Upcoming Live stream: Jean-François Gariépy The Open Space

#21
I don't know how it happened, but I finally get the whole picture in the biological robot debate. Happened very early on in the interview at 4:49.

Basically I was trying to understand why the bio-robot people don't care if their original versions of themselves are destroyed after being uploaded / copied.

It's not their view that the brain "produces" consciousness after all. Instead their is simply no basis for consciousness to exist to begin with other than as an illusion due to the map / territory distinction.

It's a spandrel! All we could ever hope for in this view is continuation of our unique and evolving pattern, but there is never anyone there.

If consciousness is fundamental that problem goes away. Reality is not a reconstruction but a construction of consciousness. Our machines produce maps. We, the creators, produce reality.

All right! But don't NDEr's claim we share qualia? And wouldn't any bio-robot person claim we could merge with other brains if we weren't limited by our wetware?
 
#22
I don't know how it happened, but I finally get the whole picture in the biological robot debate. Happened very early on in the interview at 4:49.

Basically I was trying to understand why the bio-robot people don't care if their original versions of themselves are destroyed after being uploaded / copied.

It's not their view that the brain "produces" consciousness after all. Instead their is simply no basis for consciousness to exist to begin with other than as an illusion due to the map / territory distinction.

It's a spandrel! All we could ever hope for in this view is continuation of our unique and evolving pattern, but there is never anyone there.

If consciousness is fundamental that problem goes away. Reality is not a reconstruction but a construction of consciousness. Our machines produce maps. We, the creators, produce reality.

All right! But don't NDEr's claim we share qualia? And wouldn't any bio-robot person claim we could merge with other brains if we weren't limited by our wetware?
Excellent. Had to look up what 'spandrel' meant. A fitting analogue. This may hinge on the winnowing delineation between 'will' and 'intent'. Will does not produce reality, however intent can and does?

A robot has a will to survive - but that is not the same as an intent to observe, change or create. So this begs the question therefore - can a robot make an observation under the double slit experiment all of its own volition (with no human agency behind the observation)?

Hint: the double slit itself IS... a robot... (and does not resolve the paradox on its own).... QED... a will, is not enough.
 
#23
Excellent. Had to look up what 'spandrel' meant. A fitting analogue. This may hinge on the winnowing delineation between 'will' and 'intent'. Will does not produce reality, however intent can and does?

A robot has a will to survive - but that is not the same as an intent to observe, change or create. So this begs the question therefore - can a robot make an observation under the double slit experiment all of its own volition (with no human agency behind the observation)?

Hint: the double slit itself IS... a robot... (and does not resolve the paradox on its own).... QED... a will, is not enough.
Excellent. Had to look up what 'spandrel' meant. A fitting analogue. This may hinge on the winnowing delineation between 'will' and 'intent'. Will does not produce reality, however intent can and does?

A robot has a will to survive - but that is not the same as an intent to observe, change or create. So this begs the question therefore - can a robot make an observation under the double slit experiment all of its own volition (with no human agency behind the observation)?

Hint: the double slit itself IS... a robot... (and does not resolve the paradox on its own).... QED... a will, is not enough.
Hmm.

Supposedly evolution can have a direction, not a purpose or hidden agency. Unless of course our own intentions, and even that of simpler creatures, somehow modify our genes in a lamarckian way. This kind of evidence would be amazing and its supposedly findable?

Is it easier to find than evidence of (presumably) microbial life on mars?

As for QM, well, that is far beyond my ken. I did enjoy reading Yudkowsky's high school level mathematics intro to it about ten years ago. He's a many-worlder.
 
#24
But don't NDEr's claim we share qualia?
seems to me most NDErs have moved way past qualia :) but I get your point.

From a quasi-scientific standpoint ( which is all we can ever get since science as we know it is obsolete) the best we can probably ever do is falsify the existing paradigm... and admit we don't fully understand the implications of " consciousness is fundamental"
 
#25
Hint: the double slit itself IS... a robot... (and does not resolve the paradox on its own).... QED... a will, is not enough.
my head aches thinking about this :) but I guess you're right.

then again, it's kind of a consensus reality thing... like everything else. I mean, once we give up on "time space" (BTW I'm very excited that my buddy and friend of the show Rich Grego has nudged Don Hoffman into a Skeptiko interview... Hoffman does a great job explaining how "time space is doomed"... from a cutting-edge physics perspective) the robot thing goes out the window.
 
#26
Hmm.

Supposedly evolution can have a direction, not a purpose or hidden agency. Unless of course our own intentions, and even that of simpler creatures, somehow modify our genes in a lamarckian way. This kind of evidence would be amazing and its supposedly findable?

Is it easier to find than evidence of (presumably) microbial life on mars?

As for QM, well, that is far beyond my ken. I did enjoy reading Yudkowsky's high school level mathematics intro to it about ten years ago. He's a many-worlder.
Yes, I completely have forgotten about Lamarckian Evolution.

Lamarck is best known for his Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, first presented in 1801 (Darwin's first book dealing with natural selection was published in 1859): If an organism changes during life in order to adapt to its environment, those changes are passed on to its offspring. He said that change is made by what the organisms want or need. For example, Lamarck believed that elephants all used to have short trunks. When there was no food or water that they could reach with their short trunks, they stretched their trunks to reach the water and branches, and their offspring inherited long trunks. Lamarck also said that body parts that are not being used, such as the human appendix and little toes are gradually disappearing. Eventually, people will be born without these parts.​
Lamarck also believed that evolution happens according to a predetermined plan and that the results have already been decided.​
I would suppose this to be an Intent-based approach, albeit indirect. He poison-pilled his theory with that last stipulation, LOL!!
 
#27
(BTW I'm very excited that my buddy and friend of the show Rich Grego has nudged Don Hoffman into a Skeptiko interview... Hoffman does a great job explaining how "time space is doomed"... from a cutting-edge physics perspective) the robot thing goes out the window.
This one is new for me. I would like to hear his alternative. By 'time space' you mean Einstein's 'spacetime' from General Relativity?
 
#28
(BTW I'm very excited that my buddy and friend of the show Rich Grego has nudged Don Hoffman into a Skeptiko interview...
Wow. Well done. Can't wait.

Were I interviewing him, I'd want him to outline his hypothesis fairly briefly (there's plenty on the Web about it) and then want to explore any metaphysical implications it might have for him. Not sure he'd want to go there, mind. I'd also want to know what he thinks about Darwinism (he seems to accept natural selection, as does Bernardo Kastrup, though the latter doesn't think it's based around random mutation). It'd be really cool if you could get BK involved in a 3-way conversation; I think he's met Hoffman, so they wouldn't be complete strangers.

It's quite a coup to get Hoffman, so don't get me wrong, I'm excited enough about that. But I guess the 3-way thing would be the icing on the cake -- though maybe not feasible. I can't be alone in wanting to hear them interact publicly for the first time (as far as I'm aware). Maybe you could at least let Bernardo know and invite him and Hoffman to the forum?
 
#29
my head aches thinking about this :) but I guess you're right.

then again, it's kind of a consensus reality thing... like everything else. I mean, once we give up on "time space" (BTW I'm very excited that my buddy and friend of the show Rich Grego has nudged Don Hoffman into a Skeptiko interview... Hoffman does a great job explaining how "time space is doomed"... from a cutting-edge physics perspective) the robot thing goes out the window.
Looking forward to this. I am rereading White's 'The Unobstructed Universe' [again]. His sources say time and space are material reality things and both are malleable - space somewhat less so than time. In the unobstructed [non-material] dimension of reality what we call time is described as 'receptivity' and space is described as 'conductivity'. These are attributes of consciousness - just as time and space are. This kind of stuff hurts my brain, so I have to reread often - but its starting to make sense.

In Beyond Bio-Centrism Lanza says the same thing. The more we are exposed to these ideas the easier it is to think in terms unfamiliar to a deeply conditioned concrete mind. I think the robot thing just pops a rivet, blows a fuse and slowly subsides into a puddle of irreconcilable and indecipherable internal contradiction. :eek:
 
#31
Last edited:
#32
Wow. Well done. Can't wait.

Were I interviewing him, I'd want him to outline his hypothesis fairly briefly (there's plenty on the Web about it) and then want to explore any metaphysical implications it might have for him. Not sure he'd want to go there, mind. I'd also want to know what he thinks about Darwinism (he seems to accept natural selection, as does Bernardo Kastrup, though the latter doesn't think it's based around random mutation). It'd be really cool if you could get BK involved in a 3-way conversation; I think he's met Hoffman, so they wouldn't be complete strangers.

It's quite a coup to get Hoffman, so don't get me wrong, I'm excited enough about that. But I guess the 3-way thing would be the icing on the cake -- though maybe not feasible. I can't be alone in wanting to hear them interact publicly for the first time (as far as I'm aware). Maybe you could at least let Bernardo know and invite him and Hoffman to the forum?
great idea. I will reach out to bernardo.
 
#33
seems to me most NDErs have moved way past qualia :) but I get your point.

From a quasi-scientific standpoint ( which is all we can ever get since science as we know it is obsolete) the best we can probably ever do is falsify the existing paradigm... and admit we don't fully understand the implications of " consciousness is fundamental"
Yes! Isn't it obvious? My only point is that it isn't. I guess you can see that when you squint at your more skeptical guests (assuming you have astigmatism like me).

Do you think the surprising consilience (once fully tested) between the genetic and physical data will be enough to get the world's attention?

Do you believe the soulphone will fail or are you hoping it will?
 
#35
Superqualia,
Is there some type of genetic data that you are referring to in the NDE?
Sorry, I was confusing shows!

Alex has had two guests that claim to have touched alien debris. A recent one claims (if i recall correctly) genetic engineering occured 780k years ago, right around the time that artificial debris landed on earth.

The idea is that humans were created by an AI probe. Of course, the AI was likely made by something else.
 
#36
Yes! Isn't it obvious? My only point is that it isn't. I guess you can see that when you squint at your more skeptical guests (assuming you have astigmatism like me).

Do you think the surprising consilience (once fully tested) between the genetic and physical data will be enough to get the world's attention?
IDK I've always been a little leery of global consciousness shift based on data.

Do you believe the soulphone will fail or are you hoping it will?
good question, I don't know. funny about that being a thomas edison project. the interface/intersection between technology and extended consciousness is super interesting to me. has anyone heard any of accounts of ET using a soulphone? ( real question... Just wondering)
 
#38
BTW I'm very excited that my buddy and friend of the show Rich Grego has nudged Don Hoffman into a Skeptiko interview... Hoffman does a great job explaining how "time space is doomed
That is excellent news. I don't know what happened to the last interview you did with that guy, but please look after this one!

Have you talked to him yet? Is he happy to discuss ψ aspects or not - some academics feel threatened by free floating discussion :)

David
 
#40
my head aches thinking about this :) but I guess you're right.

then again, it's kind of a consensus reality thing... like everything else. I mean, once we give up on "time space" (BTW I'm very excited that my buddy and friend of the show Rich Grego has nudged Don Hoffman into a Skeptiko interview... Hoffman does a great job explaining how "time space is doomed"... from a cutting-edge physics perspective) the robot thing goes out the window.
I hope you will create a thread where we can discuss this interview before it happens. I have wondered for a long time if his viewpoint can be usefully slotted in to everything we discuss.

Maybe my first question would be to ask whether he considers his approach is close to admitting Idealism. Also, I wonder if he has tried meditation.

David
 
Top