User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Inception

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default Inception

    Conway's Game of Life is a cellular automaton (CA), meaning each bit can be either on or off, and its state affects and is affected by the state of its neighbors. There are models of the universe based on CAs, for instance by Stephen Wolfram (of http://wolframalpha.com/ fame). Physics at all levels of analysis can be modeled using CAs. Interesting, CAs are Turing Complete, and some of the first models of the human brain were CAs, and indeed, neural network models and actual brains themselves can be considered CAs. This strikes me as a proof that a Turing Complete system can become conscious. Which begs the question as to whether we are part of a larger conscious system. CRAZY RIGHT? Or not crazy? You be the judge, or hold your breath while science tries to figure it out. While you hold your breath, remember that you are a CA, and watch the "Life in Life" video below, where Conway's Game of Life is implemented INSIDE Conway's Game of Life. Inception.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics


  2. #2

  3. #3
    Infinite Bubble
    Guest

    Default

    Not crazy. Because of the arbitrary numbers selected at its creation, patterns emerge within the universe across its entirety, width and breadth. This means that if both the universe and human brain can be considered as Turing Complete systems (and if one can, almost certainly the other can; one of course, is just a smaller subset of the other. The brain is, after all, in and part of the universe itself), and that these systems are capable of consciousness, it is perfectly plausible that we are living in a larger conscious structure.

    Forms and structures are similar on the universal scales insofar as they are not overwhelmed by the forces at the universe's extremes. So from this it can be inferred that, as structures on the smaller scale that we humans are on and the much larger forms in the universe are similar, their internal constructs may also be identical - therefore logically, so will their effects. The conclusion derived from this is that indeed, it is entirely possible that the universe - or at least, something larger than ourselves, in which we are internally combined with - is conscious. Unfortunately the scale we are on is limiting and as such we cannot perceive the universe's consciousness; merely its individual parts, which when viewed normally by the minuscule human eye, cannot possibly be perceived as a working construct that is itself conscious.

    Other factors are brought into play when it comes to the imperceptibility of this universal consciousness. The first is the aforementioned issue with scale. For instance, only on a larger scale, using powerful telescopes, can we see that groups of galaxies in fact form these almost string or web-like structures, as similar to those found within the brain. If we had the ability to zoom out further, perhaps we would be able to see that large arrays of galaxies (probably to the extent of the entire universe) in fact form definite, solid structures with a larger purpose than what is currently known. On this scale it may be obvious that it is a network of the largest proportions, fully capable of consciousness, and perhaps with a set of other unimaginable traits. Just as an intelligent virus-sized creature wouldn't be able to perceive the human body as a complete form in itself - but rather, the smaller entities of individual cells and molecules - we are unable to see the larger construct that is created by the mass of galaxies.

    So in conclusion, I think it is reasonable to retain the possibility that the universe - or a larger section of it than ourselves - is conscious. And furthermore, maybe our universe is itself just a singular bolt in an even greater framework. Perhaps this leads to something even more intrinsically complex than mere consciousness, whatever that may be - superconsciousness? Surely this will cause said structure to possess a sort of omniscience. And, on the opposite end of the spectrum, beyond the quark and even the 1-dimensional string, there may very well be identical structures too. Anyway, our vantage point is far too overwhelmingly limited to discard certain theories, citing them as nonsense, and remaining close-minded to the possibilities.

  4. #4
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,538

    Special Pleading

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Bubble View Post
    the universe - or a larger section of it than ourselves - is conscious.
    This is an interesting hypothesis for which there is no evidence.

    In fact it is special pleading for the existence of God.

  5. #5
    Infinite Bubble
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    This is an interesting hypothesis for which there is no evidence.

    In fact it is special pleading for the existence of God.
    Oh, I don't mean that I actually believe that. Just exploring the possibilities.

    Actually I'm okay with the nonexistence of God.

  6. #6
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Bubble View Post
    I'm okay with the nonexistence of God.
    God's presence is only concealed by His absence.

  7. #7
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    This is an interesting hypothesis for which there is no evidence.
    Like everything Freud wrote.
    Last edited by Julius_Van_Der_Beak; 08-16-2013 at 04:24 PM.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Infinite Bubble, I greatly enjoyed reading your response. Thanks!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    DNA
    Socionics
    so
    Posts
    42

    Default

    It is nonsense to call inception to a single pattern which is a system that is part of the set systems that we call Life as we know it in this planet. Not to mention calling it "Life".

    Life and source is oneness as equality. All from the same all equal. Void containing all possibilities systems etc...
    Life is what we do originating from that void that honors source.

    Self-replicating systems that work as patterns are not Life by itself they are systems. Systems haev limitations constrictions and polarity. Life honoring equality surpasses all of that.
    LIFE is the expression of SELF within and as Oneness and Equality

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RicPTmc View Post
    It is nonsense to call inception to a single pattern which is a system that is part of the set systems that we call Life as we know it in this planet. Not to mention calling it "Life".

    Life and source is oneness as equality. All from the same all equal. Void containing all possibilities systems etc...
    Life is what we do originating from that void that honors source.

    Self-replicating systems that work as patterns are not Life by itself they are systems. Systems haev limitations constrictions and polarity. Life honoring equality surpasses all of that.
    "Oneness" derives from the concept of One, which describes a single object. It is related to the concepts of "something" and "nothing," which are related to the concept of a "container." You can have a container with nothing in it, a container with something in it, or a container with one thing or two things in it. You can have one container, two containers, or three containers, which suggests that containers are in containers themselves.

    Suggesting that the universe has the 'ness of One suggests that the universe resides in yet another container, and that all of the properties of and relationships between containers hold for it. It's really not clear that we can actually generalize properties of containers far beyond our most proximal experience. For example, the concept of "nothing" only makes sense if you start with a container that could definitely have "something" in it. Intuition suggests that the universe is not a container, and nor does it reside in one, which further suggests that "there was never nothing" and that "there was always something."

    I challenge you to talk about the universe as one thing without metaphorically alluding to containers in some way. Of course, we all fall into this trap in one way or another when talking about reality. However, you appear to be making a particularly egregious mistake, when deferring to "Oneness."

    I didn't just pull this out of thin air: it's Cognitive Science. See Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff.

Similar Threads

  1. Inception
    By teslashock in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 03-02-2011, 09:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO