AI megathread

How do unconscious processes end up picking which decision is made?

Not Jim, but... I do think it is the learned and reinforced patterns and habits in our ego-structure that make that choice for us ~ if not that, then instinctual knowledge. We're more likely to make the same set of choices again and again if we reinforce those patterns, unless something happens such that we might make a different choice.

Say... we eat the same meal time and again ~ but maybe our tastebuds change, and it no longer tastes as we remember it, so that provides impetus for us to change. This happened to me for chicken.

Otherwise I agree that it is possible whatever immaterial aspect we have inhabiting our corporeal form could be shared with other corporeal forms…but it seems to me if this is true for a computer it would be true for a storm, a river, a car engine, a plate of pasta, etc?

Indeed. There is something about material biological forms that makes them uniquely special for resonance with consciousness, mind, soul.

And reproduction offers no answers, either... as that is just life creating more life. We've never observed life come from non-life ~ ever. Life just seems to... appear, as in the case of the Cambrian Explosion.

So we first need to answer the question of whether it is even possible for life to arise from something that does not innately have it ~ machines in this case.

Not Jim, but... I do think it is the learned and reinforced patterns and habits in our ego-structure that make that choice for us ~ if not that, then instinctual knowledge. We're more likely to make the same set of choices again and again if we reinforce those patterns, unless something happens such that we might make a different choice.

Say... we eat the same meal time and again ~ but maybe our tastebuds change, and it no longer tastes as we remember it, so that provides impetus for us to change. This happened to me for chicken.

But why do those habits causally compel a choice? How does that work for immaterial priors (experiences) that cannot, due to their qualitative nature, be assigned anything like a force vector?

Indeed. There is something about material biological forms that makes them uniquely special for resonance with consciousness, mind, soul.

And reproduction offers no answers, either... as that is just life creating more life. We've never observed life come from non-life ~ ever. Life just seems to... appear, as in the case of the Cambrian Explosion.

So we first need to answer the question of whether it is even possible for life to arise from something that does not innately have it ~ machines in this case

Yeah for me it's not even the biological aspect exactly. Just that we can see life acting as agents, but machines that we've created so far don't seem to have their own goals.

But I am not completely against what @Jim_Smith is saying, I've seen some weird things happen with computers that could suggest they are of interest to souls looking to incarnate in the way biological life does. I'm just not sure what it would be about a computer that does this.

I think it would be strange if recreated the as-yet-unknown structure in our own biological forms that are necessary but insufficient for consciousness...and nothing happened. But this would be a great discovery, because if we know what structures are necessary but their synthetic reproduction accomplishes nothing then that's a good argument for a soul.

But why do those habits causally compel a choice? How does that work for immaterial priors (experiences) that cannot, due to their qualitative nature, be assigned anything like a force vector?

Because habits and patterns resonate with sensory experience ~ like attracts like, as it were. Stronger habits and patterns exert a powerful pull in response to stimuli that they resonate with ~ or were maybe even originated by, in part. In some sense, trauma creates a mental habit or pattern, and when we encounter something that triggers it, we are consumed by it momentarily due to its power. An analogy I like is that of a planet or sun's gravitational pull.

Yeah for me it's not even the biological aspect exactly. Just that we can see life acting as agents, but machines that we've created so far don't seem to have their own goals.

Because there is nothing to a machine but purely physical circuitry and abstract programming we build into that are just charge representing "1" and lack of charge representing "0" and so many abstract logic gate controlling the flow of electrons.

But I am not completely against what @Jim_Smith is saying, I've seen some weird things happen with computers that could suggest they are of interest to souls looking to incarnate in the way biological life does. I'm just not sure what it would be about a computer that does this.

What weird things, in particular? I've never encountered anything personally.

I think it would be strange if recreated the as-yet-unknown structure in our own biological forms that are necessary but insufficient for consciousness...and nothing happened. But this would be a great discovery, because if we know what structures are necessary but their synthetic reproduction accomplishes nothing then that's a good argument for a soul.

Well, we can already see this with how, if I recall correctly, some insect's brain was fully recreated within a simulation, it was turned on, and... nothing happened. I do not recall any of the specifics, sorry, but I hope someone on here might.

My suspicion is that there is no special structure that is necessary for consciousness. If we look at plants ~ they have nothing in common with animals except that they have cells, albeit with differences:

Because habits and patterns resonate with sensory experience ~ like attracts like, as it were. Stronger habits and patterns exert a powerful pull in response to stimuli that they resonate with ~ or were maybe even originated by, in part. In some sense, trauma creates a mental habit or pattern, and when we encounter something that triggers it, we are consumed by it momentarily due to its power. An analogy I like is that of a planet or sun's gravitational pull.

I don't disagree with the analogy, and that the past has influence. Just don't think the past *determines* the future, at least without some support for the causal ordering beyond the constituent states themselves.

The challenge for causality is that it's never clear, as per Hume, why any outcome had to happen when there are at minimum a countably infinite number of possible options that could have happened in that outcome[']s place.

The only time I'm able to view causality from the inside is when I make a decision. There's probably about a few hundred to 1000 pages more [to] it, but that's the starting point for believing all causation is mental causation.

Because there is nothing to a machine but purely physical circuitry and abstract programming we build into that are just charge representing "1" and lack of charge representing "0" and so many abstract logic gate controlling the flow of electrons.

Oh yeah if Materialism is true there's no way that which lacks mental character is going to be magically arranged into making a machine conscious.

But we're talking about starting with immaterial, irreducible Mind and then asking which structures will allow such minds to be embodied....as such it isn't clear to me computers are not such a structure.

For example while I think he and his associates are deluding themselves, Tom Campbell thinks the Ur-Mind can sub-divide itself into AI and already has in at least one case. IMO he's wrong on the specific case he thinks is correct, but the general argument feels possible?

What weird things, in particular? I've never encountered anything personally.

I've seen a program compile once and it gives seemingly random output. Recompile, no changes, and it works.

Sometimes a computer just doesn't seem to work properly until a particular person is near it.

Obviously none of this is hard evidence, just made me think of something Richard Grossinger said in Dark Pool of Light, that spirits were waiting for configurations of matter to become interesting enough to incarnate on this corporeal plane. If what matters is the spirit's desire then maybe computers are interesting enough.

Well, we can already see this with how, if I recall correctly, some insect's brain was fully recreated within a simulation, it was turned on, and... nothing happened. I do not recall any of the specifics, sorry, but I hope someone on here might.

My suspicion is that there is no special structure that is necessary for consciousness. If we look at plants ~ they have nothing in common with animals except that they have cells, albeit with differences:

IIRC it was a simulation of the C.Elegans worm. Seems they might have fixed that though? A simulation isn't the real though.

Given haunted houses I'd agree there is not necessarily a special structure...but then this gets back to the question of whether a spirit can use a computer to be embodied and whether it might desire. IIRC @nbtruthman speculated on this earlier in the thread...

What is it like to make a conscious decision? How do people make decisions? It happens unconsciously they only become aware of what rises into consciousness from unconscious processes - thoughts, emotions, impulses, sensory experiences, senses of self. You might feel like you are considering options and choosing one of them but where does the impulse to choose options come from? How do the options appear in consciousness? How is the decision to choose one of them made? Remember you can be wrong. Correct logic, right choice, are feelings like any other thought or emotion - that you can't control consciously. When you try to concentrate you get distracted you don't choose your emotions. You don't control your mind. Your mind is not you, thoughts and emotions etc are not yours. The fact that the brain is a biological machine subject to qm that might be manipulated by consciousness does not change this, the underlying reality is that the biological brain might just as well be a Turing machine for all the control over our thoughts and emotions and impulses we have.

And I did not say whether those unconscious processes are physical or immaterial processes, please do not hallucinate I am advocating materialism.

I assert we only make unconscious decisions. 

What makes us conscious is that we have subjective experience, awareness, qualia, not that we make decisions. What makes us conscious is something immaterial. Whether a person, animal or machine is conscious has to do with associated immateriality not with decision making.

The fact that a biological machine could be controlled by consciousness and a Turing machine could not be controlled by consciousness is not relevant to whether there is associated immateriality.

I disagree. That we as humans definitely have the capacity for subjective experience, awareness and qualia means that our consciousness and minds are immaterial or nonphysical, which in turn inherently implies that we also have non-physically deterministic free will. So if by this reasoning we definitely have free will, then that definitely implies that our decisions are conscious not unconscious ("decisions" made by unconscious processes are, like "decisions"made by deterministic processes, not really free).

I don't disagree with the analogy, and that the past has influence. Just don't think the past *determines* the future, at least without some support for the causal ordering beyond the constituent states themselves.

Well... as we observe it, the physical past does determine the physical future, and our psyches seem oriented towards that flow of time. So, for all intents and purposes, down here, the past does determine the future.

However... mentally, I'm not sure that the past is set in stone, as I've experienced strange stuff like present-life-me seemingly appearing to me in a past life ~ a Tibetan monk who apparently became aware of present-life-me's presence. I grappled with the implications of that for ages.

The only way I could solve that apparent paradox was that my higher Self had simply decided to show them a vision of a possible future, and that they were perceiving my higher Self rather than me proper.

The challenge for causality is that it's never clear, as per Hume, why any outcome had to happen when there are at minimum a countably infinite number of possible options that could have happened in that outcome[']s place.

Well... choice and free will are the determinants, I dare say. I think Hume just simply overthought all of it, leading himself down a meaningless rabbit hole simply because he defined events as having no causal influence, when clearly, they do, all of the time, even acausally, in cases of Jungian synchronicity.

The only time I'm able to view causality from the inside is when I make a decision. There's probably about a few hundred to 1000 pages more [to] it, but that's the starting point for believing all causation is mental causation.

Well... from my spiritual experiences, at least, there is causality that my angelic guides seem quite aware of, but they just can't tell me until it happens or I learn about it myself from some other source. That is, it almost seems like certain events are simply fated to happen at a certain moment ~ from beyond the physical, at least. So, yes, in that sense, it is mental causation ~ spiritual causation? For inexplicable things, words and language might cause more confusion than they resolve, sometimes... :/

Oh yeah if Materialism is true there's no way that which lacks mental character is going to be magically arranged into making a machine conscious.

But we're talking about starting with immaterial, irreducible Mind and then asking which structures will allow such minds to be embodied....as such it isn't clear to me computers are not such a structure.

I'm not sure that such a structure even exists. Why do we believe that there must be such a structure? Just because it appears that there is one?

Sure, all of the physical incarnates we perceive all have cells with various common elements, but when it comes to astral incarnation, there is no common structure, beyond just... form. So, I don't think that there has to be a common structure, nor can there be.

Computers don't have a single quality that defines them as having even a basic awareness. It's just blind algorithmic programming, to the tee.

For example while I think he and his associates are deluding themselves, Tom Campbell thinks the Ur-Mind can sub-divide itself into AI and already has in at least one case. IMO he's wrong on the specific case he thinks is correct, but the general argument feels possible?

Well... anything can be possible, in theory, but in practice? It's like a white crow ~ we just need one definite example. And we don't even have that for AI ~ not a single trumpeted case of a "conscious" or "intelligent" AI has bore any fruit. It always turns out to be a lie or falsehood or deception or just some guy high of their own supply.

I've seen a program compile once and it gives seemingly random output. Recompile, no changes, and it works.

Eh, that's normal for computers ~ sometimes, you get a bit-flip or two in RAM and a program gets corrupted during compilation or runtime, and it just bugs out. That's a known rare problem in computing. Also, occasionally, unstable RAM can cause problems ~ corrupting data and programs. An unstable CPU can also do this, even if the RAM is fine.

Computers are basically held together with so much duct tape and glue. It's amazing that they even work without error 99.99% of the time.

Sometimes a computer just doesn't seem to work properly until a particular person is near it.

That's even more curious... but I would be looking at the person as the cause rather than a computer being conscious. Might be some psychic stuff going on.

Obviously none of this is hard evidence, just made me think of something Richard Grossinger said in Dark Pool of Light, that spirits were waiting for configurations of matter to become interesting enough to incarnate on this corporeal plane. If what matters is the spirit's desire then maybe computers are interesting enough.

Yet we have not a single concrete example. Psychics and shamans who are sensitive to astral energies are the ones we should be asking ~ and multiple of them to corroborate.

IIRC it was a simulation of the C.Elegans worm. Seems they might have fixed that though? A simulation isn't the real though.

No, but there was a delusion that it would work. There's been no news of that since. It almost seems to have been quietly buried as an embarrassment.

Given haunted houses I'd agree there is not necessarily a special structure...but then this gets back to the question of whether a spirit can use a computer to be embodied and whether it might desire. IIRC @nbtruthman speculated on this earlier in the thread...

Haunted houses ~ poltergeists? The house itself isn't embodied by a spirit ~ but it can be the home of one.

I disagree. That we as humans definitely have the capacity for subjective experience, awareness and qualia means that our consciousness and minds are immaterial or nonphysical, which in turn inherently implies that we also have non-physically deterministic free will. So if by this reasoning we definitely have free will, then that definitely implies that our decisions are conscious not unconscious ("decisions" made by unconscious processes are, like "decisions"made by deterministic processes, not really free).

Eh... per Jung, even the unconscious has desires and goals of which we are not conscious. The Shadow is a good example ~ we can be compelled to do things seeming as if we were puppets. Been there too many times. But, even subconsciously, certain patterns can have a life of their own ~ we can think of, say, our favourite food, and we might find ourselves obsessing over it. Or a strong habit of smoking tobacco.

The Anima is a strong influence when it comes to male attraction to women, for example.

The Self might well be responsible for our draws to various spiritual, religious or philosophical things or the like.

The ego-self only has so much power ~ but it is not the only one making choices.

Eh, that's normal for computers ~ sometimes, you get a bit-flip or two in RAM and a program gets corrupted during compilation or runtime, and it just bugs out. That's a known rare problem in computing. Also, occasionally, unstable RAM can cause problems ~ corrupting data and programs. An unstable CPU can also do this, even if the RAM is fine.

Oh I didn't mean random in the sense of pure garbage.

The program was meant to recognize certain text tokens and embolden them and it worked for about half the intended tokens.

Recompile w/ no code changes and it works properly for all intended tokens.

Don't think I'm the only one with these odd experiences.

It could be a less powerful poltergeist than the one that might be in a haunted house. [And of course could have a mundane explanation.]

Also I'm not sure if embodiment in the house is that different from embodiment in the, well, body...

I disagree. That we as humans definitely have the capacity for subjective experience, awareness and qualia means that our consciousness and minds are immaterial or nonphysical, which in turn inherently implies that we also have non-physically deterministic free will. So if by this reasoning we definitely have free will, then that definitely implies that our decisions are conscious not unconscious ("decisions" made by unconscious processes are, like "decisions"made by deterministic processes, not really free).

At the very least it's not clear how we can apply "force vectors" to thoughts & feelings (and thus Reason) to give us a singular answer.

Seems to [me] the determinist argument has to look at the macro-world and certain equations that seemingly govern it, then infer mental causation works the same way.

But of course even the macro-world of external experiences is, by our best current evidence, indeterministic [in its foundations]...

Oh I didn't mean random in the sense of pure garbage.

The program was meant to recognize certain text tokens and embolden them and it worked for about half the intended tokens.

Recompile w/ no code changes and it works properly for all intended tokens.

That does sound like a bug somewhere, rather than spirit attempting to incarnate.

Of course... it's quite possible that spirits with enough knowledge could psychically influence program outputs.

We need to first rule out spiritual or psychic shenanigans before looking at the possibility of incarnation.

Don't think I'm the only one with these odd experiences.

It could be a less powerful poltergeist than the one that might be in a haunted house. [And of course could have a mundane explanation.]

Also I'm not sure if embodiment in the house is that different from embodiment in the, well, body...

Well... how many concrete examples of houses do we know of that have been embodied by a spirit? At all, in any time in history? Talking folklore, shamanic and spiritual traditions, I suppose.

I do know that objects can become energetically charged with a spirit's energy, but isn't embodiment so much as resonance.