3 ms·

Just from skimming the article it seems to me the problem with AI and probably just the whole matter of what people define as intelligence is that it assumes th

Just from skimming the article it seems to me the problem with AI and probably just the whole matter of what people define as intelligence is that it assumes that the universe itself is not intelligent. Maybe the universe itself is intelligent but that consciousness is some other phenomena that gives intelligence an individual characteristic? It's just a random thought, I don't really know which way to go with it.

davesque 11y ago
I can relate. While I consider myself an agnostic with a slight atheist streak, I still like to muse on these sorts of thoughts occasionally. The universe does seem somehow innately intelligent and alive. Everything is in motion. Everything appears to have some kind of structure. Gotta be careful not to fall back on the "G" word though (not that you did) :).
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  Personally, I think there might be a Creator, but that doesn't seem to be relevant as to the problem of consciousness. To me, when I see that physical processes act in a manner that is complex then it indicates that what we're trying to call intelligence is really just form of stateful structure. And the rest of intelligence is something else entirely different (and probably unrelated).
- javajosh 11y ago
  "The Universe" is huge and empty and completely hostile to life. Most matter is in stars which are not empty and completely hostile to life. (And which are huge compared to us, but which are like specks of dust compared to "The Universe"). Our planet is a speck of dust rotating at a fortunate distance around another speck of (shining) dust. By mass, the majority of the planet is useless to life. Everything alive on Earth exists in a very thin skin between lifeless rock and lifeless, airless, freezing space. Then, on any timescale meaningful to "The Universe" individuals are tiny blips. Species are around longer, but not much. Vast majority of species are killed off by cosmic events regularly (we are on something like the 6th major extinction event, IIRC). All of humanities struggles with itself, with ignorance, all of it's artistic expression, have taken place within the context of that thin skin of warm fluid surrounding Earth over a shockingly short time frame. The best that can be said is that we now know the score: that "The Universe" is fascinating, vast, hostile, empty, silent, and our entire species is the rough equivalent not to a mewling baby, but rather to, perhaps, a single microscopic insect gestating in its egg, just beginning to break the shell and look around.
  - filoeleven 11y ago
    And yet here we are, living and experiencing the universe. Most matter that you interact with is not in your body, and much of it is not in a usable form to your body, yet it still sustains you. Why should this not hold true at a larger scale? We cannot survive in the colds of space, yet it is the tendency of matter to clump together, creating that space, which also gives us a sun and a planet and an atmosphere that was necessary for our existence. We cannot survive in the lifeless molten rock, yet we also could not have formed without its heat. It's usually at the edges of things where the most interesting and varied phenomena arise. Much of the universe is hostile to human life in its current form, yet it is also the universe that gave rise to it. Whether human newborn or microscopic insect hatchling, the experienced world is at its most incomprehensible, and the organism at its most vulnerable, at the beginning. Growth allows for greater experience, and experience can lead to greater growth. Our knowledge of what's possible for a species extends only backwards, and only on one single speck of dust. The universe has no inherent vastness, hostility, emptiness or silence without a conscious being to assign it those properties. I choose to imbue it with aspects of magnificence, intelligence, organization, perhaps even benevolence. We are not in a cosmic battle to conquer a dumb, hostile substrate; we are embedded in a rich, nurturing agar whose purpose it is, at least in part, to help us to flourish.
    - javajosh 11y ago
      >The universe has no inherent vastness, hostility, emptiness or silence without a conscious being to assign it those properties. Agreed. I choose to imbue it with aspects of magnificence, intelligence, organization, perhaps even benevolence. Well, that's nice, but it's only possible at the space scale of, at most, the Earth. Or at least human scale - since it is you who are doing the choosing. I mean, it's fine to change the subject, but at least be aware that you are doing so. >We are not in a cosmic battle to conquer a dumb, hostile substrate; we are embedded in a rich, nurturing agar whose purpose it is, at least in part, to help us to flourish. Again, I feel like you are confusing space- and time- scales. Earth's biosphere is nurturing agar, no doubt, over a short time scale and small space scale. But the solar system, galaxy, let alone the universe at large, is most definitely not, and nor is the Earth's biosphere on any large time scale. We have arisen in this universe, apparently the first intelligent life on this planet, and on any other planet. If there is intelligent life elsewhere, we are separated by impossible vastness: to get to another star, in any form, we must harness immense energy. More than is reasonable. And once there, the lifeboat must somehow found a colony, a self-sustaining biosphere, which itself is a gargantuan task. Perhaps, though, this is a benevolent universe: maybe those great chasms of space protect intelligences from each other. It means that if any of us manage to make the journey, and we discover each other, it will be a meeting of great good fortune, and the travellers will always be at the mercy of the inhabitants of the destination star. There is hope for long-term survival of intelligence, but it is very, very small.

davesque 11y ago

I can relate. While I consider myself an agnostic with a slight atheist streak, I still like to muse on these sorts of thoughts occasionally. The universe does seem somehow innately intelligent and alive. Everything is in motion. Everything appears to have some kind of structure. Gotta be careful not to fall back on the "G" word though (not that you did) :).

norea-armozel 11y ago
Personally, I think there might be a Creator, but that doesn't seem to be relevant as to the problem of consciousness. To me, when I see that physical processes act in a manner that is complex then it indicates that what we're trying to call intelligence is really just form of stateful structure. And the rest of intelligence is something else entirely different (and probably unrelated).
javajosh 11y ago
"The Universe" is huge and empty and completely hostile to life. Most matter is in stars which are not empty and completely hostile to life. (And which are huge compared to us, but which are like specks of dust compared to "The Universe"). Our planet is a speck of dust rotating at a fortunate distance around another speck of (shining) dust. By mass, the majority of the planet is useless to life. Everything alive on Earth exists in a very thin skin between lifeless rock and lifeless, airless, freezing space. Then, on any timescale meaningful to "The Universe" individuals are tiny blips. Species are around longer, but not much. Vast majority of species are killed off by cosmic events regularly (we are on something like the 6th major extinction event, IIRC). All of humanities struggles with itself, with ignorance, all of it's artistic expression, have taken place within the context of that thin skin of warm fluid surrounding Earth over a shockingly short time frame. The best that can be said is that we now know the score: that "The Universe" is fascinating, vast, hostile, empty, silent, and our entire species is the rough equivalent not to a mewling baby, but rather to, perhaps, a single microscopic insect gestating in its egg, just beginning to break the shell and look around.
- filoeleven 11y ago
  And yet here we are, living and experiencing the universe. Most matter that you interact with is not in your body, and much of it is not in a usable form to your body, yet it still sustains you. Why should this not hold true at a larger scale? We cannot survive in the colds of space, yet it is the tendency of matter to clump together, creating that space, which also gives us a sun and a planet and an atmosphere that was necessary for our existence. We cannot survive in the lifeless molten rock, yet we also could not have formed without its heat. It's usually at the edges of things where the most interesting and varied phenomena arise. Much of the universe is hostile to human life in its current form, yet it is also the universe that gave rise to it. Whether human newborn or microscopic insect hatchling, the experienced world is at its most incomprehensible, and the organism at its most vulnerable, at the beginning. Growth allows for greater experience, and experience can lead to greater growth. Our knowledge of what's possible for a species extends only backwards, and only on one single speck of dust. The universe has no inherent vastness, hostility, emptiness or silence without a conscious being to assign it those properties. I choose to imbue it with aspects of magnificence, intelligence, organization, perhaps even benevolence. We are not in a cosmic battle to conquer a dumb, hostile substrate; we are embedded in a rich, nurturing agar whose purpose it is, at least in part, to help us to flourish.
  - javajosh 11y ago
    >The universe has no inherent vastness, hostility, emptiness or silence without a conscious being to assign it those properties. Agreed. I choose to imbue it with aspects of magnificence, intelligence, organization, perhaps even benevolence. Well, that's nice, but it's only possible at the space scale of, at most, the Earth. Or at least human scale - since it is you who are doing the choosing. I mean, it's fine to change the subject, but at least be aware that you are doing so. >We are not in a cosmic battle to conquer a dumb, hostile substrate; we are embedded in a rich, nurturing agar whose purpose it is, at least in part, to help us to flourish. Again, I feel like you are confusing space- and time- scales. Earth's biosphere is nurturing agar, no doubt, over a short time scale and small space scale. But the solar system, galaxy, let alone the universe at large, is most definitely not, and nor is the Earth's biosphere on any large time scale. We have arisen in this universe, apparently the first intelligent life on this planet, and on any other planet. If there is intelligent life elsewhere, we are separated by impossible vastness: to get to another star, in any form, we must harness immense energy. More than is reasonable. And once there, the lifeboat must somehow found a colony, a self-sustaining biosphere, which itself is a gargantuan task. Perhaps, though, this is a benevolent universe: maybe those great chasms of space protect intelligences from each other. It means that if any of us manage to make the journey, and we discover each other, it will be a meeting of great good fortune, and the travellers will always be at the mercy of the inhabitants of the destination star. There is hope for long-term survival of intelligence, but it is very, very small.