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

Hey DV,

I never took biology, which is a shame because I just started getting interested. Anyway, for the past few months I've been doing my own research on evolution, and more recently on abiogenesis.

There are two things I like about abiogenesis: 1) It doesn't seem as if it would be that unlikely to happen, and 2) Once it happens, evolution naturally begins to happen.

So recently someone was talking to me about SETI, and it got me thinking about aliens, but with my new knowledge. And I have to say, it kind of worries me really. My argument always used to be, "Well the universe is so vast. If intelligent life could happen here surely it could happen elsewhere", but the more I think about it, the more I doubt it.

Here's a very brief story of evolution for us: Once we had very basic simple cells through abiogenesis, eukaryotic cells arose. These made the first multicellular organisms. These at first were simiar to sea-sponges, and the very first to have any specific shape looked something like jellyfish. From a gene-centered point of view, these are just fine, because they, obviously, survive and get to pass down their genes. One day a genetic mutation came along (cut a long story short), and the neuron was invented. Please note that mutations in the genes are RANDOM. The very first animals to use these efficiently were things that were something like flatworms. The planaria for instance has a very basic body, two basic eyes, and a very basic brain. That's it. No organs or anything. From there it was pretty straight forward. As the evolutionary tree split into many branches, intelligence became a fitness factor, so all the animals had to become more intelligent to survive. Out of all the millions of species that have existed with a brain, humans are the only ones that have ever been able to use this intelligence to look outwards into space for other beings. Now, look back a bit, and take note that none of this would have happened if you didn't get this genetic mutation that made a nerve cell able to transmit electricity.

So, assuming abiogenesis has happened elsewhere in the universe (which I seriously assume it must have), and evolution taken over (even if it doesn't use DNA like ours), then we have to conclude that any animals (if they ever even left the ground!) that got intelligent enough to have brains must have evolved something that can act as a brain - something that can take in information and reformat it, process it, and do something with it. Once this happens, we have to assume that the environment grew complex enough for the brain to grow complex enough. Once that happened, we have to assume the brain is able to break free of only concentrating on survival (like we have - the only species on Earth to have done it so far), and then, become intelligent enough to be able to look for aliens.

Does this not trouble anyone else? I've always had this feeling that there must be intelligent life out there, but now the probability of this happening seems to have dropped in my head, and if it has happened, I don't think it would have happened very often.

Your thoughts?

Do you know about the Fermi paradox?
If not, it basically says if intelligent extraterrestrial life is common, why don't we notice it.

Which leads us back to what you're taking about, intelligent ET life is most likely uncommon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

Do you know about the Fermi paradox?
If not, it basically says if intelligent extraterrestrial life is common, why don't we notice it.

Which leads us back to what you're taking about, intelligent ET life is most likely uncommon.

---

Yeah, I've heard the whole "Where are they?" thing, but it never really bothered me, because I always retorted, "Where are we?".

actually, this doesnt bother me in the least. To me it seems like a very natural process to happen once single celled organisms are formed. It might take longer on another planet, but eventually mutations would occur to allow such an evolutionary path, imho.

The more I unlearn, the more I am the existence of myself.

Quote:

---

because I always retorted, "Where are we?"

---

The orion arm in the milky way galaxy?

The problem of Intelligent Life arising, is the fact it took so long to do so in the history of this planet. Only for a 100 or so years have we been broadcasting signals, so only stars within 100 lightyears or so would be able to detect our presence. Even then, Intelligent Life on other planets outside of our solar system could have existed, but may have died out before we came into the picture.

There are a lot of variables to consider which such propositions, but I do not think it is a big problem. Perhaps we simply have to look further or find more ingenious ways of detecting life from great distances.

bluefinger is right that we need to find more intelligent ways of contacting them if we want to be free. The thing with outer space life is that they are mature species. Our species is sort of hitting puberty for lack of a better analogy. We are different in the way that we were created originally as slaves from another species and we have being abused since then. Before we can be independent and live in space in the real world with the rest of them we must manage to break out of slavery delusional life on earth. It's like an abusive relationship with a parent that lies and controls the child. This also involves genetic manipulation. The result is the matrix of delusion they have created for our slavery on earth. It's an act of war from an experienced species but not an invincible system as it is regularly infiltrated by those wishing to free us and give us messages of hope. Others want to help us but until we actually decide something other than a willing slave there is nothing they can do but encourage us to be free and stop being manipulated. As the species spiritually begins to mature it will go in one direction or the other and make a definite decision. The matrix of control on earth is only functional for when a species is not intelligent or mature enough. Soon as the species begins to become more intelligent that system or paradign of reality will change entirely an a clear view of the manipulation will surface. Before this happens the Nazi like species want to convert us. Which is already known as the Illuminati agenda or whatever you wish to call it for new world order. The other ongoing agenda is the agenda by the other good side trying to free us. We know that plan from the story of Jesus who had connections to the mature space species and the fulfillment of what they taught should come to pass.

I know that many here are not ready to hear that but some are and these kind of posts are to those who are ready.

This movie relates to an ongoing push to humanity for a decision. As in now is the time to decide you are growing up becoming independent. The good guys or the bad guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

bluefinger is right that we need to find more intelligent ways of contacting them if we want to be free. The thing with outer space life is that they are mature species. Our species is sort of hitting puberty for lack of a better analogy. We are different in the way that we were created originally as slaves from another species and we have being abused since then. Before we can be independent and live in space in the real world with the rest of them we must manage to break out of of slavery life on earth. It's like an abusive relationship with a parent that lies and controls the child. Which is the of matrix of delusion they have created for our slavery on earth. Others want to help us but until we actually decide something other than a willing slave there is nothing they can do but encourage us to be free and stop being manipulated. As the species spiritually begins to mature it will go in one direction or the other and make a definite decision. The matrix of control on earth is only functional for when a species is not intelligent or mature enough. Soon as the species begins to become more intelligent that system or paradign of reality will change entirely an a clear view of the manipulation will surface. Before this happens the Nazi like species want to convert us. Which is already known as the Illuminati agenda or whatever you wish to call it for new world order.

---

lol wut?

Intelligent life is likely to happen all the time all over the universe. The problem is that the likelyhood of two species to both be in an advanced stage at the same time who happen to live close to each other is very small.

Look at us... humans haven't been any farther than their own moon. Even unmanned missions have not ventured further then the edge of our own solar system while still returning data.

Figuring out where to go is a problem as well. Only very recently have we had the ability to even detect a planet in other solar systems, and we can't get a whole lot of information about those planets so far.

Lastly, if we ever manage to find such a planet and successfully exchange radio signals, by the time the exchange is made and we can plan and execute a trip there, and the time of the space travel is made, hundreds of years could pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Intelligent life is likely to happen all the time all over the universe. The problem is that the likelyhood of two species to both be in an advanced stage at the same time who happen to live close to each other is very small.

Look at us... humans haven't been any farther than their own moon. Even unmanned missions have not ventured further then the edge of our own solar system while still returning data.

Figuring out where to go is a problem as well. Only very recently have we had the ability to even detect a planet in other solar systems, and we can't get a whole lot of information about those planets so far.

Lastly, if we ever manage to find such a planet and successfully exchange radio signals, by the time the exchange is made and we can plan and execute a trip there, and the time of the space travel is made, hundreds of years could pass.

---

This is what I used to think, but as my first post states, my whole view has been changed simply by further analysing the statement, "Intelligent life is likely to happen all the time all over the universe."

If you read the rest of my passage (atleast the bit about evolution), then you will see why I doubt it. Even ignoring that, of all the millions (or possibly billions) of species that have ever existed on Earth, we are the only "intelligent" ones (intelligent defined as the type of species we are looking for). The only reason that even happened was because during the Cambrian there happened to be a genetic mutation, just by chance, that allowed a cell to transmit electricity, and only one of those used it to make a brain. We have all simply evolved from that animal.

The chances of that happening seem pretty slim - if they weren't, I dare say we would have seen many other species evolve brains on their own (without inheriting them from this flatworm-like thing). The closest I can think of? A venus fly plant - atleast it has some sort of processing going on, but it's hardly intelligent.

Two words: Drakes Equation

Quote:

---

The more I unlearn, the more I am the existence of myself.

---

Are you ever going to contribute anything than egotistical gibberish?

Anyway. The crux of this argument is really if neurons can arise and hence a CNS and intelligence, via evolution. I'll say briefly; you say that neurons conduct electricity. No, they don't. Signals along axons are actually more like waves. Ions flow through the membrane and then back, which triggers this further down the axon and so on.

But about your point; actually it's a pretty good one which I hadn't considered before. Perhaps we're of a very small number of intelligent/conscious beings in the universe... I'd have to do some more reading on the origins of the nervous system. But really, the universe is hugely vast. 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is a huge number of solar systems, so huge that pretty much anything could happen. A nervous system is such an incredibly useful adaptation that it's hard to believe that it's rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sound

Two words: Drakes Equation

---

I am aware of the Drake Equation. The problem with it is that none of the variables are actually known. Even so, I think the probabilities are still pretty low. For instance, we know life has been on Earth for about 4 billion years. Only once has there been a brain evolved, and then intelligence arose from there. Even then, the intelligence that we are looking for has only come once.

what do you mean a brain has only evolved once? I dare say, it only needed to evolve once since the adaptation basically took over the world. It would only be considered to evolve again if it had once been erradicated, which never happened because it was so advantageous. I think the same would happen on another planet.

Hmm... there's only really ever been one situation in which a need for a neuron did arise though. And it did arise. Only animalia are complex enough to need nervous systems. Sponges evolved, and then came the neuron, and then came thousands times more animals. It seemed to happen pretty quick.

But I'll admit it's a weird area and I don't know much about it. Info on the web was pretty sparse too, I don't think there's much known about the history of the neuron yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

during the Cambrian there happened to be a genetic mutation, just by chance, that allowed a cell to transmit electricity, and only one of those used it to make a brain. We have all simply evolved from that animal.

---

There is several and numerous discrepancies involved in the history of our species. Both in archeology and in the scientific community. I have never herd this excuse for human beings before and it tends to present more questions then answers. For example lots of living things have brains and different kinds of nervous systems not just human beings. You need to talk about the entire evolution of the brain, neuron etc, and all the other species before you can begin to suggest how cells mutated to accommodate the electricity and how it relates to the brain and the other things. Particularity when it comes to DNA complexities you are going to have problems explaining how this would actually occur. Now the education system is not perfect but I'm glad they are not teaching this in school and I don't know where you go this idea, that that's how we are human. At the least a little more thought would not go astray.

Our DNA structure also indicates by it's differences we did not evolve from any animal the jump is simply impossible. That is not a debatable thing but something already known to those who have researched it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

There is several and numerous discrepancies involved in the history of our species. Both in archeology and in the scientific community. I have never herd this excuse for human beings before and it tends to present more questions then answers. For example lots of living things have brains and different kinds of nervous systems not just human beings. You need to talk about the entire evolution of the brain, neuron etc, and all the other species before you can begin to suggest how cells mutated to accommodate the electricity and how it relates to the brain and the other things. Particularity when it comes to DNA complexities you are going to have problems explaining how this would actually occur. Now the education system is not perfect but I'm glad they are not teaching this in school and I don't know where you go this idea, that that's how we are human. At the least a little more thought would not go astray.

Our DNA structure also indicates by it's differences we did not evolve from any animal the jump is simply impossible. That is not a debatable thing but something already known to those who have researched it.

---

Bullshit.



There is plenty of evidence to suggest we evolved and shared common ancestors with many different primates, and the further you go along the history of the planet, the more you see how we diverged from other species. Also, by the definition of the categorisation animal, we are animals.

Learn a biology textbook. NOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Our DNA structure also indicates by it's differences we did not evolve from any animal the jump is simply impossible. That is not a debatable thing but something already known to those who have researched it.

---

Bullometer++

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

There is several and numerous discrepancies involved in the history of our species. Both in archeology and in the scientific community. I have never herd this excuse for human beings before and it tends to present more questions then answers. For example lots of living things have brains and different kinds of nervous systems not just human beings. You need to talk about the entire evolution of the brain, neuron etc, and all the other species before you can begin to suggest how cells mutated to accommodate the electricity and how it relates to the brain and the other things. Particularity when it comes to DNA complexities you are going to have problems explaining how this would actually occur. Now the education system is not perfect but I'm glad they are not teaching this in school and I don't know where you go this idea, that that's how we are human. At the least a little more thought would not go astray.

Our DNA structure also indicates by it's differences we did not evolve from any animal the jump is simply impossible. That is not a debatable thing but something already known to those who have researched it.

---

Wow. OK, I'll talk about each of your points bit by bit:

Quote:

---

example lots of living things have brains and different kinds of nervous systems not just human beings.

---

Yes, we all share a common ancestor. Evolution doesn't work in a straight line, it branches.

Quote:

---

You need to talk about the entire evolution of the brain, neuron etc, and all the other species before you can begin to suggest how cells mutated to accommodate the electricity and how it relates to the brain and the other things.

---

No I don't. We know that neurons are used in brains and nervous systems for all animals that have them, and we know that the first animals to have them also had neurons. To say that something weird happened in between is like saying that the moon doesn't exist when nothing is looking at it - it's not falsifiable.

Quote:

---

Particularity when it comes to DNA complexities you are going to have problems explaining how this would actually occur.

---

Uhmm, does it not make sense that because of the DNA complexities this could occur? Add one extra base pair to a gene and all the codons have changed, created a completely different string of amino acids, so completely different proteins. The fact that mutations are rather common backs up the fact that this could happen.... and it did happen... obviously. You smell like a creationist :P

Quote:

---

and I don't know where you go this idea, that that's how we are human.

---

If we didn't evolve to be human, how are we human? ... You don't have to answer that, because it is clear that your statement was a completely red-herring. I'm not talking about some sort of trancendent essence that makes us human. I'm talking about the evolution of intelligence.


This one is my favourite:

Quote:

---

Our DNA structure also indicates by it's differences we did not evolve from any animal the jump is simply impossible.

---

That's just hilarious. Do a google search for "chromosome 2", and witness our very obvious connection to the other 3 of the great apes.

Quote:

---

That is not a debatable thing but something already known to those who have researched it.

---

Those that researched it? You mean evolutionary biologists, like Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, etc? Well, if you did some research I think you'll find they all agree with what the evidence gives them, i.e. they would disagree with you outright.


I don't know what your post was about. If you don't believe in evolution, go away. If you do, it's obvious that humans evolved intelligence. It's also obvious that so far we are the only ones on Earth to have done so. It is also obvious (I hope you are not a young-earther) that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life about 3.7 billion years old. In 3.7 billion years, we are the only intelligent life? If we are to make any estimations of the probability of intelligent life in outer space (where frankly, we don't even know if life even exists there, though it probably does), then the least we could do is base these estimations on something - where we do know life exists - Earth. Currently, I repeat, currently, estimates for the amount of species that live on Earth right now goes anywhere from 3 million to 50 million. That's a big jump, but even if you take the lowest number, a 3 million to 1 chance of intelligent life is pretty slim.

Please, not another thread that turns into a rant with people in denial about evolution. Can't we just tell them to stay the hell out of evolution threads so that we can talk properly? The things they say never advance the conversation, they're always just the same moronic errors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Please, not another thread that turns into a rant with people in denial about evolution. Can't we just tell them to stay the hell out of evolution threads so that we can talk properly? The things they say never advance the conversation, they're always just the same moronic errors.

---

Exactly. Besides, this isn't a thread about evolution. It is assuming evolution exists that we can try to make some predictions about given things. To say that any creationist can have any input is kinda paradoxical anyway, given "God works in mysterious ways... therefore we don't have to account for things such as why males have nipples or why pythons and whales have leg remnants". Sorry, but I don't think you are qualified to join in this discussion until you have some ability to make predictions, since, after all, when talking about ET, that's all we can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Please, not another thread that turns into a rant with people in denial about evolution. Can't we just tell them to stay the hell out of evolution threads so that we can talk properly? The things they say never advance the conversation, they're always just the same moronic errors.

---

We should all take a page from Dawkins book when he talks to Ben.

One thing you need to keep in mind, is how dangerous space can be as well. Its not enough to be as smart as human to survive. First you need to be able to colonize other plants before your home planet is destoryed. This isn't an easy task as there are a large number of things that can kill off a spieces. Such as a giant rock flying into the planet. Which is actually fairly common. Also things like huge volcanos can take you out. Or you can have a nuclear war like people worry about today. Or some plague that kills everyone. This is all stuff we havn't escaped ourself, and could very well wipe us out before we contact anyone.

Next you need to escape your solar system before it gets destroyed. Countless things will take out a solar system. Any kind of problem with your sun is going to kill you. Even then you just keep moving up. A black hole any where near you, will wipe out huge areas of space. Some people believe there are black holes in the center of all the galaxies. Whats worse galaxies can even crash into each other!

Even be able to space travel isn't going to save you when an entire galaxy is taken out. The universe is a deadly and unforgiving place. Even if there are aliens far smarter than us, doesn't mean they lived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

One thing you need to keep in mind, is how dangerous space can be as well. Its not enough to be as smart as human to survive. First you need to be able to colonize other plants before your home planet is destoryed. This isn't an easy task as there are a large number of things that can kill off a spieces. Such as a giant rock flying into the planet. Which is actually fairly common. Also things like huge volcanos can take you out. Or you can have a nuclear war like people worry about today. Or some plague that kills everyone. This is all stuff we havn't escaped ourself, and could very well wipe us out before we contact anyone.

Next you need to escape your solar system before it gets destroyed. Countless things will take out a solar system. Any kind of problem with your sun is going to kill you. Even then you just keep moving up. A black hole any where near you, will wipe out huge areas of space. Some people believe there are black holes in the center of all the galaxies. Whats worse galaxies can even crash into each other!

Even be able to space travel isn't going to save you when an entire galaxy is taken out. The universe is a deadly and unforgiving place. Even if there are aliens far smarter than us, doesn't mean they lived.

---

Well, literarly sending something (whether it's humans or robots) into space really is the only way of discovering non-intelligent life (after all, I'm not talking about colonisation here). If there is intelligent life, interstellar telephone messages really would be the way to go I assume, which is what SETI is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

Well, literarly sending something (whether it's humans or robots) into space really is the only way of discovering non-intelligent life (after all, I'm not talking about colonisation here). If there is intelligent life, interstellar telephone messages really would be the way to go I assume, which is what SETI is all about.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

http://i34.tinypic.com/71mgc8.jpg

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

Quote:

---

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;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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,

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :P) 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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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 :P) 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 =).

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Fuck's sake people, you're just feeding it what it wants.

---

The more that you fear us the bigger we get, and don't be surprised. Don't be surprised if we discovered it.

Quote:

---

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

---

That's a fair point, and I would certainly like to believe it, but, like all science, in humility we just have to agree that we don't know currently, and it is yet to be found out. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

That's a fair point, and I would certainly like to believe it, but, like all science, in humility we just have to agree that we don't know currently, and it is yet to be found out. :)

---

Doesn't that suck! Hehe.

Btw I was trying to get at what I think you were trying to get across, did my quote accurately decribe what you were trying to state?

Zotaster; interesting. A couple of things.

Firstly, you say that a turing machine should be able to simulate a brain... maybe. But there are some things which are mathematically impossible for a turing machine to do.

Secondly, obviously there's nothing intrinsically 'conscious' about neurons, they're blobs of water and protein and ions. The nervous system could just as well have evolved to be made of something else entirely. This is why I consider functionalism to be such a strong argument, there's no way around it. What's so special about a turing machine that makes it not conscious?

Then again, the functionalism approach has some paradoxes of its own. These are made clear when you consider the 'conversation with Einstein's brain' analogy, where a book of instructions of how to emulate Einstein's brain is written. Are we to believe that using this book creates consciousness? What if lots of people read it at the same time? What if they only read little bits? Or read it wrong? Or read it backwards? Have you got little bits of consciousness popping into existence and doing all kinds of bizarre things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Zotaster; interesting. A couple of things.

Firstly, you say that a turing machine should be able to simulate a brain... maybe. But there are some things which are mathematically impossible for a turing machine to do.

Secondly, obviously there's nothing intrinsically 'conscious' about neurons, they're blobs of water and protein and ions. The nervous system could just as well have evolved to be made of something else entirely. This is why I consider functionalism to be such a strong argument, there's no way around it. What's so special about a turing machine that makes it not conscious?

Then again, the functionalism approach has some paradoxes of its own. These are made clear when you consider the 'conversation with Einstein's brain' analogy, where a book of instructions of how to emulate Einstein's brain is written. Are we to believe that using this book creates consciousness? What if lots of people read it at the same time? What if they only read little bits? Or read it wrong? Or read it backwards? Have you got little bits of consciousness popping into existence and doing all kinds of bizarre things?

---

As for your first point, I've never heard of this problem, but I'm sure it must crop up somewhere - atleast for human brains. The current intelligence they have so far is that of a cricket, and this is basically through big "if-then" machines. A cricket has a brain btw :P (j/k, not trying to be insulting).

Your second point is very interesting too. There is nothing conscious about neurons, I agree. But I don't think it's what the "processor" (brain) is made of, I just think it's the process that goes in behind it. I am currently working on a project that evolved neural networks through some Darwinian evolution to see what kind of patterns I get. Google "Polyworld", a similar program - they have got behaviours such as mimicry popping up, for survival. When you ask why a Turing machine can't be conscious, well, as I already stated I think it's the process that creates the conscience, but, as the aptly named Zoto paradox suggests, perhaps the actual processes in the computer that simulates the reasoning that we have will create the same effect, even though it's a different process. I think this is similar to your Einstein's brain analogy.

Zoto I know you already stated that you believe there are different levels of consciousness (flies vs. humans and the like) but could there be different kinds of consciousness? (In relevance to consciousness made via computer programming vs. consciousness via evolutionary standards)

Meanwhile your fly example makes me even more flipped out when I have to think about the idea of human beings. If a fly is less conscious than I then surely I am less conscious than some other human being. X.X Well... that is to say surely my highest lvl of consciousness so far is rested somewhere below another human beings highest level of consciousness.

Mm, I'm actually reading about computability right now, in a book called The Emperor's New Mind by physicist Roger Penrose, and it's pretty much exactly about this issue. I haven't finished that chapter yet but... ya, basically the book is arguing that the brain is uncomputational.

The thing is that physics is computatable, really. As far as I can see, if the brain is just a collection of molecules moving about in a classical, deterministic fashion, then it can be computed, allowing enough power. I think where Penrose is going then must be about quantum physics, but actually there's a big problem there because quantum theory doesn't have an impact on the scale of neurons as we understand them...

The whole polyworld thing sounds fascinating, I'll look it up after dinner. Are you actually employed in that field or is this personal research, by the way?

And yeh... so, I'm slightly lost here, you're saying that Turing machines can't make consciousness, but you're also a functionalist (AKA the process is what's vital)..? Those two views seem a little mutually exclusive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Zoto I know you already stated that you believe there are different levels of consciousness (flies vs. humans and the like) but could there be different kinds of consciousness? (In relevance to consciousness made via computer programming vs. consciousness via evolutionary standards)

Meanwhile your fly example makes me even more flipped out when I have to think about the idea of human beings. If a fly is less conscious than I then surely I am less conscious than some other human being. X.X Well... that is to say surely my highest lvl of consciousness so far is rested somewhere below another human beings highest level of consciousness.

---

Ah, different kinds of consciousness? Well I don't know. I feel it is hard enough to define my own consciousness, nevermind trying to think up a completely different kind, but yes, that is an interesting point!

Quote:

---

Mm, I'm actually reading about computability right now, in a book called The Emperor's New Mind by physicist Roger Penrose, and it's pretty much exactly about this issue. I haven't finished that chapter yet but... ya, basically the book is arguing that the brain is uncomputational.

The thing is that physics is computatable, really. As far as I can see, if the brain is just a collection of molecules moving about in a classical, deterministic fashion, then it can be computed, allowing enough power. I think where Penrose is going then must be about quantum physics, but actually there's a big problem there because quantum theory doesn't have an impact on the scale of neurons as we understand them...

The whole polyworld thing sounds fascinating, I'll look it up after dinner. Are you actually employed in that field or is this personal research, by the way?

And yeh... so, I'm slightly lost here, you're saying that Turing machines can't make consciousness, but you're also a functionalist (AKA the process is what's vital)..? Those two views seem a little mutually exclusive?

---

Hmm, the whole quantum mechanics thing doesn't really take me in. We can be pretty sure for the most part that we all act deterministically, and since the brain is not a quantum machine (it is sufficiently macro- to just ignore QM altogether), I doubt it does have much impact. Furthermore, I don't think the weird behaviours of sub-atomic particles really have any effect on consciousness as a whole.

I'm not actually working in this field really, but I find it pretty fascinating. It's very fun to research and try to get to grips with, well, the very thing that is able to do understanding for me - my conscience, haha.

Your last point is a little mixed up. I do believe it's the process that matters. And by that I mean, I think it's a sort of specific type of process - not just any old process. The only reason I am forced to consider Turing machines is because of the fundamental process that lies behind them. After all, at the processors level, it is taking in inputs, processing and formatting these inputs, and then spitting them back out as something else. Not just any something else, but something else relevant. Not only that, but the process itself is 'complex' in the formal sense, so really, I can't say that it doesn't do exactly the same thing as the brain, but, perhaps just slightly differently.

Concentrate harder. Debate faster. It's just not working like it use to.

You have pretty much the same opinions as me I think...

I'm still trying to get to grips tho; do you think that a Turing machine could be conscious?

As far as I can tell, as long as it simulates the brain process, it'll be conscious, because the process is still there, it's just 'made' of turing machine instead.

It's like the Chinese room argument; Searle argues that the man in the room has no understanding of the symbols. I'd say that's true. In the same way that a neuron has no understanding of words; the argument is actually attacking the wrong thing and ultimately accomplishes nothing. However, the system, of which the man is component, does understand the symbols. It's weird thinking of a disembodied 'system' perhaps, but no weirder than the brain. I always thought John Searle was a very unimaginative person and his arguments make no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandform

Ladies and gentlemen I give you schizo of the year.

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

---

You're Schizophrenic. You're Schizophrenic.

:yddd::yddd::yddd:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia <-----Wikipedia ses, You're Schizophrenic. :yddd:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You have pretty much the same opinions as me I think...

I'm still trying to get to grips tho; do you think that a Turing machine could be conscious?

As far as I can tell, as long as it simulates the brain process, it'll be conscious, because the process is still there, it's just 'made' of turing machine instead.

It's like the Chinese room argument; Searle argues that the man in the room has no understanding of the symbols. I'd say that's true. In the same way that a neuron has no understanding of words; the argument is actually attacking the wrong thing and ultimately accomplishes nothing. However, the system, of which the man is component, does understand the symbols. It's weird thinking of a disembodied 'system' perhaps, but no weirder than the brain. I always thought John Searle was a very unimaginative person and his arguments make no sense.

---

I have come to the conclusion that a Turing machine can possibly be conscious. Put more precisely I think it's the process behind it that's conscious, but obviously not in the same way as us.... I think :P

As for the disembodied system - I've thought about it, and for now, it still drives me crazy thinking about it :P Is the Milky Way conscious? This is where my brain melts, lol.

I have seen crazy stuff in the sky that I KNOW was not anything conventional that regular folks use or know about. I am positive of that much. However, two of the things I have come across were in the sky over Pensacola Beach, right by where there just happens to be a major U.S. Navy base. Pensacola Beach is a big time UFO sighting spot. What's even bigger is Gulf Breeze, which is possibly the number one UFO sighting spot in the world. Where is Gulf Breeze? It is an island between the city of Pensacola and Pensacola Beach. What is the other major UFO spotting area of the U.S. and of the world? The wilderness desert land near Area 51. The crazy things people keep seeing in the sky are high tech, secret military crafts.

Quote:

---

I have seen crazy stuff in the sky that I KNOW was not anything conventional that regular folks use or know about.

---

That's a little unscientific isn't it? It's all fair enough saying it's a UFO, but UFO doesn't necessarly link to aliens. A very strange paper aeroplane can count as a UFO - you know, unidentified flying object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

That's a little unscientific isn't it? It's all fair enough saying it's a UFO, but UFO doesn't necessarly link to aliens. A very strange paper aeroplane can count as a UFO - you know, unidentified flying object.

---

Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

Quote:

---

The crazy things people keep seeing in the sky are high tech, secret military crafts.

---

Oh good that's ok then we can go back to the poker machines.


UM he doesn't read anything properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Oh good that's ok then we can go back to the poker machines.

---

No you can't.

Ofcourse I can't. I was talking about the sleep walkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

---

Yeah I did but I didn't think there was any real relevant reply to it. But now that you mention it, here's a fun fact: If I got 100,000 people in a conspiracy to say that in a particular region somewhere they all individually witnessed weird flashes of light, and they tried to popularise this place, then people will go there, and guess what, they will see weird flashes of light :P I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but it happens.

I'm not saying Pensacola Beach or Area 51 is a conspiracy, but if these places get hyped up enough then sure enough people will be prone to seeing things they want to see.


Also, just ignore Minervas Phoenix.

Quote:

---

As for the disembodied system - I've thought about it, and for now, it still drives me crazy thinking about it Is the Milky Way conscious? This is where my brain melts, lol.

---

Actually that's one of the one things about consciousness which I think I've come to understand.

The fact is that consciousness has no location. In fact, it is meaningless to assign it any location at all. What is often said by neuroscientists is that consciousness has no specific location in the brain; the truth of the matter is that consciousness isn't even in your brain. Consciousness is basically a mathematical system. I could ask, 'where is maths?'. It's essentially the same question, and the answer is the same; maths is really nowhere and everywhere at the same time. It is real, but has no location as an entity.

It's much easier to come to terms with this when you realise: the only reason you think that your consciousness is somewhere in your brain is because our brain is behind our eyes, and recieves inputs from sensors which are connected to the body. If you close your eyes and cut off all sensation (like in a sensory deprivation tank thing), you could be anywhere.

What's striking to me is how this seems to tie in with meditation, which is basically a form of sensory deprivation, and enlightenment. In fact the connection is pretty startling and exciting to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

Yeah I did but I didn't think there was any real relevant reply to it. But now that you mention it, here's a fun fact: If I got 100,000 people in a conspiracy to say that in a particular region somewhere they all individually witnessed weird flashes of light, and they tried to popularise this place, then people will go there, and guess what, they will see weird flashes of light :P I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but it happens.

I'm not saying Pensacola Beach or Area 51 is a conspiracy, but if these places get hyped up enough then sure enough people will be prone to seeing things they want to see.


Also, just ignore Minervas Phoenix.

---

What do you think about the idea that the strange objects people keep seeing in the sky are secret military crafts? I am convinced of it, at least for tons of UFO cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Actually that's one of the one things about consciousness which I think I've come to understand.

The fact is that consciousness has no location. In fact, it is meaningless to assign it any location at all. What is often said by neuroscientists is that consciousness has no specific location in the brain; the truth of the matter is that consciousness isn't even in your brain. Consciousness is basically a mathematical system. I could ask, 'where is maths?'. It's essentially the same question, and the answer is the same; maths is really nowhere and everywhere at the same time. It is real, but has no location as an entity.

It's much easier to come to terms with this when you realise: the only reason you think that your consciousness is somewhere in your brain is because our brain is behind our eyes, and recieves inputs from sensors which are connected to the body. If you close your eyes and cut off all sensation (like in a sensory deprivation tank thing), you could be anywhere.

What's striking to me is how this seems to tie in with meditation, which is basically a form of sensory deprivation, and enlightenment. In fact the connection is pretty startling and exciting to me.

---

You gave me a eureka moment with your maths analogy.


[edit]

Universal,

I can't really say anything on the matter since I've never seen any of it myself. I don't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists even though so many have claimed to see it - I still doubt its existance though since I know we are all prone to seeing things when we really want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Ofcourse I can't. I was talking about the sleep walkers.

---

Have you seen any unidentified flying trolls?

Quote:

---

You gave me a eureka moment with your maths analogy.

---

Yeah, gave myself one when I first thought of it. :teeth:

I'm glad there's someone else out there who gets what I'm on about...

As a matter of interest; are you currently in education or what? 'Cos I'm in 6th form and I wanna do this kind of thing as my career (computational neuroscience etc.) but working out what to do at Uni is a real puzzler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, gave myself one when I first thought of it. :teeth:

I'm glad there's someone else out there who gets what I'm on about...

As a matter of interest; are you currently in education or what? 'Cos I'm in 6th form and I wanna do this kind of thing as my career (computational neuroscience etc.) but working out what to do at Uni is a real puzzler.

---

Well I just finished high school. The Scottish education system is kinda weird, so, what the heck, I'm 17. I'm actually just about to start Uni myself, doing computer science, but not in any particular field. It's good to see some people around my age with similar interests. :)

Cool, I was gonna do maths mebbe. Or maths with CS. Which Uni you off to? I'm trying for oxbridge... :undecided:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Cool, I was gonna do maths mebbe. Or maths with CS. Which Uni you off to? I'm trying for oxbridge... :undecided:

---

Glasgow university. Apparently I have to do maths with computer science, which sucks because I failed advanced maths in my last year :P Maybe a second chance will make it easier, but that's along with computer science, AND, in first year, another subject. Might do astronomy or something - might aswell have something linked to reality, lol.

That's pretty weird, I just saw glasgow Uni on the telly and my parents told me not to apply there 'cos it's 'rough'. :P

I think if you wanna do computational neuroscience then studying maths is pretty important... computer science is supposed to be really mathematically too actually. :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That's pretty weird, I just saw glasgow Uni on the telly and my parents told me not to apply there 'cos it's 'rough'. :P

I think if you wanna do computational neuroscience then studying maths is pretty important... computer science is supposed to be really mathematically too actually. :\

---

Nononono, GLASGOW is rough :P Glasgow is basically seperated into the west end and the rest of glasgow, and you're only a real glaswegian if you don't live in the west end. Everywhere around the uni is really nice and friends, mostly because of the uni itself.

As for any course involving computing etc, I think maths is important because it helps you think outside the box, mostly. I've seen plenty of that happening in this thread alone, heheh.

Ohhhh okies, yeah I thought that was odd cos it looked like it had really nice old architecture, pretty oxbridgey. Cool.

My career's advice has been pretty appalling here... my adviser asked what I wanted to do as my career and naturally I said mathematical neuroscience. She then completely failed to give me any advice at all and then complained about me to the head of Sixth Form for wasting her time.

It doesn't help that my head of Sixth Form is a giant man eating robot. :wtf2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Ohhhh okies, yeah I thought that was odd cos it looked like it had really nice old architecture, pretty oxbridgey. Cool.

My career's advice has been pretty appalling here... my adviser asked what I wanted to do as my career and naturally I said mathematical neuroscience. She then completely failed to give me any advice at all and then complained about me to the head of Sixth Form for wasting her time.

It doesn't help that my head of Sixth Form is a giant man eating robot. :wtf2:

---

Rofl, she actually sent you back saying that you were wasting her time? I suppose that's the case. I mean, what did they tell THEY'RE careers advisors... "I wanna be a careers advisor"? I highly doubt it. The only reason they are probably there is because they suck at everything :P


(No offence if you are related to any careers advisors)

Quote:

---

naturally I said mathematical neuroscience

---

Yeah naturally it goes without saying. Why did she think you're wasting her time anyway? I mean just the mathematical neuroscience of a cheeseburger and fries obviously. Common sensible every day stuff. Something we all use everyday and something we all agree on and are familiar with. At least those that count! Not the giant man eating robot career advisor's that doesn't help. Not to worry you're still in school plenty of time. I wanted to go to the moon when I was little. How things change. :D

You might want to start reading a lot of data. Quantum mechanics etc all that helps. The more data the more mathematically evolved. Until you get to the point where all the data is a dot. That's the summit. So when you get your mathematical neuroscience flag ready realize the possibilities are infinite.

I think that is great and you have potential to do this you're mathematically minded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

The only reason they are probably there is because they suck at everything :P
(No offence if you are related to any careers advisors)

---

Wow. Is our children learning?

Not to spit in the bucket or anything but uh...career advisors that I've met usually have (or have had) more than one job at a time in their life time. Of course I live in a different country than you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Not to spit in the bucket or anything but uh...career advisors that I've met usually have (or have had) more than one job at a time in their life time. Of course I live in a different country than you do.

---

Yeah I was just making a joke anyway. But still, I haven't ever actually met anyone who actively wants to be a careers advisor.

I guess it's not something you initially shoot for.

Mars? Bacteria found, that classes as life, and i think bacteria is intelligent. Anyway human life might of came to earth as bacteria on a meteor, so we actually may of came millions of light years away from earth. If there are aliens they might be in there stone age period, there might be extinct alien races, and very advanced races, but look at it like this, would they waste there time and recourses to travel to us? NO! We wouldn't travel that far to visit a planet to see maggots, we are a low life form

Quote:

---

would they waste there time and recourses to travel to us? NO! We wouldn't travel that far to visit a planet to see maggots, we are a low life form

---

This is inconsistent because if they were so evolved it wouldn't use up much resources. For example you don't have to travel distance at all when you have the technology to skip in and out of space through something similar to wormholes and any infinite amount of knowledge about the universe which allows such things. That aside if the aliens were sophisticated then they would actually care about nature and human beings. If they had the ability to love they would not be wasting their time in contacting something else with the ability as an entity to love with similar potential and we see evidence of communication from something beyond human intelligence all around us for years now.

Quote:

---

Cool, I was gonna do maths mebbe. Or maths with CS. Which Uni you off to? I'm trying for oxbridge...

---

Do you do further mathematics? if not I would not apply to Cambridge you need AS further math to get an offer. Also, you should apply to Warwick as they would give you a offer, but you need to do STEP 1.

I'm doing further mathematics, however I applying for Oxford this year, I hope I get in.

Also, you should really do further mathematics.

Quote:

---

As for any course involving computing etc, I think maths is important because it helps you think outside the box, mostly. I've seen plenty of that happening in this thread alone, heheh.

---

Computing is a branch of applied mathematics, so you need to understand mathematics to really be good at computer science.

Xei don't do CS, it better to do regular mathematics and just do some CS options.

Oh yeah, I get my results for AS in eight days.:shock:

I will admit right now I didn't read anything after the OP. I know exactly what kind of blather it is and I've read on a thousand other forums. So, hopefully without being too hypocritical, I would like to insert my $0.02:

Evolution will always tend to fill niches, because to not do so would require a circumstance of incredible improbability. All of the trillions of mutations that go on every day all over the planet would have to not be suitable to exploit an environmental niche, and this seems ridiculous. Also, the history of life on Earth has shown that after every great extinction, all niches were prompty filled. If filling niches was uncommon, then this would not likely be the case, given that there have been half a dozen great extinctions. In fact, not only were all niches filled every time, but they got filled quicker every time. For example, the Cambrian Explosion took a few tens of millions of years, whereas the rise of mammals after the K/T event took only a couple of million years. So I contend that all niches will always be filled as a matter of course.

So now, to look at the neuron, it seems clear that its development was absolutely inevitable. The niche of animals is quite large, and to think that there would be some special reason that it wouldn't normally be filled is ludicrous.

Now, I would also like to touch upon the Fermi Paradox. Now, I'm sure someone must have mentioned the Drake Equation somewhere in this thread. If you put reasonable numbers into it, you will find that at any given time, the galaxy (or conversely the sky) will have at most a few dozen communicating civilizations in it. A few dozen, sharing an entire galaxy. And then I look at SETI, and I see that:

1) SETI has been searching one frequency for the vast majority of the time it's been going
2) SETI has been focused on nearby stars
3) SETI doesn't have the capability to detect stray radio signals from civs more than a few hundred lightyears away
4) SETI assumes civs will prefer radio over one of the dozens of other communication methods
5) SETI assumes other civs will be as wasteful as we were in the 20th century and send their signals out into space

Given all this, it should not come as a surprise that SETI hasn't found anything. So that resolves the paradox.