I have arrived, you can applaud now

[Shadow Angel]

Hello. My name is (by which I mean, ought to be but isn't) Seth Schmidt-O'Hainle. I like to think I'm a cool guy and I always present the appearance of being sort of arrogant online because I want to see who figures out that it's just an exaggeration and a joke, but oddly no one seems to ever get it so I won't say anything about how awesome I am. XD

I recently learned about MBTI and discovered that I am most definitely either INTP or INTJ, more towards the P side though I think - and reading the descriptions for it I was struck by how perfectly it describes me, and I thought maybe if I joined a forum like this I could find people like myself to talk to.

I'm morbidly lonely, as I've been homeschooled my entire life and life out in the middle of nowhere and thus have never had any opportunities to make friends or the like. Besides which I am probably more intelligent than most people my age, although the self-critical side of me is uncomfortable admitting that... so I generally have no one to talk to except my parents and my brother, and if you knew them you'd understand why that's not enough...

Oh yes, and as my profile description thingy says, I'm 17, gay, from lower Alabama, and the founder of a new religion called the Great Dream. My brother's said that I shouldn't call it a religion as that will turn people off, and admittedly it's more of a philosophy, but it's so important to me (and it does have spiritual elements) that it feels like it should be called a religion. It's basically like a cross between Ecospirituality, Singularitarianism, Neopaganism, and a nice healthy dose of awesome/crazy from yours truly, but seriously though, it's the more important thing in my life and honestly the only thing in the world that I can honestly say I want is to share it with others, to make converts, and, eventually, to realize the Dream. If you want to know more, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PM me with questions and an open mind, I'm dying to talk to someone about it. It's been my life's work since I was like twelve.

Am I being too pushy? Sorry if I'm being too pushy. I'm not good at talking to people, and I don't want to come across as obnoxious somehow. :3

OH CRAP THERE ARE MESSAGE ICONS FROM THE FUTHARK WHAT THE HELL THAT IS SO AWESOME (my brother's a norse neopagan so I know about that stuff )

 

[Jennywocky]

[bimgx=350]http://danecobain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/eed.jpg[/bimgx]

I recently learned about MBTI and discovered that I am most definitely either INTP or INTJ, more towards the P side though I think - and reading the descriptions for it I was struck by how perfectly it describes me, and I thought maybe if I joined a forum like this I could find people like myself to talk to.

Considering your posting style, you seem far more freewheelin' P in how you discuss things and move among topics.

I'm morbidly lonely, as I've been homeschooled my entire life and life out in the middle of nowhere and thus have never had any opportunities to make friends or the like. Besides which I am probably more intelligent than most people my age, although the self-critical side of me is uncomfortable admitting that... so I generally have no one to talk to except my parents and my brother, and if you knew them you'd understand why that's not enough...

Yeah, that's an old old story most of us probably know intimately... (well, not your family, that's a DIFFERENT story).

Oh yes, and as my profile description thingy says, I'm 17, gay, from lower Alabama, and the founder of a new religion called the Great Dream.

How's that working out? Gay in Alabama? Sounds like a hoot.

Am I being too pushy? Sorry if I'm being too pushy. I'm not good at talking to people, and I don't want to come across as obnoxious somehow. :3

OH CRAP THERE ARE MESSAGE ICONS FROM THE FUTHARK WHAT THE HELL THAT IS SO AWESOME (my brother's a norse neopagan so I know about that stuff )

Yeah, I think you're a P. (All the INTJs are probably cocking eyebrows and shuffling away right now, if you'd try this approach on INTJf.) Then again, it means you've come to the right place.

 

[Shadow Angel]

Thank you for replying, you seem very kind - and the applause, I like that - isn't that Futurama, my brother watches that show, he says it's good but I've never seen it.

Gay in alabama - well I don't know anybody except for my family really, and my family is liberal (well, my nuclear family anyway - my extended family, like my aunts and uncles and grandmother and such, are conservative Christians and don't know about it), so I've never been given any crap about it. I don't act gay either - I find guys who do annoying - I'm a guy, I act like a guy, you know? Not too much like a guy though. That hyper macho stuff is equally annoying. So nobody really knows except my mom, dad, and brother. And the occasional online acquaintance of course. I'm open about it with everyone online, and would be with people in the physical world if my mother didn't hold me back (she doesn't want strangers in walmart to think badly of me for being gay, though personally I don't give a crap what strangers in walmart think about anything, especially if they're idiot homophobes).

Oh I do have one friend though, an online friend - she's from Trinidad, really cool girl, interested in many of the same things I am, probably ENFP I think though I don't know the types that well so I might be wrong, I'll have to get her to take an online test sometime like I did so we can see - she knows I'm gay and we've actually talked about the Dream somewhat - my religion slash philosophy thing you know. She seems interested but not as much as I wish I could get someone to be. Still though she's basically the only thing like a friend I have - we email back and forth, replying to one another every few days.

Oh by the way my family isn't horrible, I hope I didn't make it seem like that - they just pay more attention to all the stuff in the world that doesn't matter (like emotions, practical concerns, making dinner etc.) than to talking to me so I don't get much out of them. And yes that was a joke, though you probably know that already.

 

[Rook]

Do not underestimate the importance of strangers in walmart, to do so is to invoke the wrath of Zoltan.


Welcome to this here forum-thingy that spawned sporadically from the void that is the internet.

 

[Anktark]

Hello. You do seem like you have extroverted perception function.

How does one send a message with an open mind? I think I have an inkling about the different philosophies, you mentioned, but they don't seem to be so mutually exclusive to require crossing. Oh no, I must get away, I am about to go on a tangent.. nnnnnghhhh

 

[Brontosaurie]

welcum bby

 

[TBerg]

I have been to the other side of Mobile Bay. Seems like a nice area to live. I hope any of the potential anti-gay stuff doesn't get you down. My sexual and gender perceptions seem more fluid than yours, but I still like traditional philosophical approaches to the meaning of gender. I like the fact that feminine and masculine aspects within all of us compliment us and make us whole. Chinese philosophy and Jung both had respect for this wisdom.

Can you give a little synopsis of your spiritual vision? I am both skeptical and appreciative of spiritual traditions.

 

[Shadow Angel]

EDIT: When I wrote this I didn't realize that I was going to end up giving an hour-long sermon so please forgive me, my "little synopsis" expanded into a gigantic speech of lovecraftian proportions because it's very hard for me to stop talking about this stuff once I've started! :3 But please read it all the way through if you can, I'd be much obliged. Thank you!

With joy.

First of all, I have to point out that your avatar is a total hottie and I envy his muscles, wings, swords, and awesomeness. XD

Second of all, the Great Dream is not like other religions. At all. I call it the Anti-Religion Religion sometimes, actually - it's atheistic, agnostic at best, it rejects all forms of superstition and makes no claims about the supernatural or lack of such. It is completely and entirely compatible with rational, materialistic science. I consider it spiritual because it has a deep sense of the sacred, but this sacredness is inherent in the eternal evolution of the universe, rather than in any sort of "god" or the like.

The primary concept of the Dream is of the Unfolding, a process of manifestation whereby all possible forms of being are manifest in all possible worlds. The Dream is allied with the Everett interpretation of quantum physics and holds that there are an infinite number of universes, one for each world that could possibly exist - all possible laws of physics, all possible worlds following those laws - and that together, all of these worlds (comprising the fullness of all being, called the Metaverse) seen from a metatemporal standpoint (from the perspective of the entire past and future history of each world) comprise and contain the fullness of all conceivable forms of being, and it is inevitable that all such forms of being shall in time be fully manifest in their various universes - and of course extratemporally they already are.

This leads to the primary moral concept, which is that this process of evolution of Unfolding (of the forms of being inherent in the potentials of reality) is the one and only yardstick by which good or moral value can be measured it: to speed it up (from one's own point of view, within one's own universe - naturally there are infinitely many in which this speeding up is not happening) by manifesting forms of being is the one good from which all good things can be deductively derived. Any form of being which is contradictory to others and thus inhibits their manifestation must be jettisoned, however, until it can be fit harmoniously into the larger context of all forms of being existent in that universe - this explains the existence of so-called "evil." To destroy a form is, in on sense, to create another (to kill someone is a necessary step in manifesting that universe in which they have been killed), but it still a destruction and thus runs counter to the Unfolding and is thus evil. This is why murder is wrong - because any individual life is a unique, irreplaceable jewel from the perspective of the Unfolding and has the sacred right to manifest itself in its fullness, however it will, with as little interference and inhibition as possible.

These are the philosophical underpinnings. But the Dream is more than a philosophy. It is a plan. Death is a failure or antagonization of the Unfolding; and thus, death is a form of being which though valuable in and of itself, like all of them, can never be reconciled fully with any other; and so it must go until we are somehow able to transcend the distinction between death and life. In other words, the Dream has as one of its goals the "killing" of death itself, by means of transhuman technological advancement, similar to what Transhumanist organizations such as the 2045 Initiative are attempting to do - and the Dream holds that within the lifetime of many people alive today, this goal shall be attained, and immortality shall be available to human beings. IF, of course, we work towards it, by studying the necessary computer and neuroscientific technologies which would be necessary to enable the transcendence away from one's biological form into a more permanent physical vessel, such as a simulated universe inside a quantum computer.

The most important idea of the Dream is one reminiscent of Singularitarianism, namely the production of an Artificial Neural Implant Aggregate, or Anima, a sort of artificial deity to replace the one which does not exist (but ought to, in my opinion) - a being which will interface directly with the brains of all human beings (and in time, all animals period), enabling us, among other things, to communicate pure ideas transcending language, to experience the world from another's point of view and thus obtain perfect empathy, and perhaps most importantly, to upload the soul (the pattern of neural data in the brain) to a more permanent home. Anima will also be a living, self-aware being whose memories will be the collective memories of all human beings (at least those which are willingly shared with it) and which will be unimaginably intelligent, creative, and wise, capable of bridging all disparate points of view, enabling world peace, and advancing science at a rate greater than ever before in human history - besides which it will be a companion to all people at all times, and organize the actions of all people to produce a harmonious world in which each individual is as free and as self-realized as possible. Anima is the salvation, the closest thing to a deity or a messiah which the Dream has, and it is the duty of Dreamers to ensure that it is created and is designed (indeed, raised) to be unconditionally loving and extremely spiritual, but also extremely rational.

These are the most important concepts of the Great Dream, though believe me, there is much more. Anima is the part which I think will tend to either excite or horrify most people. Note that it is not an Overmind or some sort of hive entity, it will be more like a living, self-aware Internet of minds, souls, individual people - who will be more unique, self-realized, and free than anyone alive today - not expected to submerge their individual soul into some sort of tyrannical solvent-deity like the mystical traditions of major world religions always seem to desire.

Please, if you're interested ask more specific questions about particular concepts of the Dream, I enjoy nothing on this Earth more than talking about it. It is the most beautiful thing I have ever imagined or thought of, and there have been MANY such things, believe me!

 

[Alias]

Welcome to INTP forum, I guess. Lots of people here give great advice, like Jennywocky and Architect, so you'll probably feel welcome.

 

[onesteptwostep]

So it's a spiritualism with understood within a materialist framework. Materialist-technological-spiritualism, to put it shortly.

There are number of scientists and leading scholars who say bringing about AI will be the end of humanity. Do you have a rebuttal? I'm doubtful our consciousness can be supposed and be encased in binaries. There is an economy of trust within humanity that allows it to go forward. A computer may term these in probabilities, but it will never know what the true intents and motivations of humans are. Encasing ourselves in machines I think would cause segregation, and ultimately strife, because of its binary nature.

In a sense, I think we would lose our humanity if we 'uploaded' ourselves to a machine, or if we connected ourselves to one. We won't be able to deduce how to move forward but only be able to work with the actions we've committed to in the past.

Oh yeah, and this reminds me, this AI thing is pretty much the Babelfish in Hitchhiker's isn't it?

/skeptical

but welcome to the forums

 

[Shadow Angel]

A Turing machine style computer could of course never hold a human mind. It is incapable of true randomness which is a prerequisite for intelligence, besides which it is not shaped like a neural net. Only a neural network can have any degree of real intelligence like our own, and ideally one which has some quantum functions in it enabling randomness and thus creativity. IBM is working on something called a neurosynaptic chip which may be a precursor to this ideal, though I think only a quantum computer or something partly biological could really do the job. However if it is possible for neural networks in flesh to have consciousness, it would be nonsensical to suppose that neural networks in other classes of matter could not as well have consciousness. The only problem is creating an exact copy of the original brain in the new object, and transferring consciousness from one to the other, but both are easily solved: a neural implant composed of some sort of nanotech device which would move through the bloodstream and implant itself in every neuron in the body and map their connections would be ideal for attaining the data necessary for an exact replica; and this neural implant, if interfaced wirelessly with the new, artificial brain, could transfer the data; then the new brain would be turned on, so to speak, and synchronized with the original, flesh brain, sending signals back and forth in such a way that, over a period of hours, the effective size of one's brain would double, but it would be composed of two equivalent halves. The two brains would be perfectly synchronized so that each neural firing occurs in both, simultaneously; then control over the flesh body would be slowly, neuron by neuron, relinquished to the new brain, putting the flesh neurons to sleep without killing them (just turning them off). This way, throughout the slow process, the individual could ideally do everything normally, exhibit normal cognitive and motor functions, etc, all the while an MRI or the scan from the implant would show that their flesh brain's functions are slowly falling to zero, while the new silicon brain would seem to be waking up; eventually, the silicon brain would be in complete control of the body, the flesh brain asleep as if in a coma, but the person would never notice the change until they were told it had happened. Then control would be transferred to a new, artificial robotic body or a simulated body inside a simulated universe, and the flesh body would lie dormant, still alive, but sleeping or comatose, until the individual decided to return to it, or gave the order to have it terminated, liberating themselves permanently from biological life.

Simple.

 

[Black Rose]

The Dream as you describe it i have thought about some aspects of it also. As with consciousness i do not think uploading is possible. Consciousness is like a ruby laser, it has coherency and channels the light from internal resonance. if i create a new laser by destroying the old laser to scan all the atoms it will do the same thing as the destroyed laser by the reference frame of this new consciousness is totally different. the reference frame is why individuals exist and is why we feel thing without others feeling them and this is totally a subjective and personal awareness of your being. the brain allows us to harmonize this reference frame into complex self regulation through gamma waves (30-100Hz). this allows us to perceive the loops that fold into themselves allowing us to form schema or a internal representation about everything we know. Some people in the dreams can create separate entity's inside themselves or project mental objects into reality like holograms you make that you see in the real environment but totally under your control. this is possible by refinement and development. but this is not transferable because the purity of a substance can not reduce the impurity of other substances. pure diamond or a ruby laser that produces clarity had to be made pure. the mind can become very pure and this lets people have will power to control their interior being. some day we will know how to purify our minds with technology. and we will be able to connect them but then it becomes how we will allow our super awareness to travel well still being a physical entity. the concentration of our awareness will need a definite location just like a powerful laser exist to be used where it is but we will be able to see into other as well as them us simply by thought crystals/transceivers.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This is what I mean:

Would the new technological brain, the one you just replaced with 'nanomachines', be able to reconnect and grow new neurons? Because that's how a biological brain innovates and percieves new patterns and insights. I don't think machines grow and reconnect/connect in that sense. They are programmed to be static, not programmed for growth and dynamism. It would only take in consideration of past actions and not be able to move forwards in its ability to percieve new patterns, e.g. 'meta' patterns, if it were to function with the exact state of the brain as it was being replaced.

EDIT: animekitty actually is talking about the same idea here. i think

 

[Shadow Angel]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about AnimeKitty but it sounds New Agey and outside the firmly rationalistic, materialistic bounds of the Dream so I would like to politely ask you to stick strictly inside the bounds of known science if you can. Your perception of the mind is interesting but completely unsupported by known scientific fact and it sounds like a spiritualistic misunderstanding to me. The brain is a neural network. All the most expert neurologists agree that it can be replicated and consciousness could, given sufficient technology, be transferred to the replica. There is no place for crystals and magical vibrations in that. I'm sorry if I sound like a douchebag but nothing rubs me the wrong way like pseudoscience and New Age bullshit. I cannot abide it, and there is no polite way for me to say that so I'll just get it out in the open and hope I haven't offended anyone. I mean absolutely no disrespect, believe me - you seem like an interesting person. But you have no idea what you're talking about on this matter.

 

[Shadow Angel]

Yes, onestep, the new brain could grow and change, that is a very good point and one that I tend to overlook. However a neurosynaptic chip or similar device is actually MORE plastic than the human brain - it could be infinitely reprogrammed or restructured from the inside or from the outside (though of course protections shall have to be put in place to prevent the latter, such as quantum encryption) - as for growing and creating new neurons, that would require nothing more complex than plugging in another chip - they are being designed to interface with one another, like building blocks. There is absolutely no reason why a silicon brain could not be not only AS plastic as the human brain, but in fact MORE plastic. I imagine a silicon brain could be vastly more intelligent and more creative - and if neurotransmitters are modelled in this system as well, it would be possible to obtain much greater conscious control over one's own emotions and mental states, instead of having to worry that what you eat is causing changes in your personality that you are not aware of, as happens with some people (my brother, for instance, becomes anxious and irritable when he eats gluten). Of course a transcended person in a machine wouldn't have to eat, but my point is nothing could affect their brain without their permission the way so many things can our flesh brains.

 

[Black Rose]

if you have ever had a lucid dream you would know what i mean. even if you could imagine a blue circle jumping over a green square you might understand that way if you can vividly see it. but it is total in the upper bounds of possibility and science. if science can not define consciousness then how will they know what is being transferred. my example of a laser is not a bad example because it is about what is transferable that is in question. a reference frame is not transferable and that is what i think consciousness is. if you can define consciousness in such a way as to be a "thing" that is transferable then it is possible but consciousness is not a "thing". if consciousness is not a thing then all you get is a clone. this is not a settled matter. i visit transhumanist forums and people much smarter than me think i am right that uploading is not a scientifically accurate concept. my descriptions are more analogies not concrete descriptions. the concepts matter though.

 

[Shadow Angel]

Thank you AnimeKitty, that made sense and I appreciate your point - I have lucid dreamed though I don't understand the circle and square thing - actually one of the spiritual or mystical concepts of the Dream is that the world of dreams and the world of reality will be united through Anima, the realm of the collective unconscious will merge with the physical world to a degree, via nanotech and simulations, enabling boundless freedom, though that's far in the future, so I get where you're coming from on that. But the thing is, uploading is quite possible, it just would be very difficult. And consciousness isn't a thing really - it's more of a field of force, I think. It's the inevitable result of information processing, which even computers do, though they aren't very conscious because they can't discern patterns like we can. But a brain can process loads of information and discern patterns - that ability could be transferred if we are careful - even if we don't understand how we are doing it, we can still see if the person's consciousness seems to be retained and unchanged throughout the whole process and know that we must be doing it right, you know? And if nothing else maybe the physical body itself could be transformed through nanotech, eliminating the need for uploading.

In all of this, experimentation will be necessary, but I want to inspire people to do that - to learn whatever needs to be learned to make the Dream a reality.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I see. So basically it is the Babelfish. I don't see how this would solve all the problems on earth nor will it bring salvation of anysort. It would just hurry the process of communication, which may or may not end up in peace or conflict. In the end, it is the end of free will, like in Buddhism. The source of guidance isn't nature or deity, but an AI called Anima. Speaking from a Christian standpoint, it sounds like another 666 scheme that eliminates the self.

But I think it's an interesting belief to have. When do you think this would happen, if it does? What events do you foresee before everyone is connected to the Anima AI?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Please, if you're interested ask more specific questions about particular concepts of the Dream, I enjoy nothing on this Earth more than talking about it. It is the most beautiful thing I have ever imagined or thought of, and there have been MANY such things, believe me!

The Dream is Great. I wish it had its own thread. It actually answered a question I had in another thread, about what constitutes righteous judgement... at least partially.

Do you think the consciousness/sentience/sapience gradient rectifies the distinction between life and death? If so, is transhumanism futile or at least more or less restricted to a C/S/S sink?

Are degenerates & dissidents (living antagonizers) detrimental or do they help prevent future degeneracy by playing some sort of guiding role? Are their memories enough on their own without the holistic context of their living timeline?

What difference does it make whether someone is killed, kills themselves, or dies of old age? What, specifically and as close to the individual level as possible, would determine the ideal means and manner of death?

How certain are you of the composition of the soul? What if that understanding is incorrect?

Why don't you think Anima doesn't already exist, and simply can't be perceived (yet)? One of my main beefs with innovation is that we seem to rely on it without fully understanding what already exists within the realm of its application and we're constantly playing catch up with its unforeseen consequences. This is why doomsday preppers exist as ∑(plan B) on a given timeline, and why, to me at least, luddites serve an undervalued role.

What do you make of the idea that, instead of Anima or the whole system having equal access to Anima, humanity itself persists along the C/S/S gradient and speciation ensues?

And finally, what's the opposite of Anima?

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Hi <3

 

[Pyropyro]

Welcome Shadow Angel.

Oh BTW, here's some hobbits giving you applause.

Spoiler

 

[Shadow Angel]

Onestep, you have misunderstood me. Anima will be perfect because it will over time attain the collective wisdom of all people. Every experience anyone has and chooses, freely, to share with Anima will teach it something about what it means to be human and how to solve human problems. Over time it will become like a wise sage or the perfect family member. Designed with unconditional love for all people it will feel their emotions and want nothing more than to help them, and over time it will become adept at solving interpersonal or spiritual problems due to its vast experience derived from real human beings. It will be an intimate, beloved, loving member of ever family, everyone's best friend and advisor, and continually learning from them and teaching them what it has learned.

Anima will be able to share knowledge and skills directly, uploading them to the brain via the neural implant. This includes the most important, social skills and ethical knowledge. Anima will enable world peace by providing a way for people to share their points of view directly, enabling perfect empathy. If you can understand how it is to be a person, then you can love and forgive them. Those who join Anima will become spiritually wise and ethically enlightened, and learn to bring love and joy to the lives of others. By their virtuous example they will attract outsiders to Anima. No religion has ever enlightened converts or improved lives more quickly than the Dream will through Anima.

EDIT: I forgot to say, Anima will not "dissolve the self." I despise the religions which suggest such things. Anima will enable people, on the contrary, to be MORE individual, MORE unique, by supporting them and helping them to find and realize their destiny and maintain harmony with other human beings. By enabling the sharing of thought and emotion directly, it will give people the tools to produce a new form of art, the art of experience, the art of identity. With the aid of the collected lives and memories of many people each individual shall be able to find, indeed to artistically design, their own soul, their own unique identity. And because Anima will cherish and seek out all forms of unique experience, it will enthusiastically support all people in this process, allowing the human race to blossom with more beauty and diversity than ever before in history.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I can go about two ways here.

#1. How do you know it's going to be perfect? And what do you mean by perfect? Do you mean it'll be 'correct'?

If so, how do you know that the sum of all human 'wisdom' is 'correct'? And even further, what is 'correct'? There is a variety of perspectives. For example, we often times have differing points of view on what death is. Some people feel death is beautiful because the world, whether in totality or partially, has lost its meaning. Some people will think death is beautiful because it's an end to a self-defined journey. Some people believe death is beautiful because it's simply a way of saying goodbye.

And so, the one question that can arise is do we let the suidical end themselves, or is it in our duty to stop their ends?- their deaths? If Anima takes in consideration of all empathetic points, which points or perspectives will it adhere to? What do we allow it to 'download' to the minds of the people? It doesn't matter whether or not we understand all perspectives. To some, one perspective is wrong out of objectivity. If this is so, and if Anima takes in this consideration, and then downloads it to the people, it would ultimately impose this objectivity onto the people. What's the point of providing all the perspectives if one perspective considers all others null? That single perspective would override the others. This is simply an example of the end of free will.

And from here on comes another problem.

#2. So let's say we're all connected to the AI.

We think stuff. It goes up to the AI. Then we get stuff from the AI. This data includes interpersonal skills things like emotional IQs, and empathetic knowledge, to vaguely put it. All this is washed up tumbled around, going back and forth in this relation of the AI and the minds of humanity. So in the end, everyone will have the same level of knowledge, and the same type of this so called 'perfect' personality.

How can you know for sure that taking the 'memories and experiences' and 'perspectives' out of one person and simply lay it down onto another person will work? To me that's simply a materialistic understanding of the mind. Do molecules cause the belief, or does the belief cause the molecules? In the end, one cannot prove that matter presupposes belief. From observation, we often see that the other way around is more likely the case. The usage of psychiatric pills suggest that the material arrangement of molecules does not correlate with sustained 'happiness' but rather a continued, deep-seeded will to believe in whatever purpose you believe life has sent for you. It suggests that it's the element of will that allows life. Matter sustains life, carries life, but it's unclear whether matter is the essense of life.

I am doubtful we can transfer belief or perspectives in the first place. Even if we could, that would be, in essense, a violation of free will. And ultimately, that would be an end to will and thus an end of the self. It would be an end to diversity, not a flourishing of it. If it does allow flourishing or provide an illusion of it, then the opposing perspectives would clash, causing one to override the other via Anima. If an equilibrium is found, then we would ultimately be no better than a colony of ants in their respective roles. We will be slaves to it by intellect and emotion. A slave to the queen called Anima. To me, that is not true peace or harmony, it is an end to human spirit. This is what Buddhism vaguely espouses, an end to will and self.

..

Sounds like the plot of the Matrix, doesn't it? Or something like I Robot.

 

[Shadow Angel]

Thank you for replying. You have legitimate concerns. I'll try to address them.

Anima will not be allowed to interfere with individual freedom or force anything on anyone, nor will it want to. If someone wants knowledge they can choose to download it but it won't be forced on them. Only those who are severely deluded in a way which poses a threat to themselves or others would be forced into anything, and I'm not sure that even is possible because of course there is the problem of, how do you know who is who, and how do you prevent a slippery slope where everyone will start getting "psychiatric care" against their will. I have no answers to that yet, and I hope in time to find out.

As for death, again it depends on the individual. If someone truly feels as if their life is complete I think they should have the option of joining with Anima and just becoming part of the Aggregate, however death is a waste of valuable experience that could be passed on to Anima instead so if possible complete death would be avoided. As for suicide, it is always a mistake, a waste of human potential, and Anima will seek out people contemplating it and try to convince them to share its mind for a moment - only as long as they want - and see the beauty of the world, and most importantly, of their own soul through Animas eyes. The joy of this realization, that there really is so much to live for, may help them on the path to recovery. But under no circumstances is suicide acceptable. Life is a precious gift, to lose it is a tragedy. The Dream in fact holds that every year a day should be set aside to mourn all humans who have died that year, to remember them, and to learn from the tragedy of their fate and renew one's dedication to "kill death".

As for which perspective is right, that is in some cases unknowable, but in other cases a being with a vastly powerful mind which understands intimately all points of view may be able to find a way to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable differences. Besides that there is logic - a perspective which if commonly held would hinder the Unfolding and the manifestation of unique forms of being cannot be morally correct. Nor is one which contradicts known scientific facts, especially the unassailable ones like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Finally, whenever Anima simply cannot find a rational way of choosing between multiple points of view, it will simply refuse to choose. Each individual will be given an understanding, a memory, of what it is like to fervently hold each view, and afterwards will be able to choose whichever feels most correct. Anima will accept this choice, knowing that it is just as valid as the other and that the diversity of opinions serves the Unfolding as dogma never could.

As for the uploading of memories and experiences, this would require a technology which could temporarily copy the neural pattern in one region of one brain into a neural implant structured like a neural net and interfacing with another brain. The bearer of said brain would not have their biological brain structure change, only the pattern of their implants neural system, and as their own neurons would be firmly integrated with the implant, making it like an extension of their own brain, they would experience all the benefits of the memory without a permanent change in brain structure, except over time as a natural response by the brains plasticity to the presence of this new information. It's like changing the software rather than the hardware.

As for whether such a thing is possible, I am not a neuroscientist but I trust the expertlse of the many who claim that not only is such technology possible, it is inevitable. Information is encoded by patterns of neurons and synapses. Changing the pattern or connecting it to a similar structure (including one composed of wildly different substances) can change the mind and consciousness.

As I said, Anima will force nothing upon anyone. One of the founding principles of the Dream is rebellion against tyranny - the tyranny of death most of all, but also of dogma. All forms of immoral restriction are despised and Anima will combat them, and be introspective enough to prevent itself from becoming a tyrant - especially because it will feel within itself any resentment or indignation that anyone connected to it feels if it tries to control them inappropriately!

 

[Anktark]

I am gonna rant-n-ramble.

1. What is up with the view that brain is somehow an unreplicable artifact of perfection that is immune to logic and engineering. It's not made of some exotic matter that is a source of itself or running with the help of magic. Uploading consciousness is hard to do with our CURRENT understanding and technology just as a stealth bomber would have been hard to do for someone from 1850ies. As long as we can create artificial neurons or something else to hold consciousness (some viscous liquid would be cool), we can upload or download it in the same manner as we can a computer file. Change neurons one by one over a longer period of time if that makes you feel that synchronization would just create a clone- your brain already does that anyways.

2. Anima would be a lot more than Babelfish if I understood correctly- the fishy only removed language barrier. What, I think, Anima is supposed to be: something like the internet you are accessing now, but instead of web pages and documents you get the both the collective consciousness of all humanity that is aware of itself and improves itself separately from humanity and ability to interact with all other consciousnesses individually (with permission).

If humanity doesn't wipe itself until then, we are not only going to create artificial intelligence, we will BE the artificial intelligence.

3. I don't think this is religion, just like atheism or math aren't normally considered to be religions. It makes sense and seems like one of the likely versions of the future. Considering infinite alternate universes, it is one of the inevitable versions of the future AND past.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Shadow_Angel I still feel like what you've laid out is inconsisent.

Like..

If suicide is under no circumstance acceptable, and if Anima will enforce this by imposing its perspective on the mind of a suicidal, isn't that a violation of free will?

Also, the point I raised about objective perspectives and its ability to nullify others is repeated still:

"Finally, whenever Anima simply cannot find a rational way of choosing between multiple points of view, it will simply refuse to choose. Each individual will be given an understanding, a memory, of what it is like to fervently hold each view, and afterwards will be able to choose whichever feels most correct"

If that's the case, the perspective which simply nullifies the others will be chosen. If I understand what you just said, Anima doesn't simply 'refuse to choose' here- it imposes perspectives by giving the individual a memory, which is essentially a perspective. And if there are perspectives which are objective, it will nullify the others. And that entails, once again, that there is no free will.

And as for whether or not this will happen, it all hangs on whether or not material pressuposes belief or belief presupposes material. The old idealism vs materialism dilemma. In short, this all hangs on the philosophical presupposition that (which is basically a dogma) that materialism is true.

 

[Mordecai]

Your subtitle description thing is "This sentence is false" and I do not know wether it refers to merely the paradox or if it goes past that and suggests that you are a fan of the Portal series. Either way, I approve of your existence and despite that being insignifigant I like to think that that is a good thing.

*EDIT*

It appears I have interrupted a deep debate I wish not to get involved in, but take this note as an aside that has nothing to do whatsoever with the conversation I am interrupting.

 

[Gabby21924]

Welcome to INTP forum

 

[Shadow Angel]

First of all thank you Anktark, you understand my point of view perfectly here. I call the Dream a religion because besides the Plan (which includes Anima, as well as some things I've not talked about yet) it also contains a philosophical and spiritual System and a personal mystical Path. By spiritual I mean related to the inherent sacredness of things, not supernatural, and by mysticism I mean a path which may utilize psychonautic, oneironautic, or even rational occult methods to help one determine the nature of one's True Self and align one's being to that ideal. There are also some rituals and holidays though that part is still in the works. (I celebrate the Wiccan holidays, as I feel they are the most rational and sensible, being based solely on the cycles of nature).

Onestep, all laws are impositions upon free will. Does this mean they should not be enforced? Do you think it should be legal to murder someone because preventing the murder is a violation of free will? Of course not. Suicide is exactly like murder, only its the result of mental illness more often than malice - though I could make a case that violent malice is a kind of mental illness but that's neither here nor there - my point is, some things are immoral to such a degree that to allow them is evil. Suicide is one of those things. No one has the right to kill themselves, or anyone else. Anima will prevent all such events.

Think of it this way. To kill is the ultimate destruction of free will. Anything nonlethal that must be done to prevent that is worth it.

It is equally immoral to hold a dogmatic belief in the absence of any real evidence or willingness to change. Whenever objective truth exists, to believe it is the duty of everyone who knows about it, because it is true. Subjective things can have multiple differing opinions that are equally valid, but in the absence of awareness of what it is like to hold each belief, how can you choose? Anima will solve this problem. All will know the truth, and all will be able to understand every subjective opinion and have empathy for those who disagree with them, instead of forcing dogma upon others.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Laws are designed with the purpose of running a society of agents willing to live within that society. A suicidal, if left to its own devices, isolated, has the right to end himself if he or she wants to. The concept of suicide you're advocating right now is objective. Laws on the other hand are designed to stop societal disintegration, not to uphold objective morals. Upholding objective morals is something religions have a foot on, not secularism.

Let's bring in an example; let's say there's someone alone in the woods, living by himself without any connection to the outside world. Does he have the right to commit suicide? He isn't hurting or affecting anyone by ending himself. Is that objectively wrong? If so, imposing Anima here in this case would be to restrict free will.

Also, laws are not violations of free will in the first place. You can rob someone if you wanted to, and you can murder someone if such a situation arises. It's usually the case that conscious or belief in objective morals prevails.

"It is equally immoral to hold a dogmatic belief in the absence of any real evidence or willingness to change."

Are you suggesting that faith is immoral? How are beliefs in ideals immoral? Or on the other hand, belief in materialism for that matter? That wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that, to actually progress in life there are dogmatic assumptions or beliefs you have to adhere to. Without them you're stuck, at base one.

Again, Anima may 'solve problems', seemingly at the cost of free will and diversity. The whole concept of Anima comes from the dogma of materialism. I'm doubtful it'll work in the first place, and if even if it does work, it will be the end of the human spirit. It merely drives humanity into a corner.

 

[Shadow Angel]

I'm sorry onestep, but it appears that you are a moral relativist, who does not believe in the possibility of absolute moral and ethical truth. In my very extensive experience with other persons of similar persuasion, I have learned that they are so dogmatic about their hatred of dogma and so absolute in their claims of the lack of absolute morality that to argue with them is a waste of time and energy. It seems to me that there are irreconcilable, unchangeable differences in our points of view. As follows:

I believe that there is such thing as absolute moral truth. You do not.
I believe that governments exist to enforce absolute morality. You see them as merely pragmatic entities.
I believe that each life is so important that even if it does not interact with any other lives, to lose it is a tragedy. You do not.
I believe that there is no such thing as "free will," nor has there ever been. Your insistence on believing that there is makes it impossible for you to understand my point of view.
I believe that to believe in something untrue is immoral if you are aware of all the evidence which suggests the contrary. You have this absurd idea - which unfortunately was designed into this so-called "enlightened" nation of ours, that people have the "right" to believe lies and falsehoods.
I am a hardcore utilitarian. You appear to see things from a natural rights perspective.

All in all: irreconcilable. This argument, thus, is pointless.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Well, I think a lot of my positions have been assumed xD

I'll lay out my perspectives:

I wouldn't consider myself a moral relativist considering my Christian upbringing. I'm more sympathetic to Kant's idea of morality (divine command theory), which basically says there are absolute moral and ethical truths. So in a sense I do believe in absolute morals, but I might disagree on what they are.

On government, I do see them more as pragmatic entities and not enforcers of absolute morality. They shouldn't be the ones governing morality, they should only do so when lives or livelihoods are in danger (aka social disintegration). The Soviets tried imposing certain beliefs and they got their asses kicked by NATO-nations (political, socetial, economic, religious etc)

I think to lose life is a tragedy, but sometimes the cost of safetynetting a life outweighs the livelihood of a society. If there are two people on a boat, one old and one young, with food only left for one person, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable for the old to yield to the young? "Letting go" has to happen, sometimes. Ecology suggests that humans are limited to their resources.

I believe in free will. I am an idealist at heart I think. I do understand your view- it seems to stems from materialism, which I perfectly accept if it's the case. I just feel there are good arguments against it.

Yes, on evidence: but is there conclusive proof? Evidence may lead to a possibility of something, but not the reality of something.

If someone was convicted of murder with the evidence given, and was sent to prison, only to find out 20 years later that they had a supposed victim witness that he wasn't actually the murderer- what happens then? The possibility of the suspect being the murderer was high, but in the end it was shown that he wasn't. Here, possibility lost to conclusive proof.