[Mr. Nobody]

Where do you see the line between biological and non biological structures?
Also, I think in terms of sorting and processing incoming information, computers are still very crude and do not satisfy the complexity requisit as defined by me for self awareness. I am trying to distill a general, non-anthropic answer to the question of what is needed for self awareness. Perhaps, I am looking for a mathematical model of consciousness when there is none

[subversion]

Originally Posted by chazzysaw

In my opinion God has the nature of everything that exist. That's the only way God can be God. We are saturated in the Conscious Power. Where in history does God demand our worship and obediance. No history book I've read. That is the ego in man that want to be worship so he feels God wants to be worship. God does not need our worship. If God wants anything it would be obediance, for us to at least obey our own laws that we set for ourselves, we can't even do that. The law makers don't obey the laws ( I did'nt mean to get political). These problems are our problems not God's.We have to work these things out for ourselves.God causing us to suffer because we would not worship is a primitive attitude. Yes what about this mythological creature call the Devil?

God was the devil to the devil who was god
who was sure he was the righteous one
so thought the other one

It may be said that all the devil really needs to be god is to have more friends. As soon as everybody is friends, we will have destroyed the essence of evil. No?

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

We are looking for complicated solutions when nature already provides us with simple answers. Life is defined as the emergence of something more than the sum of its parts. The science of emergence is trying to put together what conventional science took apart in reductionism. We cannot learn how something functions by just looking at its components. The whole, the sum of its parts assumes largely unpredictable behavior which will be again subjected to competition with other entities. Like gravity, parts are attracted to each other to form communities that protect the single unit to create yet another form with unexpected consequences
If we assume the theory of evolution to be correct (except Kansas), then consciousness was developed over millions of years as a result of increasing interactions between human animals. Language being an important part, paved the way to recognize the self, separate and distinct within nature.
So, let me turn around the question:
Instead of me explaining why I belief in a continuation of the consciousness to artificial intelligence, let me ask you why you deem it impossible? The brain, being another computer self assembled over eons of exposure to increasing complexity. Why do you deny the emergence of self recognition if, as I indicated above, it is dependant on an exponantial increase in interactions?

computers are not self-actuating. In other words, they do not turn themselves on. Life forms are however self-actuating. This is the fundamental irreconcilable difference.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

1. Assume god is everything. Assume also that nature is everything.
2. Everything is existance, not an entity.
__________________________________________________ ___________
3. God is nature.
4. God is not an entity.
3. God is existance.
4. God exists.
__________________________________________________ ___________
5. If god exists it is not existance for existance is the set for all that exists and therefore if god exists it is contained in existence but not equal to it.
6. If god is not existence, god is not nature, and god is not everything.

As people might have a conception that everything is an entity, and that this entity is god, here I give an extension to the argument:

1. God is everything and is an entity as everything is an entity.
2. If everything is an entity the it is not god for god is everything by being the set of all things, and not a thing itself.
3. Therefore, god doesn't exist or isn't everything.

In both cases I use the idea that a set that is itself considred a member (an entity, an element) cannot be such set if the sets contains all things (like 'existence', 'everything'...).

how is the set of all things not a thing itself? Are you saying that everything is not contained in existence, and existence is not contained in everything ? Can't a set be a member and still contain all things if the only thing it is a member of is itself and nothing else?

[subversion]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Thank you Guille for demonstrating that applying only logic results in woefully inadequate analysis. Why is nature everything? What is the difference between an entity and existence? I find these terms meaningless and far too nebulous in their definition to contribute to a significant analysis.

I agree, any argument about whether 'something' is an entity or not is a purely semantical argument. We seem to come upon a lot of semantical arguments on this forum

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

I know applying only logic is meaningless in fact logic itself can't be applid. What is applied is reasoning, whcih logic gives the disposition to do (rationalise).

But of course, some of you just like to think randomly, disorder, chaotic, unsesial, inventing ideas, hoping believes, and other activity that doesn't differentiate us from animals. In fact you might as well be called animals.

what does unsesial mean? For all the reason in me I just can't decide.

ps. I will gladly claim the title of animal. Can we make that a wild one?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Perhaps you'll remember that we ARE animals.

Perhaps... And perhaps not.

You didn't understand the meaning of 'animals' in my terminology. I know we are animals. But animals in that sense what simply physical beings that can be reduced to be a world of chemical reactions and substances that make up the processes and workings of our organs, and that are simply acting in fundamentals such as surviving and reproducing. Now I'm posting, this doesn't give me health to survive (in fact by siting badly by back gets bad) nor makes me reproduce (or at least it is quite ahrd to think how I could be having sex with you by writing this post). Now I know that someone else or you is going to say that in fact I reply to survive in the thread's discussion, and that in a way I am having sex through this, and so and so, but those are misinterpretations, that mislead the meaning of the words and enter 'representational terminology'.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

If you meant that as an insult,

NO. In fact being an animal is not an insult, we are in fact the most complex bodies we've ever met. We can claim superiority over rocks, drops of water, air, the earth's core, the sun... (And yet it is suprising that we depend on most of these, in that sense we are inferior to them, this is again a show that nature is contradictory to itself, but not by itself.)

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I consider animals equal to us (they certainly don't start wars for oil, etc),

And here is a clear example of a self-contradictory statement. Animals are equal to us, you say, but they don't start wars for oil, etz. Then they are NOT equal to us. Do you mean biologically? Then you should start to think about why you think (if you do so), for you will discover you have something we like to call 'mind' and something we call 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' that animals don't. But also we have 'will to power' as Nietzsche said, whiles animals don't. I don't say we are different to them, I just look for a reason to believe that we are equal. A reason to believe why they should ahve the same rights as us. I'm not anti greenpeace, in fact I recycle the most I can and don't waste paper. Don't eat whales. But I don't like misinterpreting what the 'human rights' are, as so many do, they are not a 'rgiht of species' but a 'right of minds' of persons, not of humans.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

so I am not insulted.

I didn' intent to insult you. I didn't say animal insultivelly.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

And the universe is also (in addition to orderly) random, etc.

What the universe is, one cannot copy. And if you try to copy it, you will waste and loose your time. And nowadays there is nothing more precious.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion

how is the set of all things not a thing itself?

The sets which are nto inhered by the members previouslly do not contain the sets nor do they impply them necessarily and therefore cannot be things themselves. I am a person for what reason? Because the qualities and quantities (physical, mental...) that the being of I has, impplys neccesarilly the set of 'person' and 'human'.

Originally Posted by subversion

Are you saying that everything is not contained in existence, and existence is not contained in everything?

In no case. I never compared or relativised the two terms. I only paralellised them.

Originally Posted by subversion

Can't a set be a member and still contain all things if the only thing it is a member of is itself and nothing else?

Please re-formulate this question in a way that is understandable by someone. This is the problem with your so-claimed 'inlogicity' and 'non-dependency of rationality', that you can't communicate nor get across your message or thoughts, with coherence, clarity, and credibility (you might want to remember it as the 3c's law).

[Mr. Nobody]

Originally Posted by subversion

computers are not self-actuating. In other words, they do not turn themselves on. Life forms are however self-actuating. This is the fundamental irreconcilable difference.

Not yet they are. Can you exclude self actuating machines in the future, if so, please explain why?

[Marko]

Originally Posted by <<>>

And here is a clear example of a self-contradictory statement. Animals are equal to us, you say, but they don't start wars for oil, etz. Then they are NOT equal to us. Do you mean biologically? Then you should start to think about why you think (if you do so), for you will discover you have something we like to call 'mind' and something we call 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' that animals don't. But also we have 'will to power' as Nietzsche said, whiles animals don't. I don't say we are different to them, I just look for a reason to believe that we are equal. A reason to believe why they should ahve the same rights as us. I'm not anti greenpeace, in fact I recycle the most I can and don't waste paper. Don't eat whales. But I don't like misinterpreting what the 'human rights' are, as so many do, they are not a 'rgiht of species' but a 'right of minds' of persons, not of humans.

Guille!

I agree on almost everything you say here, and also on the God issue.
It is all in our mind, in the level of our development.( specially level 6 - great ideas but still in the fog..) Guille - you have read my theory of consciousness, so you know on what I am referring.
This is very interesting discussion, I will try to integrate a lot of subjects from this thread into one article which I am planing to write.