Do you believe in reincarnation?

jacoboram126

New Member
Reaction score
0
I don't believe in reincarnation though I do believe in being raised up after death and their will be justice in the end.
 

GeminiX

Senior Member
Reaction score
5
Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but you may recall I was transferring and updating my "Tycoch Haunting" novella.

Well I mentioned it to my agent and she pitched it around; It has now been bought by a national publication here in the UK. How cool is that?

I'll update you guys when I have more info :)
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Bryan said:
Yes; of course.

That strikes me as....insane! Clearly we have always have a choice to do things or not do them.


I remind you again that Arthur C. Clarke did believe that computers are conscious, and I certainly agree with him! :)

what argument did he make in favor of a computer being conscious. I can't possibly imagine what it could be. It seems pretty obvious to me that consciousness indicates *some* degree of autonomy- a computer is useless without constant input.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with treating depression with or without drugs...

I'll explain: if we are all just biological machinery then it would follow that any kind of mental disturbance is just a malfunction of these processes and can only be corrected by altering the biology(via drugs or surgery). Yes?

*But* people overcome those problems all the time without using drugs, so how can it be that everything is determined by biology?

I wasn't sure what to make of that. Surely you don't REALLY believe that the boy had no brain, do you? :laugh:

well, that's what it said in the article and it was from a journal so the scans would have been checked over. He wasn't the only one with that condition either, there were many other case examples.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
aussieavodart said:
Bryan said:
Yes; of course.

That strikes me as....insane! Clearly we have always have a choice to do things or not do them.

Sure we do. I have no idea why you consider that (what I referred to above) as being "insane".

aussieavodart said:
I remind you again that Arthur C. Clarke did believe that computers are conscious, and I certainly agree with him! :)

what argument did he make in favor of a computer being conscious. I can't possibly imagine what it could be.

He didn't make an "argument" in favor of it, just stated it as a general principle which he presumably considered to be highly likely. It's similar, I suppose, to somebody saying that it's highly likely that God exists (or doesn't exist).

aussieavodart said:
It seems pretty obvious to me that consciousness indicates *some* degree of autonomy- a computer is useless without constant input.

Sure. So what? :dunno: Don't you think it's possible (in general) to program a computer to have the same kind of "autonomy" that a human has? A computer that has a real-time clock; direct access to the real physical world, including the Internet; direct physical access to the human beings who walk by it and talk to it, etc. etc.? Don't you think such access to the real, physical world would give it decisions to make about the things it "wants" to do?? Don't you see that if you make the same general principles true of computers that are currently true of humans, computers will BECOME the same as humans?

aussieavodart said:
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with treating depression with or without drugs...

I'll explain: if we are all just biological machinery then it would follow that any kind of mental disturbance is just a malfunction of these processes and can only be corrected by altering the biology(via drugs or surgery). Yes?

*But* people overcome those problems all the time without using drugs, so how can it be that everything is determined by biology?

You must be joking. The history of treating "mental disturbances" in humans is still in its infancy, just like the problem of explaining conciousness in man and machine. Don't use any of that to try to predict what a person may need, to solve such a disturbance.
 

virtuality

Established Member
Reaction score
2
Bryan said:
aussieavodart said:
It seems pretty obvious to me that consciousness indicates *some* degree of autonomy- a computer is useless without constant input.

Sure. So what? :dunno: Don't you think it's possible (in general) to program a computer to have the same kind of "autonomy" that a human has? A computer that has a real-time clock; direct access to the real physical world, including the Internet; direct physical access to the human beings who walk by it and talk to it, etc. etc.? Don't you think such access to the real, physical world would give it decisions to make about the things it "wants" to do?? Don't you see that if you make the same general principles true of computers that are currently true of humans, computers will BECOME the same as humans?

No, I don't think it's possible.

I don't know what you mean by real time? Real time computing is usually defined by computing constraints, ie there is a time wise computing limit and the program has to give an output before the time limit expires or within the allocated time period. Eg, a human eye looks and knows straight away what a certain pattern indicates, whereas a computer needs to capture an image and compare it with a given database, in such computing a computing delay of upto 100ms might be tolerated but not more.

Programming such a real time autonomous system is impossible with out current understanding of the human consciousness. I don't think we have the neccessary algorithms, yet.

I would like to think when it comes to "computing power" in a human vs computer, the computer relies mostly on brute force, whereas the human relies on instinct and consciousness. Or at least for the time being, we can't duplicate the human behaviour in computers yet.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Bryan said:
aussieavodart said:
Bryan said:
Yes; of course.

That strikes me as....insane! Clearly we have always have a choice to do things or not do them.

Sure we do. I have no idea why you consider that (what I referred to above) as being "insane".

I think it's insane because it reduces our entire existence down to a pre-programmed sequence of events which we have no say in. It's basically saying life is one big auto pilot experience. We have the capability to make choices.

Sure. So what? :dunno: Don't you think it's possible (in general) to program a computer to have the same kind of "autonomy" that a human has? A computer that has a real-time clock; direct access to the real physical world, including the Internet; direct physical access to the human beings who walk by it and talk to it, etc. etc.? Don't you think such access to the real, physical world would give it decisions to make about the things it "wants" to do?? Don't you see that if you make the same general principles true of computers that are currently true of humans, computers will BECOME the same as humans?

That's the thing though- it requires input. It has to be programmed. There is no true autonomy there, at least nothing that can't be predicted. A computer can't decide it doesn't like doing certain things and rebel against it's user, nor can it turn itself on or off whenever it wants. It needs constant instruction.

You must be joking. The history of treating "mental disturbances" in humans is still in its infancy, just like the problem of explaining conciousness in man and machine. Don't use any of that to try to predict what a person may need, to solve such a disturbance.

You don't accept that people who have suffered things like depression, anxiety, schitzophrenia etc have alleviated their conditions without the use of drugs?
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
aussieavodart said:
Bryan said:
Sure. So what? :dunno: Don't you think it's possible (in general) to program a computer to have the same kind of "autonomy" that a human has? A computer that has a real-time clock; direct access to the real physical world, including the Internet; direct physical access to the human beings who walk by it and talk to it, etc. etc.? Don't you think such access to the real, physical world would give it decisions to make about the things it "wants" to do?? Don't you see that if you make the same general principles true of computers that are currently true of humans, computers will BECOME the same as humans?
That's the thing though- it requires input. It has to be programmed. There is no true autonomy there, at least nothing that can't be predicted. A computer can't decide it doesn't like doing certain things and rebel against it's user, nor can it turn itself on or off whenever it wants. It needs constant instruction.

I fear we have generations of people who have grown up to think that computers are such dully predictable machines and humans have a consciousness so mysterious and ineffable, that never the twain shall meet. I laugh at the famous English physicist Roger Penrose, and the American doctor who works with him (can't recall the doctor's name at the moment) who are convinced that consciousness is so ineffable, it must involve quantum states of matter, and so they've dutifully suggested certain parts of the brain which could (supposedly) generate such quantum states! :laugh: I wish I could see a confrontation between them and Arthur C. Clarke.
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
26
Humans are programmed, from birth, though we can get additional programming from our environments. Chess computer programs learn when they are defeated, and update their opening book as they go. Humans are sad under some situations and happy under others, motivating them to act certain ways, which sounds like programming to me. Yes, our programming often is flawed, but evolution weeds out the bad ones, or at least suppresses those genes via death or lack of reproduction during time periods when the genes are not as beneficial. I'm pretty convinced that I don't have free will, but rather have the illusion of free will, since I keep procrastinating and doing other stuff that a flawed program would do, but I don't accomplish what I deep down inside want to accomplish. My father does not believe in free will either, and has the same problems I do.
 

GeminiX

Senior Member
Reaction score
5
There have been some very interesting studies in AI, it's something which is a large part of my day to job. The difficulty is the complexity in the math.

A human's behaviour, can be broadly predicted with reasonable certainty, though even then the amount of decisions are mind bending; where it becomes incredibly complex is when other human and peer interaction gets involved. Something only taking a few moments of time can impact and influence decisions for the rest of the persons life (e.g. watching a 5 minute cartoon and wanting to be the hero); which in turn can (and usually does) impact the decisions of others.

While we all have free will, we are also bound to follow the path that we are influenced to follow, so in that sense all our lives are on rails :)

The only reason we cannot make a computer behave exactly like a human (yet) is purely because of the number crunching required to emulate a biological intelligence. We've been able to emulate lower levels of creatures for decades (insects etc.) which have a far less complex set of decision making processes.

Unless you believe in religious mumbo-jumbo and the existence of a souls then creating intelligence is just a matter of better number crunching.
 

twenty.five

Established Member
Reaction score
1
Reincarnation is nonsense.

People know they're going to die and it scares them, so they make up stories to comfort them. And they truly believe them because they are too frightened to do anything else.
 

GeminiX

Senior Member
Reaction score
5
twenty.five said:
Reincarnation is nonsense.

People know they're going to die and it scares them, so they make up stories to comfort them. And they truly believe them because they are too frightened to do anything else.

Quote for truth :)

I completely understand why people need to believe in *something* after we die.

The way I look at it, I was oblivious before I was born and I'll return to that "state" when I die, in the mean time I'll do my best to be a decent person and maybe leave a legacy that will benefit others.
 

s.a.f

Senior Member
Reaction score
67
GeminiX said:
twenty.five said:
Reincarnation is nonsense.

People know they're going to die and it scares them, so they make up stories to comfort them. And they truly believe them because they are too frightened to do anything else.

Quote for truth :)

I completely understand why people need to believe in *something* after we die.

The way I look at it, I was oblivious before I was born and I'll return to that "state" when I die, in the mean time I'll do my best to be a decent person and maybe leave a legacy that will benefit others.

+1 :hump: :agree:
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
While you're all justified in being skeptical, it's inaccurate to say that reincarnation theory is something that is just born out of people's neurosis.


There are journals full of serious scientific studies worthy of consideration, both on reincarnation and consciousness surviving death. Easy to just to push them to one side, but if you haven't read them.....
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Bryan said:
I fear we have generations of people who have grown up to think that computers are such dully predictable machines and humans have a consciousness so mysterious and ineffable, that never the twain shall meet. I laugh at the famous English physicist Roger Penrose, and the American doctor who works with him (can't recall the doctor's name at the moment) who are convinced that consciousness is so ineffable, it must involve quantum states of matter, and so they've dutifully suggested certain parts of the brain which could (supposedly) generate such quantum states! :laugh: I wish I could see a confrontation between them and Arthur C. Clarke.


I think you have just dumbed down the definition of consciousness so it would fit in with your theory that the brain is no different to a personal computer.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
GeminiX said:
The only reason we cannot make a computer behave exactly like a human (yet) is purely because of the number crunching required to emulate a biological intelligence.


How do you reduce a first person experience down to a bunch of numbers?
 

GeminiX

Senior Member
Reaction score
5
aussieavodart said:
GeminiX said:
The only reason we cannot make a computer behave exactly like a human (yet) is purely because of the number crunching required to emulate a biological intelligence.


How do you reduce a first person experience down to a bunch of numbers?

There are several ways being proposed and even experimented with, personally I would use a simulation approach for the first generations and probably for quite some time; allowing the AI to exist in a virtual environment based on typical human development. The problem we face is the complexity of the models, and that even today we don't have the raw computer power to run these sorts of simulations at anywhere near real-time. Also, don't forget that it's not an apples to apples comparison.

A newborn baby up to a toddler has far less opportunities to make meaningful decisions than an adult making it ideal to start developing a complex AI.

edit - fixed grammar.
 

virtuality

Established Member
Reaction score
2
GeminiX said:
aussieavodart said:
GeminiX said:
The only reason we cannot make a computer behave exactly like a human (yet) is purely because of the number crunching required to emulate a biological intelligence.


How do you reduce a first person experience down to a bunch of numbers?

There are several ways being proposed and even experimented with, personally I would use a simulation approach for the first generations and probably for quite some time; allowing the AI to exist in a virtual environment based on typical human development. The problem we face is the complexity of the models, and that even today we don't have the raw computer power to run these sorts of simulations at anywhere near real-time. Also, don't forget that it's not an apples to apples comparison.

A newborn baby up to a toddler has far less opportunities to make meaningful decisions than an adult making it ideal to start developing a complex AI.

edit - fixed grammar.

I know someone who is doing that first generation thing... He's working in some EU funded AI lab.

I do agree that most of the human behaviour is a result of social conditioning, but not all of it. Eg, it's the society that teaches us what's wrong and what's right, in a way the feeling of guilt is imposed on us. In other words, most of our behaviour is predictable and dictated to us by the society. If it could be modelled, it could be computed.

We also learn from the day we are born how to interpret our sensory inputs, which can also be duplicated in a computer environment. Indeed, computers should be better than us at interpreting sensory inputs because our 5 sensors have limited range and are known to misfire from time to time.

However, I do believe human behaviour or the functionality of the brain will be never be accurately duplicated in a computer environment. It's not that we don't have the number crunching power, it's more about the lack of algorithms or the complexity of the model. Computers rely on brute force, even the most optimised programs use brute force. The human brain, on the other hand, works in a different way, we have instincts..
 

virtuality

Established Member
Reaction score
2
Bryan said:
I fear we have generations of people who have grown up to think that computers are such dully predictable machines and humans have a consciousness so mysterious and ineffable, that never the twain shall meet. I laugh at the famous English physicist Roger Penrose, and the American doctor who works with him (can't recall the doctor's name at the moment) who are convinced that consciousness is so ineffable, it must involve quantum states of matter, and so they've dutifully suggested certain parts of the brain which could (supposedly) generate such quantum states! :laugh: I wish I could see a confrontation between them and Arthur C. Clarke.

I thought it's been proven that quantum states do play a role in the neurons? Ie, there is an exchange of quantum particles in the synapses?
 

virtuality

Established Member
Reaction score
2
CCS said:
Humans are programmed, from birth, though we can get additional programming from our environments. Chess computer programs learn when they are defeated, and update their opening book as they go. Humans are sad under some situations and happy under others, motivating them to act certain ways, which sounds like programming to me. Yes, our programming often is flawed, but evolution weeds out the bad ones, or at least suppresses those genes via death or lack of reproduction during time periods when the genes are not as beneficial. I'm pretty convinced that I don't have free will, but rather have the illusion of free will, since I keep procrastinating and doing other stuff that a flawed program would do, but I don't accomplish what I deep down inside want to accomplish. My father does not believe in free will either, and has the same problems I do.

:agree:

The only problem is, human evolution has been put to pause.

in the 1200s, only 1 in 3 would survive to be 21. In the 1700, it was 1 in 2, etc. Today the infant mortality rate is close to zero.

If it wasn't for modern medicine, I wouldn't be here. Maybe we are weaker than we think we are.
 
Top