.)

I have observed debates on this as to "why" consciousness arose in life, because wouldn't something without consciousness that acted exactly as if it were conscious survive just as long? This becomes the core of the problem with alien life. Are they conscious or are they unconscious things that seem conscious. Further more is all life on Earth conscious? Of course we can assume with no great leap of faith to assume that any animal with a brain is conscious, since it runs in the same fashion as ours, however until we narrow down to an exact knowledge of what consciousness is, or rather how it arises, we can never know for sure if an alien life form that shares no common ancestry with us would in fact be conscious. For that matter we could never be sure of an AI's consciousness. I have no doubts that if we communicate with alien life it would be intelligent, in the same way as our current computers are, however I would remain healthily skeptical as to the consciousness of such a being, excluding of course the possibility that it developed a brain exactly, or near enough, as ours.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Do you really think if you were to create a slave race that you would want that slave race to know that you existed? lol. That's inviting danger and an uprising. Ofcourse they want to hide. Yet thousands of abductions to monitor us. Yet you're still living in dreamworld trying to think up half baked theories about how we got here and how we invented such advanced technology. Humanity is not as smart as they want you to think. Sorry to disappoint.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you schizo of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Minervas Phoenix... you fail so hard that even Bush thinks you are retarded.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I have observed debates on this as to "why" consciousness arose in life, because wouldn't something without consciousness that acted exactly as if it were conscious survive just as long? This becomes the core of the problem with alien life. Are they conscious or are they unconscious things that seem conscious. Further more is all life on Earth conscious? Of course we can assume with no great leap of faith to assume that any animal with a brain is conscious, since it runs in the same fashion as ours, however until we narrow down to an exact knowledge of what consciousness is, or rather how it arises, we can never know for sure if an alien life form that shares no common ancestry with us would in fact be conscious. For that matter we could never be sure of an AI's consciousness. I have no doubts that if we communicate with alien life it would be intelligent, in the same way as our current computers are, however I would remain healthily skeptical as to the consciousness of such a being, excluding of course the possibility that it developed a brain exactly, or near enough, as ours.

I suppose this leads back to the initial formation of the brain. There is no doubt that these primitive brains were much more simpler than ours. I think I mentioned earlier that they are basically sort of like "reformatting machines". Imagine these flatworm creatures (that had basics brains and basic eyes) were selected for if they were in the dark most of the time (just a stupid example). The brain might take the signals from the basic eyes (which were basically just slightly curved patches) and convert that into muscle movement. The stronger the light signal, the stronger the muscle movement, meaning that when it's in light it will swim until it reaches the dark.

I wouldn't call this consciousness, but when you have to add a new module when your eyes get more dish-like, to recognise where light is coming from, then this is an extra process. The more and more modules you add, the thoughts rise exponentially. It is my belief that what we think of as "consciousness" (deliberatelly put in inverted commas) is tightly bound, if not synonymous with these processes.

I think however that this only happens in the way the brain has these "thoughts", as I (practically) formally defined in my previous paragraph. What makes AI different is that in programming terms, to make some sort of Turing machine, it is just a list of if/then statements, which work completely differently, even though they make them appear the same to us. The reality is that the actions the AI takes doesn't come from the same place (or reasoning should I say) that real intelligence has.

So I suppose it follows that consciousness isn't really a boolean term: conscious, or not conscious (like the processes going on in a Venus fly trap). I would say that it has a scope, like a gradient. A fly is conscious because it is capable or reasoning, but it is less conscious than me because it is capable of less reasoning (this morning I saw a fly keep trying to fly through the glass of my window).

@Minervas Phoenix:

You just gave me the lawl of the day. You are joking of course? ^^

You should take a look at the Schizophrenia link giving to you... it might help you

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Do you really think if you were to create a slave race that you would want that slave race to know that you existed? lol. That's inviting danger and an uprising. Ofcourse they want to hide. Yet thousands of abductions to monitor us. Yet you're still living in dreamworld trying to think up half baked theories about how we got here and how we invented such advanced technology. Humanity is not as smart as they want you to think. Sorry to disappoint.

Rofl.

Dude, (yes, dude), there's a term in science called falsifiability. You can't say watermelons are blue on the inside until you crack them open. This can't be disproven. You are saying that we were planted here by a race of aliens, but we can't ever find them. This is ridiculous. It's also completely contradictory, since you claim to know it happened, even though you say it can't be known to happen. Even worse, it is an argument for ignorance to say that they did create us, simply because you can't prove that they didn't!

Sorry bout that I almost busted your fragile bubble of existence and what you call life.

Sorry bout that I almost busted your fragile bubble of existence and what you call life.

Can you say worst come-back ever? lawl. Typical. You can't figure out how to argue and instead you just make a personal insult... clever.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Sorry bout that I almost busted your fragile bubble of existence and what you call life.

I suppose I'm being unfair. I'm giving your mountains of evidence supporting evolution, and you are giving me... well... nothing, other than, "can't you see that <crazy statement with no backup>?!?!"

Please forgive me.



[edit]

Sorry, I just noticed. Student of philosophy?! You better catch up on your homework. You couldn't spot a fallacy for pi miles away. Ever heard of a red-herring? Your last post would work perfectly well in school text-books outlining exactly what it is and how it should not be used.

You started it.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

You started it.

Another red-herring, mixed with a little spice of ad hoc-ness. You are unstoppable. Now please go back to your imaginary alien friends and let the grown-ups talk. You're ruining my perfectly good thread.

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

I suppose this leads back to the initial formation of the brain. There is no doubt that these primitive brains were much more simpler than ours. I think I mentioned earlier that they are basically sort of like "reformatting machines". Imagine these flatworm creatures (that had basics brains and basic eyes) were selected for if they were in the dark most of the time (just a stupid example). The brain might take the signals from the basic eyes (which were basically just slightly curved patches) and convert that into muscle movement. The stronger the light signal, the stronger the muscle movement, meaning that when it's in light it will swim until it reaches the dark.

I wouldn't call this consciousness, but when you have to add a new module when your eyes get more dish-like, to recognise where light is coming from, then this is an extra process. The more and more modules you add, the thoughts rise exponentially. It is my belief that what we think of as "consciousness" (deliberatelly put in inverted commas) is tightly bound, if not synonymous with these processes.

I think however that this only happens in the way the brain has these "thoughts", as I (practically) formally defined in my previous paragraph. What makes AI different is that in programming terms, to make some sort of Turing machine, it is just a list of if/then statements, which work completely differently, even though they make them appear the same to us. The reality is that the actions the AI takes doesn't come from the same place (or reasoning should I say) that real intelligence has.

So I suppose it follows that consciousness isn't really a boolean term: conscious, or not conscious (like the processes going on in a Venus fly trap). I would say that it has a scope, like a gradient. A fly is conscious because it is capable or reasoning, but it is less conscious than me because it is capable of less reasoning (this morning I saw a fly keep trying to fly through the glass of my window).

I pretty much agree with you completely. My only point is that it is entirely possible there are beings out there with workings different than ours which may exhibit near parallel actions as ours even though they have no real "consciousness" to speak of.

If a human being can create a machine which will more or less be capable of comprehending things without consciousness and seeming near humanlike, and certainly animal like, then I don't see a reason why evolution couldn't the same.

So my only point is that until we know what exactly makes a thing conscious we could never know for sure whether alien beings are conscious or absolute perfect mimics of consciousness. For all we know we could be fooled just as easily as someone fooled by a robotic human...except evolution molded this creature vs. human minds.

I think (as well I think you do as well) that consciousness arises from patterning. Now if something could be patterned differently, in a way that mimics but does not produce consciousness, there would be no difference between capabilities between the two. Even an appearant "imagination" could be formed. After all computers have "imaginations." Heck the sims will have your characters create entire lives without you even looking...


I'm assuming your point is that massive processes lead to consciousness while smaller processes do not. I would agree, since we both know that is
putting it simplistically I really don't have to go on about speed and modules...

Of course from the paragraph in which you said "So I suppose it follows that consciousness isn't really a boolean term: conscious, or not conscious" it would seem that you think anything capable of reason is conscious...which would mean that you would think that computers (in some sense) are conscious. (edit: Which I disagree with. I do not think computers are conscious, though I have no supporting evidence that they aren't, I see no supporting evidence that they are.)


Edit: Of course I guess you could argue that it is impossible to mimic consciousness without being conscious.

even Bush thinks you are retarded.

Childish irrelevant answer. And yet what is more realistic anyway: That America could elect bush and democracy is fertile but everyone is more stupid than him. Or best dummy wins place of a sock puppet. Since a retard is not a leader and we don't believe in retards. Only two options remain but really only one. America is either more retarded than bush. Or option number two the realistic option. Bush is a discarded sock puppet that is now allowed to be blamed as the retard he always was. Meanwhile a new sock puppet is about to make a grand fake entrance. *eww, getting a wee bit excited*. As fat bastard would say. Yet that sock puppet will also have a used by date.

And you think you're free.

If I may repeat myself,

A quick plea for everybody to pay no attention at all to the above post.

Fuck's sake people, you're just feeding it what it wants. Can we please stick to what the thread's about instead of going down yet another flamy, pointless, huge tangent.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I pretty much agree with you completely. My only point is that it is entirely possible there are beings out there with workings different than ours which may exhibit near parallel actions as ours even though they have no real "consciousness" to speak of.

If a human being can create a machine which will more or less be capable of comprehending things without consciousness and seeming near humanlike, and certainly animal like, then I don't see a reason why evolution couldn't the same.

So my only point is that until we know what exactly makes a thing conscious we could never know for sure whether alien beings are conscious or absolute perfect mimics of consciousness. For all we know we could be fooled just as easily as someone fooled by a robotic human...except evolution molded this creature vs. human minds.

I think (as well I think you do as well) that consciousness arises from patterning. Now if something could be patterned differently, in a way that mimics but does not produce consciousness, there would be no difference between capabilities between the two. Even an appearant "imagination" could be formed. After all computers have "imaginations." Heck the sims will have your characters create entire lives without you even looking...


I'm assuming your point is that massive processes lead to consciousness while smaller processes do not. I would agree, since we both know that is
putting it simplistically I really don't have to go on about speed and modules...

Of course from the paragraph in which you said "So I suppose it follows that consciousness isn't really a boolean term: conscious, or not conscious" it would seem that you think anything capable of reason is conscious...which would mean that you would think that computers (in some sense) are conscious. (edit: Which I disagree with. I do not think computers are conscious, though I have no supporting evidence that they aren't, I see no supporting evidence that they are.)

Ah, yes, you happened to bring up a couple of things that I forgot to mention.

I think it is possible for a Turning machine to recreate the exact actions of a human (given enough work) but without having any consciousness. There are two things I have to say about this though: Firstly, I think it is because they have been designed and manually programmed (analogous I suppose to your Sims example) to make certain actions. The second point though seems to present a sort of paradox (let's call it Zoto's paradox so I feel all scientific ) is that the "reasoning" the actual program has to make to calculate the agent's next action would have to be very similar to the reasoning that we make, even if it is executed differently. The fact that we know so little about consciousness and whether it's the actual reasoning that goes into it, or the method of which the reasoning goes into it is disputable.

My other point is related to what I said about design. I don't think a computer is conscious (in self awareness terms), but it is certainly capable of some reasoning. Imagine a processor as the brain. If you stuck in a webcam and put your computer out in the wild to survive (yes we can assume it can mate and pass down genes, etc, even if they are formatted differently to ours), then, if the processor within the first few generations was able to survive without our aid, would you then consider it conscious? I still don't know what to think of that.

Luckily though, a processor of this type doesn't just evolve. I think that the easiest way in Darwinian terms is through neural networks, which I believe can create consciousness, but as I said, not in boolean terms. The more complex (in technical terms, as I described earlier), the more conscious. You can see this in the fly example I mentioned (fly trying to get through glass).

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Childish irrelevant answer. And yet what is more realistic anyway: That America could elect bush and democracy is fertile but everyone is more stupid than him. Or best dummy wins place of a sock puppet. Since a retard is not a leader and we don't believe in retards. Only two options remain but really only one. America is either more retarded than bush. Or option number two the realistic option. Bush is a discarded sock puppet that is now allowed to be blamed as the retard he always was. Meanwhile a new sock puppet is about to make a grand fake entrance. *eww, getting a wee bit excited*. As fat bastard would say. Yet that sock puppet will also have a used by date.

I agree presidential elections are rarely anything more than symbolic. Do you want the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right? However the person who actually is president does have the power to make things better if only he or she would utilize it. There have been few presidents that have taken on the responsibility of making things visibly better and I am sad to say that in my life time I wasn't old enough to recall any of them as they were actually happening.

Originally Posted by Xei

If I may repeat myself,

Fuck's sake people, you're just feeding it what it wants. Can we please stick to what the thread's about instead of going down yet another flamy, pointless, huge tangent.

I actually think this one point of Minerva's is accurate...

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

Ah, yes, you happened to bring up a couple of things that I forgot to mention.

I think it is possible for a Turning machine to recreate the exact actions of a human (given enough work) but without having any consciousness. There are two things I have to say about this though: Firstly, I think it is because they have been designed and manually programmed (analogous I suppose to your Sims example) to make certain actions. The second point though seems to present a sort of paradox (let's call it Zoto's paradox so I feel all scientific ) is that the "reasoning" the actual program has to make to calculate the agent's next action would have to be very similar to the reasoning that we make, even if it is executed differently. The fact that we know so little about consciousness and whether it's the actual reasoning that goes into it, or the method of which the reasoning goes into it is disputable.

My other point is related to what I said about design. I don't think a computer is conscious (in self awareness terms), but it is certainly capable of some reasoning. Imagine a processor as the brain. If you stuck in a webcam and put your computer out in the wild to survive (yes we can assume it can mate and pass down genes, etc, even if they are formatted differently to ours), then, if the processor within the first few generations was able to survive without our aid, would you then consider it conscious? I still don't know what to think of that.

Luckily though, a processor of this type doesn't just evolve. I think that the easiest way in Darwinian terms is through neural networks, which I believe can create consciousness, but as I said, not in boolean terms. The more complex (in technical terms, as I described earlier), the more conscious. You can see this in the fly example I mentioned (fly trying to get through glass).

I suppose this comes down to my last edit with some editing to that editing =).

Edit: Of course I guess you could argue that it is impossible to mimic consciousness without being conscious via evolutionary means.