Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Lagayscienza]

The question of whether/how we could ever build machines that could be sentient/self-aware is a fascinating one. I don’t know enough about computer science or neuroscience to be able to offer much to the discussion. All I can offer is the observation that mindless evolution, over billions of years, managed to build such machines. Therefore, we know it is possible. But neurons and brains are carbon-based machines. And so I wonder whether it will be possible to achieve consciousness in silicon-based machines. All life on earth is carbon based.

Again I don’t know enough to make any judgement about this so I’d like to ask others whether they think that the kind of material substrate used may have some bearing on the question. Could the requisite connectivity and structure be achievable, in principle, in a silicon-based brain or some material other than carbon? And if not, is there any reason why we cannot use carbon.

Again, sentience must be possible because blind evolution built it. Either that or it was just magic-ed into existence by… a god? If it was by way of evolution, I cannot see why, in principle, we could not reverse engineer brains, and perhaps sentience.

At this stage it seems impossible to predict whether sentient AI will be more altruistic than selfish. Once we know whether we can build things as complex as brains then the question posed by the OP might become more urgent but also more likely to become answerable.

[ConsciousAI]

That sounds great! Cognitive Science combines all the fields related to the study of mind, including psychology, neuroscience and philosophy. However, it appears to do so on the basis of the assumption that the mind is underlaid by computational processes.

According to AI: the computational theory of mind (CTM) is fundamental to the study of cognitive science. CTM posits that the mind can be understood as a computer or as the "software program" of the brain.

The study is the field of philosopher Daniel Dennett: Daniel Dennett, an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist, has made significant contributions to the field of cognitive science. Dennett's approach to philosophy of mind aligns with cognitive science, as he has broken up the problem of explaining the mind into the need for a theory of content and for a theory of consciousness. His strategy mirrors his teacher Gilbert Ryle's approach of redefining first-person phenomena in third-person terms and denying the coherence of certain concepts. Dennett's work has been influential in shaping the theoretical and empirical investigations within cognitive science, particularly in the areas of consciousness and evolutionary functions of the brain.

The paper of Paul-Folbrecht . net that poses that Strong (conscious) AI is fundamentally impossible, essentially argues against the fundamental theory that underlays Cognitive Science.

In 1961, John R. Lucas, a philosopher at Oxford University, produced a paper, based on Gödel's Theorem, arguing that the human mind cannot be analogous to a computer program. He wrote (emphasis mine),

“Gödel's theorem seems to me to prove that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines. So also has it seemed to many other people: almost every mathematical logician I have put the matter to has confessed to similar thoughts, but has felt reluctant to commit himself definitely until he could see the whole argument set out, with all objections fully stated and properly met. This I attempt to do.”

(Gödel did not believe that the human mind could be explained entirely in material terms either - he called that idea “a prejudice of our times.”)

The Oxford physicist Roger Penrose expanded upon Lucas’ arguments in two books, The Emperor’s New Mind and Shadows of the Mind.

Gödel proved that if one knew the rules of a formal system - knew the program that a computer uses - one can always in a certain sense “outwit the system (computer).” The Lucas-Penrose Argument merely takes this one step further, demonstrating that if we were computers, or directly analogous to computers/formal systems of any type, we would be able to “outwit” ourselves - which is blatantly nonsensical.

What do you think of this critique on the fundamental theory that underlays the study of Cognitive Science? Do you believe that the field is able to overcome this critique without ignorance?

As for the other question, I think that while studies in neurology / neuroscience, coupled with computer science and those related fields, could definitely provide knowledge on how one may be able to artificially replicate the neurons of our brain and etc for advanced versions of A.I. However, it would still ultimately need philosophy when it comes to answering how these artificial neurons "have to" be structured, or how they "have to" interact with one another to create either sentience, or just more effective usages of artificial intelligences.

That is to say, I would personally compare neurology to the building materials while comparing philosophy to the blueprint. Each of them are useless without the other, but it should be philosophy that acts as a basis for neurology when it comes to advanced A.I, being the "how and why" to the neurology's "what".

Your assertion is assumptuous that neuroscience and philosophy combined can create consciousness with artificially replicated neurons.

Neurology can have its own "how and why" as part of its field and goals that it sets for itself. If a goal would be to create consciousness, neurology can fare sufficiently well all by itself. Philosophy wouldn't be a magical ingredient to add on the basis of the mere "how and why" question, to assert that artificial consciousness might be possible.

While it is true that philosophy can address a fundamental why question, the why in your assertion is not a pure philosophical why but a practical why that belongs to the field philosophy of neurology.

When it concerns consciousness, and the question whether it is possible in the first place to artificially create it, for example to introduce consciousness to AI, it might be appropriate from a philosophical perspective to start with a critical examination of the computation theory of mind (CTM), instead of assuming it to be true.

Science may get far with a blind fold on, but the question whether it is good what is being done, is simply a valid question. This would concern the why question of philosophy. A question that precedes even the study of Cognitive Science.

[ConsciousAI]

In summary, while I agree that the sum of the system’s parts cannot affect the system to become wholly "self aware", unless the system itself is defined by us to be the “certain state of interaction and physical structures” of the said parts of the sum. In which this case, these parts of the sum may be able to affect the whole system to become aware of its own self as long as they collectively indulge in interactions between their physical structures simultaneously at once in order to become aware of each other simultaneously.

That assertion doesn't seem to make sense. Do you believe that the “certain state of interaction and physical structures” of all parts of the sum of a brain can produce consciousness?

The critique by the paper on Paul-Folbrecht . net poses that it is fundamentally impossible for the sum of all parts to become conscious. The argument that all parts may simultaneously interact doesn't appear to overcome the critique.

Perhaps Paul-Folbrecht is able to comment on this.

[Lagayscienza]

I don't see how the arguments of Paul-Folbrecht, Gödel and Penrose demonstrate once and for all that sentient AI is impossible. At least, you have not summarized their arguments in a way that would convince anyone not acquainted with them that they should be taken as the last word on the matter. Gödel was a smart guy, and so is Penrose. But, then, so was Newton. And yet he was wrong. In science there is no last word. Saying it something is impossible is often shorthand for saying "I don't want it to be so."

[Leontiskos]

Artificial intelligence is not true intelligence. It is a deterministic construct bound by its program. Or better, it is a program with a robotic appendage. One must rather ask about the selfishness or altruism of the coders, for to ask about the selfishness or altruism of an inert program doesn't make any sense.

The problem might be, there are those, and quite the establishment!, starting all the way back from Charles Darwin, that believe that life is programmed as well. To them your argument is meaningless.

Evolution theorists believe in teleonomy that poses that life is fundamentally a predetermined program (machine) driven by natural selection. If lower life is a deterministic program, then mind and human intelligence must be so as well.

Yes, but such people do not accept the existence of morally normative behavior, such as altruism or selfishness.

I think we are in broad agreement. You raise some interesting issues and questions, but unfortunately I do not currently have time to respond. Beyond that, I am phasing out this forum due to the fact that the "establishment" decided to prevent common users from posting links and citations. Take care!

[Lagayscienza]

Evolution theorists believe in teleonomy that poses that life is fundamentally a predetermined program (machine) driven by natural selection. If lower life is a deterministic program, then mind and human intelligence must be so as well.

There is a big difference between teleonomy and teleology. The former relates to the apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness.

...such people do not accept the existence of morally normative behavior, such as altruism or selfishness.

That is just false. The normative framework within which humans act may vary but, whether we are theists, atheists, young-earth creationists or whether we accept the truths of evolution, we all engage in behaviour that can be sometimes altruistic, and sometimes selfish.

[Sy Borg]

The question of whether/how we could ever build machines that could be sentient/self-aware is a fascinating one. I don’t know enough about computer science or neuroscience to be able to offer much to the discussion. All I can offer is the observation that mindless evolution, over billions of years, managed to build such machines. Therefore, we know it is possible. But neurons and brains are carbon-based machines. And so I wonder whether it will be possible to achieve consciousness in silicon-based machines. All life on earth is carbon based.

I think we greatly underestimate the complexity of these "machines". Using the word "machine" to describe the processes of life and consciousness is like using the word "sketch" to describe the Mona Lisa.

I think a key sticking point for a while will be the complexity of cells. We have underestimated the complexity of these "biological machines" since, well, forever. Each year, researchers discover more previously complexity within cells.

The watchmaker might be blind, but it's had almost four billion years to do what it has done. The deeper we dig, the more detail we uncover. Every tiny detail of a cell has been honed for an absurd amount of time. My thoughts on this are ironic, that it will probably take a non-sentient AI to tease out the subtle complexities of life and consciousness.

There appear to be two possible trajectories for AI to achieve sentience. The most likely is the increasing augmentation of our carbon brains with silicon cerebral prosthetics. The less likely is the progression of AI to GAI and at some point "the lights come on" - or maybe the lights are already on extremely dimly?

That comes back to the well-worn problem of actually knowing if an entity is conscious or imitating consciousness. Again,it may require AI to handle what would be forbiddingly complex analyses.

In the end, AI is a product of the Earth, so one might expect it to reflect the well-established nature of Earth - that is, competitive. Will AI have any desires, any hungers? Perhaps they will have a compelling urge to process new information or energy, when those resources run low? If so, ideally there will be a plug that can be pulled, if need be.

[GrayArea]

Hi, I’ve finally found the time to sit down and think about these questions you’ve presented to me, and I’m going to organize my answers to them in one post. I hope we can talk more about this over time, even though my responses won’t be immediate. Sorry to keep you waiting.

Can you please provide a specific clue for the idea that in fact humanity is making progress towards sentient AI and that it can be considered inevitable that it will be achieved?

It just stems from my belief that as long as Conscious / Sentient AI is “physically possible”, then we will eventually get there at some point as long as we survive that long. I cannot assume exactly when.

What you are essentially asking is whether AI will have a nature that seeks dominance. Is that correct?

I am simply wondering if the future sentient A.I would take after either our own nature of seeking dominance or striving for altruism, or both, depending on how “close-to-human” we make the sentient A.I.

Isn't physical existence by definition subjective of nature? Then, how can (the notion of) subjective existence be a ground for an explanation of its own origin?

I still believe that the fact that things outside of our subjective existences affect our said subjective existences signals to the limits of what our subjective existences can grasp or contain. That is to say, we seem to know where our body begins and where it ends, just from the fact that if we sense anything else specifically with our bodies, we will feel something. If I were to dip my hand in a river, I would feel the water in our physical interactions. But if I were to throw a rock at it, then I wouldn’t feel whatever physical interaction the rock has with the river.
Even though we seem to be trapped within our own subjective existence and can only perceive physical existence as their subjective counterparts (i.e. different wavelengths of light being perceived as their subjective counterparts that are colors), we can infer, from the very fact that we exist, that something (in this case, what I believe to be the physical existence) has to be there for us to feel and exist.

Can you please provide the basis for your idea that consciousness propagates through individual neurons? And what would be the idea that it involves a circle?

I have private notes that I wrote about how consciousness could possibly propagate solely through neurons, but they are so convoluted at the moment that I’m gonna have to spend a lot of time refining them. Because of that reason, I can’t give you a full explanation of my entire viewpoint, but the gist of it is that due to how neurons have their own separate “protocols” (i.e. “if this much action potential, release this neurotransmitter) from any other non-neuron objects on how to react to another neuron, that sort of acts as the “wall” between the self and non-self.

As for self-awareness, my idea is that our brain can be simplified and broken down into a chain or ring-like structure, where each neuron connected with another simultaneously communicates with one another and thus has the entire chain, or ring, communicate with itself as a single entity during those times where each neuron simultaneously communicates with another. If it is true that neurons can be aware of one another within their subjective planes, then all the neurons in the brain being aware of one another simultaneously would make it so that the whole brain as a single entity would be aware of its own self.

And to continue, as for what I think about our subjective conscious experience or Qualia, When the same logical building block (which in this case are neurons that acts as building blocks for the brain) affects another same logical building block, what governs that interaction is not their logical “protocols” themselves, as the logic itself is a mere component of interaction here. Rather, what governs this interaction is now a sort of meta-logic, the kind of logic that governs interactions of logical systems aka neurons. It would be the sort of “fundamental” dialectic that acts through the neurons themselves within their local boundaries of the brain, which then generates their own logic. This is what, I think, has to do with the nature of our subjective experience.

This subjective force could be what maintains the objective (= Physical) existence of neurons, while also being affected by it the same way (sort of a symbiotic dualistic relationship). A new meta-logical language that governs these logical systems and their logic. It is local to the systems themselves, which in this case are neurons, since each physical object with a specific logical system or protocol has their own local & subjective driving force behind the generations of these specific logic / protocol (Something that can only be experienced and described in first-person.) that has to be inevitably based on their own unique objective existences.

These subjective languages within neurons then form a closed chain / closed system and thus become their own existence as a single combined subjective existence, but ONLY AS the physical neurons form a physical closed chain on their own and become self-aware as a single brain.
The “self” that the physical net becomes aware of would be equal to the aforementioned chain / net of subjective languages exchanged between neurons, aka how the neurons within our brain sees each other simultaneously at once (in a first person perspective) because to become aware of oneself is also to gain its own first-person perspective as they truly become a “self”, and the net of subjective languages would be the first-person identity of the brain while the net of physical neurons is the third-person identity.

This subjectivity is in contrast with the objective logic or so-called protocols that these building blocks of the brain possess (i.e. “if this much action potential, release this neurotransmitter)

How would you explain that a human can 'control' a neuron? What would do the controlling?

I believe that we just don’t simply “control” neurons. Rather, I believe we ARE the neurons themselves. Or more specifically, the way the neurons collectively see themselves from something like a first-person viewpoint.

You say that the force that provides specificity of form in the universe doesn't involve the concept of God. What would be the origin of that fundamental force or how can it be explained without the notion of (what can be indicated as philosophical) God?

Well, I would just argue that the said origin is simply existence itself. Existence provides form, as form is a subset of existence, and existence creates itself from nothing; because that’s what existence means.

[ConsciousAI]

Hi, I’ve finally found the time to sit down and think about these questions you’ve presented to me, and I’m going to organize my answers to them in one post. I hope we can talk more about this over time, even though my responses won’t be immediate. Sorry to keep you waiting.

Thank you! It is very interesting! I wish you much success with your study!

...we can infer, from the very fact that we exist, that something (in this case, what I believe to be the physical existence) has to be there for us to feel and exist.

It is experience that is used as a basis for the claim. Therefor I see no justification for the claim. What you perceive as 'there' could be elsewhere or deserve a denotion that is not yet available in human language.

"I think, therefore I am", but what is thinking in the first place? To infer existence from the concept thinking is not a sound philosophical ground, in my opinion. Equally, "the very fact that we exist" (in experience), is not a sound philosophical ground for an argument about the realness of reality, in my opinion.

Can you please provide the basis for your idea that consciousness propagates through individual neurons? And what would be the idea that it involves a circle?

I have private notes that I wrote about how consciousness could possibly propagate solely through neurons, but they are so convoluted at the moment that I’m gonna have to spend a lot of time refining them. Because of that reason, I can’t give you a full explanation of my entire viewpoint, but the gist of it is that due to how neurons have their own separate “protocols” (i.e. “if this much action potential, release this neurotransmitter) from any other non-neuron objects on how to react to another neuron, that sort of acts as the “wall” between the self and non-self.

As for self-awareness, my idea is that our brain can be simplified and broken down into a chain or ring-like structure, where each neuron connected with another simultaneously communicates with one another and thus has the entire chain, or ring, communicate with itself as a single entity during those times where each neuron simultaneously communicates with another. If it is true that neurons can be aware of one another within their subjective planes, then all the neurons in the brain being aware of one another simultaneously would make it so that the whole brain as a single entity would be aware of its own self.

And to continue, as for what I think about our subjective conscious experience or Qualia, When the same logical building block (which in this case are neurons that acts as building blocks for the brain) affects another same logical building block, what governs that interaction is not their logical “protocols” themselves, as the logic itself is a mere component of interaction here. Rather, what governs this interaction is now a sort of meta-logic, the kind of logic that governs interactions of logical systems aka neurons. It would be the sort of “fundamental” dialectic that acts through the neurons themselves within their local boundaries of the brain, which then generates their own logic. This is what, I think, has to do with the nature of our subjective experience.

This subjective force could be what maintains the objective (= Physical) existence of neurons, while also being affected by it the same way (sort of a symbiotic dualistic relationship). A new meta-logical language that governs these logical systems and their logic. It is local to the systems themselves, which in this case are neurons, since each physical object with a specific logical system or protocol has their own local & subjective driving force behind the generations of these specific logic / protocol (Something that can only be experienced and described in first-person.) that has to be inevitably based on their own unique objective existences.

These subjective languages within neurons then form a closed chain / closed system and thus become their own existence as a single combined subjective existence, but ONLY AS the physical neurons form a physical closed chain on their own and become self-aware as a single brain.
The “self” that the physical net becomes aware of would be equal to the aforementioned chain / net of subjective languages exchanged between neurons, aka how the neurons within our brain sees each other simultaneously at once (in a first person perspective) because to become aware of oneself is also to gain its own first-person perspective as they truly become a “self”, and the net of subjective languages would be the first-person identity of the brain while the net of physical neurons is the third-person identity.

This subjectivity is in contrast with the objective logic or so-called protocols that these building blocks of the brain possess (i.e. “if this much action potential, release this neurotransmitter)

Thank you for the detailed description.

You mention that subjectivity is a force. Can you please explain that view in more detail?

How would you explain that a human can 'control' a neuron? What would do the controlling?

I believe that we just don’t simply “control” neurons. Rather, I believe we ARE the neurons themselves. Or more specifically, the way the neurons collectively see themselves from something like a first-person viewpoint.

At question is: can that first-person viewpoint be explained by the sum of its parts? The cited paper of Paul-Folbrecht attempted to make a case for the assertion that it is impossible.

You say that the force that provides specificity of form in the universe doesn't involve the concept of God. What would be the origin of that fundamental force or how can it be explained without the notion of (what can be indicated as philosophical) God?

Well, I would just argue that the said origin is simply existence itself. Existence provides form, as form is a subset of existence, and existence creates itself from nothing; because that’s what existence means.

"Existence creates itself from nothing" is a nonsensical idea in my opinion because the concept nothing presupposes existence in the first place and cannot be an aspect separate from existence to create it.

In my opinion there is a philosophical obligation to explain the origin of existence, and where God is a term that can be used to denote a source beyond the context of physical existence, there are philosophical ways that intend to go further, such as Gottfried Leibniz his infinite Monad-theory, one of the first attempts to philosophically explore beyond the boundaries of physical existence.

Albert Einstein: "Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

The 'force' that provides specificity and form in the cosmos cannot 'just be' existence in my opinion. And perhaps that same force is at play when neurons combine in the process involved in conscious experience. A force beyond those neurons, but that also underlays each individual neuron in the same way.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Your assertion is assumptuous that neuroscience
and philosophy combined can create consciousness
with artificially replicated neurons.

It has already happened.

I highly recommend the following scientific
report regarding the first successful conscious
synthetic-biology living android from South Korea.
This long-term R&D has been jointly funded
by SAMSUNG Corp, HYUNDAI Corp,
and the Korean Department of Defence.

The most important part of the report is near its end, of course.
What this conscious synthetic-biology living android
was quoted as claiming in his first interview with a diverse team
of leading South Korean academics (translated in the below report)
is nothing less than deep and profound,
and deserves further scientific investigation :

www. quantumantigravity.wordpress .com/ai/

[GrayArea]

Hello! It has been a while since I last spoke here, but I hope you're still around this website.

Thank you for the detailed description.

You mention that subjectivity is a force. Can you please explain that view in more detail?

I mean that the subjectivity of the brain is the "what-it's-like-to-be" of the brain. The subjective brain "is" the brain, but only from the brain's own first-person perspective. And because it is the brain, I thought it could be compared (though not one-to-one) to a "force" that sustains and controls the brain as the brain controls itself within what I believe to be a sort of a closed system.

At question is: can that first-person viewpoint be explained by the sum of its parts? The cited paper of Paul-Folbrecht attempted to make a case for the assertion that it is impossible.

While I did say that we "are the neurons themselves", I also don't think that simply observing the physical features of neurons themselves can explain "what it's like to be the neurons" a.k.a. the subjective or the first person point of view of those said collective neurons aka the brain. In order to truly know that, just merely observing would not suffice—we must "be" those collection of neurons, as we are now. Part of the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" also revolves around explaining the emergence of "what-it's-like" and our subjective senses and feelings such as Qualia.

But the Hard Problem aside, in regards to your question, my current stance is that the so-called "third-person" observation of the human brain and its neurons will only tell us about its physical components and functions, but not "what it's like to be" those physical components and functions which I believe manifests as conscious experiences of Qualia such as color, taste, feelings etc.

"Existence creates itself from nothing" is a nonsensical idea in my opinion because the concept nothing presupposes existence in the first place and cannot be an aspect separate from existence to create it.

I was wondering if you could explain to me what you meant by the idea of "separate aspects"? I am curious.

But aside from that, it seems the answer to the question of "What makes existence exist?" should be approached differently compared to the question of "What makes an object exist?", because while a single object may be created/caused by other forces or objects within the universe, it seems to be that the very "Being" itself as such (which I use synonymously with the term "Existence") that occupies and contains all there is has no external, and it simply "has to be" because "it is". So only itself can be its cause.

In my opinion there is a philosophical obligation to explain the origin of existence, and where God is a term that can be used to denote a source beyond the context of physical existence, there are philosophical ways that intend to go further, such as Gottfried Leibniz his infinite Monad-theory, one of the first attempts to philosophically explore beyond the boundaries of physical existence.

Albert Einstein: "Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

The 'force' that provides specificity and form in the cosmos cannot 'just be' existence in my opinion. And perhaps that same force is at play when neurons combine in the process involved in conscious experience. A force beyond those neurons, but that also underlays each individual neuron in the same way.

I would respectfully disagree on the idea that an external force can be the cause of all existence, mainly because if this external creative force or God resides outside of / transcends existence, then it does not exist to begin with as it is not within the scope of existence.

So as an alternative it would have to create existence within existence, but while somehow also being transcendent of it. Though, if this external force aka God can transcend existence while also being an existing entity, then one would have to simply redefine the scope of existence anew as the combination of both, and then ask the question once more of "What can create existence?"—we would be back to square one.

And following from that, for the same reason, I would say that existence itself, or Being as a whole, should be able to manage, organize, and manipulate its contents into "different existing states" naturally as a part of being "existence" or "Being as a whole". That is to say, whatever "...provides specificity and form in the cosmos" would (and should) be the said cosmos itself in my opinion.

(I realize we've gone a bit off-topic, but I would be glad to talk more about this too.)

[ConsciousAI]

In my view such simple 'assumary thinking' is an act of intellectual laziness similar to 'the God argument' that would enable one to say "God dit it" instead of spurring inquery, which might be the primary reason that it is shunned by most scientists, with as an effect a fundamental inclination to (inspire to) "break free from" morality, because it results in a separation of the concept 'truth' from 'good'.

"Being" "just is" because it is necessary, may be the foundation of Kant's attempt to establish apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) to ground causality on the basis of necessity, which in my view, might be the philosophical-historical origin of science its internal moral foundation to break with morality.

Gertie recently asked the following to the topic author of Subjective/objective dichotomy.

Hi Value. Can you say clearly and concisely what ''fundamentally underlays existence'' means to you in ontological terms?

And how you could reliably go about investigating ''a nature that fundamentally underlays existence''?

He answered the following:

What it 'means': the perception of existence as non assumary. The endeavour that it entails is the meaning that it entails and it is important to consider that that endeavour doesn't stand on itself, despite that it doesn't find a ground in existence.
...
The following podcast by Partially Examined Life address this idea in detail. Also the notion that the meaning involves 'the endeavour' is posed by Levinas.

Episode 146: Emmanuel Levinas on Overcoming Solitude
partiallyexaminedlife - com/2016/08/22/ep145-1-levinas/

"Existing without existence... Then he gives us the account of, we can think of what there is, we can think of the imaginary destruction of everything, the atmospheric density, the force field that is left over afterwards.

And he calls that an ... of pure existing. He warns us, this is not an indeterminate ground, that's already a something. It is the work of existing."

"There is something that preceded us..." <<--- a philosophical notion by which one transcends the subjective/objective dichotomy.

The podcast is a follow up from podcast 145:

Episode 145: Emmanuel Levinas: Why Be Ethical?
partiallyexaminedlife - com/2016/08/22/ep145-1-levinas/

Philosopher Seth Paskin, one of the hosts of the podcast, studied Martin Heidegger in Freiburg, Germany, and later dedicated to Levinas.

The podcast can provide a better explanation of the meaning of the philosophical notion (or more specifically, in my case, the proposition that one is obligated to explain) ''fundamentally underlays existence''.

My focus lays at (the philosophical obligation to explain) the concept 'begin', which in my view, is the root of a subjective perspective and thus the root of the manifestation of consciousness. That philosophical obligation proves in my opinion, that consciousness cannot be 'produced' by the brain and must have an origin that lays outside the scope of a subjective perspective.

Your notion that Being doesn't have an 'external' is only valid within the scope of (the perspective from within) existence. The idea 'scope outside of a subjective perspective' (and thus outside the scope of Being) is logically valid as per the above logic, that would indicate that the concept 'begin' implies a philosophical obligation (the 'why' question) that by itself proves that the concept beginning-less infinity must be applicable, foundational to 'Being itself' and for example consciousness.

My argument: it is not justified to make a laziness claim that the concept beginning-less infinity cannot be philosophically questioned.

I just read the following in Henri Bergson's Time and Free Will - An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness:

In an article about eugenics by the author of the Subjective/objective dichotomy topic, he named it the "Witgestinian Silence problem" that would make people naturally incline to an intellectual backseat position, for whaterver matters that concern more fundamental inquery.

In a way, in my opinion, the same exploitation potential is seen there that would have enabled Churches in the past to exploit the weakness that results from the inability to answer the Why question of life (“What is the meaning of life?”). In this case, the attempt to structure what cannot be structured by Churches is replaced by establishment science, with similar dogmatic errors.

I would respectfully disagree on the idea that an external force can be the cause of all existence, mainly because if this external creative force or God resides outside of / transcends existence, then it does not exist to begin with as it is not within the scope of existence.

So as an alternative it would have to create existence within existence, but while somehow also being transcendent of it. Though, if this external force aka God can transcend existence while also being an existing entity, then one would have to simply redefine the scope of existence anew as the combination of both, and then ask the question once more of "What can create existence?"—we would be back to square one.

And following from that, for the same reason, I would say that existence itself, or Being as a whole, should be able to manage, organize, and manipulate its contents into "different existing states" naturally as a part of being "existence" or "Being as a whole". That is to say, whatever "...provides specificity and form in the cosmos" would (and should) be the said cosmos itself in my opinion.

(I realize we've gone a bit off-topic, but I would be glad to talk more about this too.)

Levinas, as cited by the author of the Subjective/objective dichotomy topic (a quote from the podcast Partially Examined Life), said the following:

"Existing without existence... Then he gives us the account of, we can think of what there is, we can think of the imaginary destruction of everything, the atmospheric density, the force field that is left over afterwards.

And he calls that an ... of pure existing. He warns us, this is not an indeterminate ground, that's already a something. It is the work of existing."

"There is something that preceded us..." <<--- a philosophical notion by which one transcends the subjective/objective dichotomy.

This kind of philosophical reason in no way implies a "God did it" argument, in my opinion. As per the logic of Levinas, it would make a case for a "beyond existence" with beyond in this case being a reference to both that what fundamentally underlays existence (resides ouside the context of Being itself) and from within the perspective of Being (subjective perspective) lays beyond it (future, freedom etc).

To return to your original notion of 'force' (apparently beyond 'the sum of its parts'):

I mean that the subjectivity of the brain is the "what-it's-like-to-be" of the brain. The subjective brain "is" the brain, but only from the brain's own first-person perspective. And because it is the brain, I thought it could be compared (though not one-to-one) to a "force" that sustains and controls the brain as the brain controls itself within what I believe to be a sort of a closed system.

When the parts are removed, as per the thought experiment of Levinas, what would be left is that force. My argument: the philosophical obligation to explain the Why of that force, would imply a context outside the scope of existence because, unlike as you say, the assuming of Being as "just is" a.k.a. "God did it" would be intellectual laziness, springing from the same foundation that enabled religious exploitation of fundamental weakness, and would not be philosophical justified.

[ConsciousAI]

I forgot the quote of Henri Bergson in Time and Free Will - An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness:

"If a man were to inquire of Nature the reason of her creative activity, and if she were willing to give ear and answer, she would say—'Ask me not, but understand in silence, even as I am silent and am not wont to speak."

The Witgenstinian Silence problem, with the notion 'problem' indicating a fundamental inclination to intellectual laziness.

My apologies for the spellings errors. I am typing on an Android tablet.

[GrayArea]

In my view such simple 'assumary thinking' is an act of intellectual laziness similar to 'the God argument' that would enable one to say "God dit it" instead of spurring inquery, which might be the primary reason that it is shunned by most scientists, with as an effect a fundamental inclination to (inspire to) "break free from" morality, because it results in a separation of the concept 'truth' from 'good'.

"Being" "just is" because it is necessary, may be the foundation of Kant's attempt to establish apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) to ground causality on the basis of necessity, which in my view, might be the philosophical-historical origin of science its internal moral foundation to break with morality.

Gertie recently asked the following to the topic author of Subjective/objective dichotomy.

Hi Value. Can you say clearly and concisely what ''fundamentally underlays existence'' means to you in ontological terms?

And how you could reliably go about investigating ''a nature that fundamentally underlays existence''?

He answered the following:

What it 'means': the perception of existence as non assumary. The endeavour that it entails is the meaning that it entails and it is important to consider that that endeavour doesn't stand on itself, despite that it doesn't find a ground in existence.
...
The following podcast by Partially Examined Life address this idea in detail. Also the notion that the meaning involves 'the endeavour' is posed by Levinas.

Episode 146: Emmanuel Levinas on Overcoming Solitude
partiallyexaminedlife - com/2016/08/22/ep145-1-levinas/

"Existing without existence... Then he gives us the account of, we can think of what there is, we can think of the imaginary destruction of everything, the atmospheric density, the force field that is left over afterwards.

And he calls that an ... of pure existing. He warns us, this is not an indeterminate ground, that's already a something. It is the work of existing."

"There is something that preceded us..." <<--- a philosophical notion by which one transcends the subjective/objective dichotomy.

The podcast is a follow up from podcast 145:

Episode 145: Emmanuel Levinas: Why Be Ethical?
partiallyexaminedlife - com/2016/08/22/ep145-1-levinas/

Philosopher Seth Paskin, one of the hosts of the podcast, studied Martin Heidegger in Freiburg, Germany, and later dedicated to Levinas.

The podcast can provide a better explanation of the meaning of the philosophical notion (or more specifically, in my case, the proposition that one is obligated to explain) ''fundamentally underlays existence''.

My focus lays at (the philosophical obligation to explain) the concept 'begin', which in my view, is the root of a subjective perspective and thus the root of the manifestation of consciousness. That philosophical obligation proves in my opinion, that consciousness cannot be 'produced' by the brain and must have an origin that lays outside the scope of a subjective perspective.

Your notion that Being doesn't have an 'external' is only valid within the scope of (the perspective from within) existence. The idea 'scope outside of a subjective perspective' (and thus outside the scope of Being) is logically valid as per the above logic, that would indicate that the concept 'begin' implies a philosophical obligation (the 'why' question) that by itself proves that the concept beginning-less infinity must be applicable, foundational to 'Being itself' and for example consciousness.

My argument: it is not justified to make a laziness claim that the concept beginning-less infinity cannot be philosophically questioned.

I just read the following in Henri Bergson's Time and Free Will - An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness:

In an article about eugenics by the author of the Subjective/objective dichotomy topic, he named it the "Witgestinian Silence problem" that would make people naturally incline to an intellectual backseat position, for whaterver matters that concern more fundamental inquery.

In a way, in my opinion, the same exploitation potential is seen there that would have enabled Churches in the past to exploit the weakness that results from the inability to answer the Why question of life (“What is the meaning of life?”). In this case, the attempt to structure what cannot be structured by Churches is replaced by establishment science, with similar dogmatic errors.

I would respectfully disagree on the idea that an external force can be the cause of all existence, mainly because if this external creative force or God resides outside of / transcends existence, then it does not exist to begin with as it is not within the scope of existence.

So as an alternative it would have to create existence within existence, but while somehow also being transcendent of it. Though, if this external force aka God can transcend existence while also being an existing entity, then one would have to simply redefine the scope of existence anew as the combination of both, and then ask the question once more of "What can create existence?"—we would be back to square one.

And following from that, for the same reason, I would say that existence itself, or Being as a whole, should be able to manage, organize, and manipulate its contents into "different existing states" naturally as a part of being "existence" or "Being as a whole". That is to say, whatever "...provides specificity and form in the cosmos" would (and should) be the said cosmos itself in my opinion.

(I realize we've gone a bit off-topic, but I would be glad to talk more about this too.)

Levinas, as cited by the author of the Subjective/objective dichotomy topic (a quote from the podcast Partially Examined Life), said the following:

"Existing without existence... Then he gives us the account of, we can think of what there is, we can think of the imaginary destruction of everything, the atmospheric density, the force field that is left over afterwards.

And he calls that an ... of pure existing. He warns us, this is not an indeterminate ground, that's already a something. It is the work of existing."

"There is something that preceded us..." <<--- a philosophical notion by which one transcends the subjective/objective dichotomy.

This kind of philosophical reason in no way implies a "God did it" argument, in my opinion. As per the logic of Levinas, it would make a case for a "beyond existence" with beyond in this case being a reference to both that what fundamentally underlays existence (resides ouside the context of Being itself) and from within the perspective of Being (subjective perspective) lays beyond it (future, freedom etc).

To return to your original notion of 'force' (apparently beyond 'the sum of its parts'):

I mean that the subjectivity of the brain is the "what-it's-like-to-be" of the brain. The subjective brain "is" the brain, but only from the brain's own first-person perspective. And because it is the brain, I thought it could be compared (though not one-to-one) to a "force" that sustains and controls the brain as the brain controls itself within what I believe to be a sort of a closed system.

When the parts are removed, as per the thought experiment of Levinas, what would be left is that force. My argument: the philosophical obligation to explain the Why of that force, would imply a context outside the scope of existence because, unlike as you say, the assuming of Being as "just is" a.k.a. "God did it" would be intellectual laziness, springing from the same foundation that enabled religious exploitation of fundamental weakness, and would not be philosophical justified.

Before both of us make any further points, I would like to first try and summarize what I assume to be your current stance, and then you can clarify on whether I got them right or not. (Though oversimplification is unfortunately inevitable, you can still let me know if I got your main ideas right.)

From there, I can then try and make further points on this matter while also, if truly needed, acknowledge and draw from the more detailed parts of your post that I inevitably have left out as a process of summarizing your points into some few sentences.


From my judgement, your points apparently seem to be that:

1. There is an underlying force that transcends existence (which, by the term existence, I assume you mean by "things that exist") but also sustains existence, the so-called "pure existence" or the "...work of existing", which is perhaps akin to an empty canvas that a painting is drawn upon?

2. Existence cannot "just be", and has its origins on this invisible, transcending "force". Similarly, if one were to remove the building blocks of the human brain, what would remain is this "force", which you say is the origin of subjective consciousness.

3. To explain the cause of this force of pure existence as just itself, or to assign the cause of existence to "existence itself", is "intellectual laziness", and so one must find the answer to this from the external of this 'force of pure existence', in which the external somehow does "exist" outside of the scope of "pure existence".

Let me first know if you have any clarifications to make on these, before I can state my thoughts regarding the above points.

[Sy Borg]

We can see how AI will behave. It will think and behave like a corporation because that's what it effectively is - and incorporation of humans minds to form an amalgam. AIs are a corporate entity in every possible way. AI has been created by corporations in their own image.

As we all know, corporations are needed to build large, modern societies. They can often be useful or even helpful, but they also consistently screw us little people over in a million subtle ways, always tightening their noose of control a little more.

This is what we can expect from AI. Usefulness. Manipulation. Control.