CATEGORY:
How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014)
[back]
TOPIC:
Is There a Simulation for a Thought Experiment of Who Should Steer What Desirable? by Gyenge Valeria
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Gyenge Valeria wrote on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 17:05 GMT
Essay AbstractThis essay emerges from a learned person's critical thinking. Because thought underlies our actions and interactions, understanding and seeking its physical and metaphysical origin, there is a risk, if we are not able to adequately assure our own thoughts and how we act factually to materialize things steered by thoughts, we should incur manipulated by our own...
view entire post
Essay AbstractThis essay emerges from a learned person's critical thinking. Because thought underlies our actions and interactions, understanding and seeking its physical and metaphysical origin, there is a risk, if we are not able to adequately assure our own thoughts and how we act factually to materialize things steered by thoughts, we should incur manipulated by our own thoughts. In worst case directed by some ones' else interest who have already studied, researched the faculty of thoughts, and presumably developed peculiar abilities, technologies for reality manipulation based on thoughts. Whether who are responsible for studying the effects of our thoughts? The author's aim to tug us to understand truly the fundamentals not oversimplifying the pertinent inquiry, but much rather triggering an Eureka effect. Aristotle well before Newton has already recognized the self-thinking thought being the unmoved mover, the hidden one even utmost wise. He also thought about how something can become something else inherited from his predecessors by differentiating between the potentiality and actuality. He surely was thinking meanwhile he inhabited a substance. This essay at best can suggest quirky to see the modern physics and meta-physics and its relations with else scientific fields to describe how the everlasting thinking process is in working, how can express itself via a medium being both non-physical and physical even so simultaneously existing factually timeless but variable. The author encourages a new perspective namely interconnecting philosophy of physics and philosophy of mind, as a physics of thought and boosts a realistic cosmology seeing us as the BIG PICTURE of Universe interwoven a Cosmic MAN during his own thinking and acts.
Author BioI'm a quite technical woman with almost 35 years' work experiences on several of IT fields, cross platform web application development, consultancy, and educations. I have a programmer mathematician BSC level degree also middle grade degree in chemistry. Along with my quite average existence and works, I spent parallel many years on behind scenes personal scrutiny. Based on my own consciousness development, learning path, and the collective information which heavily emerged from behind the scenes in the past 25 years I concluded, our timeless knowledge probably converging in the NOW, thus I wrote this essay hoping the right moment.
Download Essay PDF File
view post as summary
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Valeria
I really enjoyed your reasonable (i.e.) well-reasoned essay. You tend to steer the reader into a solipsist moebius strip world reflected between parallel mirrors - trying to decided first the nature of reality and what to do about things (if there are things). If one of those delightful creatures you drew in the nested worlds of your illustration should look up to see a pot of geraniums hurtling directly down on his or her or its head, should he or she or it run away fast or conduct a thought experiment about gravity and the possibilities of its being a simulated pot of geraniums? What would
The Brain That Wouldn't Die do?
With best wishes from (I think)
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 20:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir (I think :)
Thank you for your comment.
Let me apologize, but I won't watch this addressed film. I mentioned in my essay I found uncanny the idea someone's brain could be downloaded to a body either artificial or transplanted to one whose body is somebody else.
I can agree however the continuity one's thoughts with development.
What I drew in my illustration is one's thoughts development during several incarnations (the latter is unscientific term yet, albeit the present modern physics e.g string theory, M-theory can quite well describe) of which memories are folded into light bodies which are factually wave-fields.
The so called actual genetic make-up e.g one's physical, biologically arranged body (see: The Body Electric - Electromagnetism and a foundation of Life by Robert O. Becker M.D, Gary Selden) need to fit to express what his actual (Levels of Energy - An introduction to spectral consciousness by Frederick E. Dodson) can read as one's approachable memories held in those wave-fields e.g. Light bodies.
I suggest studying too, Gariaev's work about wave genetics.
I think, one's only brain conserved is not enough to hold him/her alive or at least only a portion of his/her knowledge should be getting back, without conserving his/her full genetic and also etheric memory complex. Even more his/her bodily resurrection requires very careful genetic technology.
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 05:14 GMT
You are welcome Gyenge
I watched that film when I was a kid and saw it again yesterday it is a crude concept of what life and mind consist of, compared to modern thinking. You test various scenarios about the evolution of humans or computers or an amalgam of both to reach some state of intelligence that can cope efficiently with life on earth. At least you do not advise leaving Earth, as many do to start life on some other planet or star, merely transplanting our possible stupid mistakes somewhere else.
I will look at the researchers you mentioned, but in my remaining life on Earth I would rather smell some real roses (whether they are a simulation or not) and leave to more specialised researchers like you the larger questions of what is real, how resurrection can be achieved by technology (not just by mothers and other organism continuing the species) and related questions.
Vladimir (I am almost sure now)
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 16:16 GMT
Dear Ms.Gyenge,
I must congratulate you for you have written a really terrific essay.
As I have pointed out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, only unique exists. The computers rely on the existence of seeming identical states existing. Whereas it might appear that the more “intelligent” an artificial “intelligence contraption becomes, the less “intelligent” real human intelligence must decline, this is an aberration. Unique is not measurable.
I think that a gang of modern super active Luddites will soon start dismantling technology backed by religious governance.
I do wish you well in the contest,
Joe
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear Joe!
Thank you for your comment.
I agree, the existence is unique!
However as per my understanding the 'reality' can be seen and apprehended severally. I'm lucky, because my language (Hungarian) distinguishes two words concerning 'realitás = should mean things being in actuality' and 'valóság = what should mean ISness'. So the latter most closed to similar meaning in English as existence.
I think, you are right again today computers rely on mimicking processes how natural beings with higher cognitive functions process information by their thinking about their reality. Nowadays computer technology can be speeded up using silicon instead of carbon so beings seem should be replaceable silicon based too.
I think, surely there are positive considerations why should be better a silicon based biology than carbon. For example, what a quite sophisticate quantum governor computer that misses all natural human factor presumably won't never do - error! However, all human development based on errors to repair! How to develop forward for an utmost quantum society? How boring should that be eventually.
Probably, religious aspects also involved :)
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Ms.Gyenge,
As I tried to point out in my essay, the biggest hindrance to understanding reality is the English language. Unique reality cannot be tensed, or possibly be durational, or be systematic. Yet the English word reality presupposes that there could be an opposite state of unreality that could exist simultaneously with reality. Worse, arrogant scientists somewhat smugly insist that they can accurately measure, or identify both of these supposed opposite states of reality and unreality.
Unique reality has no starting point. Any device that attempts to produce a simulated reality identical to real reality is doomed to failure because it has to have a starting point. The brain in the bottle would have to “start” thinking. It would also have to know the supposed difference between rational and irrational thoughts. All human thoughts are unique. Those thoughts are neither rational or irrational. One seems to spend as much of one’s brainpower activating the scratching of one’s backside when it itches as one does in trying to understand the government’s policy on immigration.
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear Joe!
I feel some misunderstanding your mentioned 'UNIQUE reality' interpretation.
In English the word 'unique' as an adjective has 4 meanings
1.Radically distinctive and without equal
2.(followed by 'to') applying exclusively to a given category, condition or locality
3.The single one of its kind
4.Highly unusual or rare but not the single instance
To which meaning of 4 do you refer to?
As a noun from which unique deriving from is 'uniqueness' what means > The quality of being one of a kind
What kind of quality of being do you refer to?
The noun 'reality' also has 4 meanings.
1.All of your experiences that determine how things appear to you
2.The state of being actual or real
3.The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be
4.The quality possessed by something that is real
To which meaning of 4 do you refer to?
The existence does not come into existence. So it truly has not a starting point. But the meaning of existence really does not equal with reality. So in this manner the existence can be unique(1).
I think, also there is a misunderstanding in that a thought or the thinking can start. The thinking process continuously and unconditionally inherent thus so unique as the existence itself. The problem is nobody stated yet exactly what the thought is, that can be a kind of energy too. But that is interesting one can control thought voluntary or not. So it seemingly can be started/stopped.
You may be right, in the rest what you write, I deem to understand what you wish to say..
Best wishes,
Valeria
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 26, 2014 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Ms.Gyenge,
As I tried to point out in my essay, the biggest hindrance to understanding reality is the English language. Unique reality cannot be tensed, or possibly be durational, or be systematic. Reality does not consist of information.
On one hand, we have a bunch of experts insisting that it has taken thousands of years for the human brain to naturally develop. And fortuitously for us, we now have a bunch of other experts with naturally developed thousands of years old brains who claim that they can manufacture a brain in next to no time and this man-made brain will be superior in all respects to any human brain ever produced by nature. This fabricated brain will only produce 100% pure reasoning and it will prove its superiority by using some sort of brand new application of the binary code. Heaven forefend if the contraption decides to communicate with us using only some part of the language that was common to the ancient city of Atlantis prior to its becoming submerged,
Joe
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 27, 2014 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Joe!
Just because I'm criticizing your used terms, that doesn't mean I disagree with you. Please reckon with:
How much manipulation should come quite resulted from the misinterpretation of meanings!I understand your mentioning the hindrance using English..quite because there is a big difference, Hungarian (some ones deem that stem from Sumerian) uses many words with much...
view entire post
Dear Joe!
Just because I'm criticizing your used terms, that doesn't mean I disagree with you. Please reckon with:
How much manipulation should come quite resulted from the misinterpretation of meanings!I understand your mentioning the hindrance using English..quite because there is a big difference, Hungarian (some ones deem that stem from Sumerian) uses many words with much simpler exact meaning, we have only simple past/present/future even more those can be blended in one complex sentence.
The UNIQUE REALITY expression however unmeaning for me either on English or Hungarian.
In my approximate understanding you refer to a UNIQUE REALITY to be an ORIGINAL WORLD WHERE BEINGS LIVE WITHOUT ANY LAW and probably THIS KIND OF REALITY DOESN'T CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION.
If you means that, I can disagree.
However, I can agree with that (if you mean so) there may be an ORIGINAL NEVER CREATED WORLD (so called MOTHER NATURE) or 0 WORLD (but that is) FILLED WITH ENERGY (and that should mean ALL kind of INFORMATION involving thought) (containing all knowledge about itself) WHICH CAN BE (systemically) ARRANGED!
Why do you think this world is the 1 and that is UNIQUE?
Why do you think the 0 is not so UNIQUE than the 1?
About brains... (Neanderthal vs. Cro-Magnon: What's the Difference? Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens Sapiens, meta human, trans-human )... that is a huge topic ...(not all bunch of experts are arrogant :) ...
"...Heaven forefend if the contraption decides to communicate with us using only some part of the language that was common to the ancient city of Atlantis prior to its becoming submerged,..."
How do you mean this?
Whom do you addresses to be 'Heaven' who have the power to prevent?
IF
What does it mean 'contraption'? Could you substitute with a similar word?
DECIDES TO COMMUNICATE with us using
(Do you think every one of us can understand the ancient Atlantean? And if not those won't be worth to live further? Let me remind you there were people before the Atlanteans and there are after them ...)
What if this can't be happen so?
I appreciate your answer
Valeria
view post as summary
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 27, 2014 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear Ms.Gyenge,
Language is a perfect meaningless abstraction. By using the words “unique” and once, I am stating as clearly as possible what reality am. Reality is neither ascribable nor is it describable. No part of unique reality is measurable for all measurements consist of supposedly identical units.
Respectfully Ms. Gyenge, it matters not in the least to me whether or not you agree with me or not. I do not consider us to be rivals. I have contacted several textbook publishing companies advising them that all of the mathematics and physics books in the world will now have to be amended to include my theory. I have emailed The White House suggesting that by only teaching perfect abstractions, the education department is doing a huge disservice to all of the students. Nothing will happen, but at least I gave it my best shot.
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 28, 2014 @ 09:59 GMT
Dear Joe!
I'm not a rival for you truly. Thanks for taking time of reading my essay and for our comments conversation.
Best for you,
Valeria
hide replies
Author Gyenge Valeria wrote on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 10:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir!
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, you understand my essay concept well. I'm truly glad! Because, if there may be an only person who understand, it is worth to write down. I truly hope my essay can act at least as a catalyst leading us for bringing optimally balanced decisions sustaining our original human life form on Earth.
Yes, I think there is 'only Planet', at least we do not understand yet what a planet should mean as a coherent life supporting system at severally structured levels. Buckmister Fuller worked hard and you surely heard about his famous concept 'Spaceship Earth'.
I deeply sympathize with your thought about smelling some rose either or ... even more I'd like only enjoy and appreciate the ISness :)) However if we suppose there is a kind of life program running yet (we should name pre-destination and incarnations reaching a proper self-identity) I'm afraid of we cannot so simply escape as pushing a button on a computer...
I will continue this post on your essay site, because I deem it best appropriate for putting that there.
Thank you for your understanding.
Valeria
Anselm Smidt wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 17:25 GMT
Eine Frage, sollte eine potenzielle Straße zu folgen.
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Anselm!
Thank you for your comment.
(I don't understand German unfortunately, but I translated it)
Kind regards,
Valeria
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Valeria.
I read with interest your profound essay. I think it is very important for the development of artificial intelligence. I note especially your conclusion :
«The man is a complex universal structure of being who has an inherent capability to conceptualize his both non-physical and physical structure and all possible changes of his structure even he can direct his path what to do with his knowledge, thus equipped to create. "
"Structure" - a key concept. About understanding well said Gregory Gutner "Event held in grasping structure means understanding" (G.Gutner
Ontology mathematical discourse)
Overcoming the «crisis of understanding» is possible only when the would be able to "grab " the fundamental structure of Reality, the fundamental structure of the Universe. Overview for secure management of the Future -
Freedom,
Faith,
Hope,
Love.
I wish you success in the contest and research!
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 11:58 GMT
Dear Vladimir!
Thank you for reading my essay and your profound admiration.
I will be looking after and examination of your essay too, and the given links.
I wish, all of us being in success achieving the real goal behind for which this essay contest invited us taking our mutual effort in sharing our thoughts in this very essential and crucial moment in the NOW!
Kind regards,
Valeria
Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:36 GMT
Valeria,
I am having difficulty understanding your message, so please let me know if your message is any of the following:
What I see as real,is reality for me; what you see as being real, is reality for you. Because you and I are different people, we see reality differently from each other and everyone else.
It is impossible to simulate what to do and who should do it simply because Reality is different for different people.
Am I understanding your message?
Thank you,
- Ajay
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 12:41 GMT
Dear Ajay!
Thank you fro reading my essay.
Actually, you truly do not understand my message.
In a nut shell: I distinguish two states about the 'Reality'. I suppose there is an 'Original reality' as an unconditionally given existence, may be called 'Natural order of things'. This reality contains the stratum of all living being both material (crystals, plants, animals) also non-material kinds may be called energy, information, consciousness, thoughts etc. At the apex of existence, I suppose there is an - original naturally arranged and cosmic Man- theologians label GOD-Man. WHO is composed of all both material and non-material inside and outside of his environment. This Man as the sum total of originally not created Nature can live his life either he knows about how all inside and outside him should work. This state may be called the - non-causality - going on its own course, a non intentionally steered evolution. However, owing to this Man also has an unconditionally given inherent capability for thinking, so he is always propelled to know about his inner and outer environment. That is the phase of his self-recognition. The latter - we should call CREATION - during which one would make simulations separately running from his natural living, somehow both may be synchronized, even one can research himself with real-time. The everlasting questions is - what to do with the knowledge one gains during his self scrutiny I supposed, and suggested a model how one (on solipsistic simulation way) could do researches with very himself, and how else ones might be involved unintentionally. Even, I gave a kind of else simulation technology where a team might be involved. I pointed out those simulation technologies not necessarily based on contemporary computer technology, and of what basics for our present us is not yet completely apprehended, but our recent technologies should exceed the original conception.
You are right in that, "...we see reality differently from each other and everyone else...". However did you ever think; - You may be seeing a reality by your present focus which is a holographic projection of One who is actually researching about himself in several kind of roles and even information, thoughts, energy configurations, simultaneously being been some sort of material, genetic assortment and assemblage, a very separate real you even so a thread part of same self? I'd liken this watching several movies in a theater where there is only producer and actor in several roles and behind scenes, and his goal to decide - Whether what is worth to steer intentionally and how? Don't you put this question sometimes in your present personal life too?
Did you see Matrix? Did you see, how Star Trek Holodeck can work?
In my essay, I did not state anything being a truth! I only, examined a thought experiment, giving a probability question it is worth considering.
I've not read over yet your essay but reading the abstract it seems me you advocates scientific development. So, I suppose you may be interesting further reading over some links regarding this possible creational technologies.
The first one can give strong scientific answers to: As how many-worlds of thoughts real(M) alternate and can even so interconnect cyclically giving rebirth and reinterpreting the thoughts regarding to same theme but looking for a different but possible coherent view.
What is the multiverse, and what is its significance? Lord Martin Rees: 'We May Be Living Inside A Computer Simulation' - Wait, What? Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? Historical Simulations and the Future of the Historical Narrative Historical Simulations - Motivational, Ethical and Legal IssuesAll is basically for to understand how the thinking process is working, and how it can express itself through a substantial medium being been both solid, material, physical, genetically coded, stored in a body and simultaneously living non-material, non-physical as the latter attributed to consciousness.
The real question and MESSAGE however behind being put for my essay - Whether is the unconditional naturally given body implicating consciousness at manifold levels enough for us to grasp our everlasting existence or we need expand it toward for getting or creating a 'better us' resulting which consequences or risk? Which kind of technologies are applied for it or need to be? And who and why implement those with which kind of responsibility? Just that are under question, but not in far future or past, much rather all thoughts and several of manifestations both are realistically living in just right in time and space simultaneously in the now.
Kind regards,
Valeria
Michael Allan wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 10:58 GMT
Hi Valeria,
I've a question, please. Unfortunately I can't evaluate your essay (cannot rate it) because it lost too much in the translation. The title and abstract are ungrammatical and I'm unable to parse them; they make no sense in English. The essay body is better in places, but still I could not understand your overall thesis. Only once did I understand (I think) one of your claims, and this is where I have a question or two.
You claim (page 4) that the answer to the question "how to steer" depends on whether we are "(1) original, (2) simulated, [or] mere (3) illusion", with the difference between 1 and 2 being especially important. Here I picture something like a computer simulation with people as
artificial beings (2) in an artificial universe, while the external builders/users of the computer are
natural beings (1) in a natural universe. You claim that we should figure out whether we're the natural ones ("originals") or the artificial ones ("simulated") because this difference matters. Do I understand you on this point?
Mike
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 11:45 GMT
Dear Mike!
Thank you taking effort for reading my essay.
Do you mean, you are trying to translate my essay from English to ? language, but the translator can not translate because my written English grammar errors?
Regarding to your question, my answer is you understand the point well.
Kind regards,
Valeria
Michael Allan replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 19:04 GMT
You're welcome Valeria, I only wish I could read it with better understanding, as it deserves.
I'm sorry nobody told you earlier, but your English is difficult to read. I was thinking you originally wrote the essay in Hungarian and translated it, and that's why I spoke of translation. But maybe it's just grammar errors. Your English is good enough that I can understand you in dialogue (here in the forum), but the essay is generally more difficult, and the abstract and title are worse still; they don't make sense.
Thanks for answering about originals vs. simulated. I suspect our best strategy is to continue to assume that we're natural ("originals") and try to steer the future accordingly without worrying too much about the possibility that we're artificial ("simulated"). I want to learn why you think otherwise, so I have some more questions. Do you agree that beings (like us) cannot ever learn that they're natural
beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, the only truth they could learn with any confidence is that they're artificial ("simulated"), right?
Mike
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 21:07 GMT
Dear Mike!
1. Thank you for your explanation about my English. Yes, that is not my native language, but I never use translators. Sometimes I make errors, (mainly using singular and plural, + mixing tenses) when I'm just thinking in English not in Hungarian, due to the two languages has many grammar differences and interpretation of meanings. (I mentioned that lengthy on Joe Fisher's page,...
view entire post
Dear Mike!
1. Thank you for your explanation about my English. Yes, that is not my native language, but I never use translators. Sometimes I make errors, (mainly using singular and plural, + mixing tenses) when I'm just thinking in English not in Hungarian, due to the two languages has many grammar differences and interpretation of meanings. (I mentioned that lengthy on Joe Fisher's page, because it was relevant giving him an explanation about my understanding of the meaning of his Reality Once - how much differences could be because of the two languages.)
My essay moreover is written on same English what I'm using in dialogue. But, that is true and I accept your criticism:
- The title is truly a bit periphrastic, but that is advisedly construed so. (See below)
- The abstract truly doesn't regard to what the body content mentions. The latter is because there was only 9 pages given, but my matter in my mind about the theme was much more. So, I thought to shrunk the most important messages to the abstract and the thought-leading parts to the body.
- My essay body content also was not quite unfolding to properly connect with the matter of abstract. I truly think missing the crown of the physics of thought or at least its reconciliation with a re-considered philosophy being the utmost underlying ideological framework describing nature, society, and generally the most principal all-pervasive laws of the thinking process, what our contemporary theoretical physics almost quite well is trying to figure out. However, in connection with the message of your essay I can also agree, surely there is a need for a grounded consensus as being been ordinary humans (light speed limited ones :) to concur all of our knowledge describable with much simpler terms being been understandable, comprehensible for anyone. (For example as the notion philosophy exerts a [Latin-Greek: 'Philo' = (in composition) partake in, savant + 'Sophia' = wisdom of life]
2. Regarding to your questions:
At first, I do not think we have been already 'artificial creatures' in the strong sense, but we would become in the near future by our own made creational technologies overcoming our natural boundaries. However, I think we may be in a situation at present what we cannot yet fully understand and figure out - more concretely phrased: WHAT IS CREATED WHAT IS NOT! WHO DOES TRULY CREATE WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY! So we are yet in a constant doubt about our God-like capabilities: Who we really are, from where we come. My essay title was quite advisedly written so complicated. But, the title tries to mean in brief what the essay body unfolds: Whether someone(s) (probably quite natural humans, but with an advanced knowledge about the Nature and its interrelation with thoughts about it) had already created 'a special kind of original simulation' which is factually a thought (or thinking/learning trial how to steer what is desirable) experiment, a consciousness (i.e. subtle energy bodies) engineering (what our present theoretical physics can already almost well describe), and that presently not yet understood ' original simulation' is able transform one(s)' (as his/their self likeness) and our genes (also involved due to an unfortunate mixing) from/into an until naturally gained body forms through a process of reincarnation (the latter has been until an unscientific term). That is the question of my essay whether need they - who need to understand being been their own fragmented or gathered likeness by this process - overcome themselves and us creating artificial bodies?
(Read more about above my given answer to Ajay Bhatla)
And see my answer here given to your question put for me on your essay page:
"2.4 You warn we might in future develop artificial beings more intelligent than we, but less moral. They'd undermine the steering practice by rejecting the moral theory and instead enslaving us, or destroying us. Do I understand you?
Why would they reject the moral theory? What possible reason could they give?"
There may be much. However, it seems almost sure that the artificial beings come into existence by human creation at first. There may be humans rejecting the moral theory using artificial means for supremacy purposes. As a consequence their creatures as their artificial likeness may also reject the moral laws not only for enslaving or destroying us, but eventually themselves. (See: Terminator film series, and I also suggest to watch Eureka TV series mainly season 5. The latter is more closed to our present human understanding.)
I hope you could better understand messages written in my essay.
Kind regards,
Valeria
view post as summary
Michael Allan replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 20:05 GMT
Thanks for explaining so patiently, Valeria. There's still much that I don't understand, but I assume that's because of the language barrier. Your essay deserves a better score and I'll be rating it (along with the others on my
review list) some time between now and May 30. Thanks again for reviewing my own essay. All the best, and bye for now, - Mike
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 12:51 GMT
Dear Mike!
Thank you for adding me to your review list.
All the best for you, too. Bye - Valeria
hide replies
Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 07:57 GMT
Hello Gyenge ~
You ask “What is the best state that humanity can realistically achieve?”
As I say in my essay “How Should Humanity Steer the Future” by Margriet O’Regan, evolutionary biology is crystal clear on the matter. If we obey nature’s laws to the letter – one of which is ‘female centrality’ (see my essay) – we will achieve this universe’s highest existential plane, which is that state of existence in which we thrive but do so without inflicting any waste, loss or damage on anything or anyone else including ourselves as a species – in short we live in perfect harmony with ourselves & all the rest of creation.
Cognition & consciousness are both features of evolving life & in us have evolved to the point where we can know not only that we are destined to be nature’s crowning work but also exactly how to achieve that state.
As ‘information’ is one of my other favourite topics I also entered last Fall’s 2013 FQXi’s essay competition “It From Bit or Bit from It” in which I claimed to have discovered exactly what ‘information’ is as a phenomenon in its own right, & not just what any of it ‘says’ or ‘means’. My discovery of ‘information’s’ true ontological status (& it is not ‘bits’ & ‘bytes’ – any amount or configuration of them or regardless of what is ‘crunching’ them up as abstract numbers (computers are just glorified, fully automated abacuses!!)) – led me to some very interesting & very compelling conclusions.
I enjoyed your essay,
Margriet.
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Margriet!
Thank you for your very thoughtful and being agreeable to my views comment.
I will read your works with admiration.
Kind regards,
Valeria
Don Limuti wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi Gyenge,
I find your essay very interesting and foundational. There are no other essays that go into the nature of human thought and how it is fundamental to how we can even make any sense of what it means to steer the future.
Thanks for your contribution,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear Don!
Thank you for your respect and a high score given me supposedly by you.
Unfortunately, the 9 pages for this essay were not quite enough to properly unfold that matter what I wished to draw to our attention.
I lack, and think we are tending to put the crown of the physics of thought or at least its reconciliation with a re-considered philosophy being the utmost...
view entire post
Dear Don!
Thank you for your respect and a high score given me supposedly by you.
Unfortunately, the 9 pages for this essay were not quite enough to properly unfold that matter what I wished to draw to our attention.
I lack, and think we are tending to put the crown of the physics of thought or at least its reconciliation with a re-considered philosophy being the utmost underlying ideological framework describing nature, society, and generally the most principal all-pervasive laws of the thinking process, what our contemporary theoretical physics almost quite well is trying to figure out.
I keep, - thoughts - are the utmost capability for the MAN! The thought is energy and information (on many structured levels, even our emotions, deep senses are as much thoughts we are able to consciously formulate into being been intellectually aware, we should say a man is composed of his thoughts and his way for living in healthy organism and organization keeping his thoughts both intellectually and emotionally balanced. ) which allows us to create, to materialize around us our ideas, desires, will etc., independently from the existence exists in any kind of form we can conceive about it. The thoughts are both local and non-local and exist neither in time and space and as much as the existence exists. So, the comprehension and examining of our thoughts are what makes us to be a higher order being.
I'm not a physicist at all, however I can deem from what the contemporary physics tries to speak of.
I hold, neither the spirit or mind nor its vehicle (i.e. the genetically arranged material physical one) through which the consciousness can express itself are more important. Neither is over each other but may be balanced. We would already understand much putting our thoughts into a contemporary right context of theoretical physics of space time and time space frameworks as experienced/researched memory patterns lived out in several fragment parts of same self or selves involved, and as far as unfolding M-theory tries to explain as an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as 7 higher-dimensions plus the 4 common dimensions (11D st = 7 hd + 4D)(The latter phrasing needs some correction yet, I feel so)
What I drew in my illustration is one's thoughts development during several incarnations (the latter is unscientific term yet,) of which memories are folded into light bodies which are factually wave-fields. The so called actual genetic make-up i.e. one's physical, biologically arranged body (see: The Body Electric - Electromagnetism and a foundation of Life by Robert O. Becker M.D, Gary Selden) need to fit to express what his actual (Levels of Energy - An introduction to spectral consciousness by Frederick E. Dodson) can read as one's approachable memories held in those wave-fields e.g. Light bodies.
In connection with the message of your essay ( I' haven't read over yet with perusal only its abstract) I can agree preliminarily, surely there is a need for a proper education system to concur all of our knowledge and 'how to use our thoughts' describable with much simpler terms being been understandable, comprehensible for anyone. (i.e. the notion philosophy exerts a [Latin-Greek: 'Philo' = (in composition) partake in, savant + 'Sophia' = wisdom of life])
Kind regards,
Valeria
view post as summary
Aaron M. Feeney wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Valeria,
Thank you for your post on my page. I was aware of most of that material, but it was nice to get the transcript for one of the interviews. You are the only person here who has mentioned anything "off the beaten path" in relation to my work.
Your paper is quite amazing in it scope. I like the areas you explore. I think you will really like Lawrence B. Crowell's paper, "Duality in Cosmology and the Limits to the Acquisition of Information," as it discusses in great detail what would be required in order to simulate our world as we find it. He argues very effectively that we will soon be able to mathematically prove that we are not in a simulation someday, if that is indeed the case.
Your work is a valuable contribution and I have rated it highly. Best wishes to you.
Warmly,
Aaron
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Aaron!
Thank you for your respect, and rating my essay with high value.
I thought, you might be aware of some of those materials :) and right, those were not included in a kind of competition such we've done here. However, those all admitted to/on a larger scale of our reality.
I basically have not a concern about the competition here, as I've answered to your comment...
view entire post
Dear Aaron!
Thank you for your respect, and rating my essay with high value.
I thought, you might be aware of some of those materials :) and right, those were not included in a kind of competition such we've done here. However, those all admitted to/on a larger scale of our reality.
I basically have not a concern about the competition here, as I've answered to your comment above here on my page. I participated only to disseminate crucial information for regards 'whose have a need to understand my messages, I hope, perhaps they will'.
I did not argue your work and its/the possible importance of (and I'm curious whether there is a free ebook version of your ) Understanding Future-Viewing Machines and Time Travel. I only wished to point out to that what may be dangerous and sometimes undesirable to know and want steering everything about our future. We finally would lose our humaness, Albeit as far as I mentioned in my essay, and some of posts put here, surely we need to develop a consciously steerable ability in ourselves even remaing in human, for seeing back/forth so far in our memory and examine and estimate the cause and effect of our deeds basically for not acting without cogent thinking or only based our natural insticts (only emotionally driven) in real-time. However our truly humaness lies in we are capable to decide sometimes just in time, for what any quite sophisticate AI even so based on quantum computation of predictability of all events won't be able. (If was so he/it might be quite human :) (see my comment on
REALITY, ONCE by Joe Fisher's essay)
Perhaps, this is some consideration deeply involved and may be in connection with written in Lawrence B. Crowell's paper, "Duality in Cosmology and the Limits to the Acquisition of Information,". I've not read yet, but I will. Thank you for the remark.
All the best for you, your further works and progress here and anywhere.
You can contact me at the given email in my essay at any time you wish.
Warmly too,
Valeria
view post as summary
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear Gyenge
first of all thanks a lot for your comment on my thread, you are one of the few who understand the message behind this writing..
But indeed you are also are aware that our TIMELESS KNOWLEDGE is "compressed in the Eternal NOW Moments , and that our causal prison is only one of the eternal ways of Total Simultaneity (GOD) of BEING, this only facet of the Kaleidoscopically ONE, and of course one facet is not able to reveal us the infinitely amount of beautiful images that are available.
Human thought is only a blink of the one facet I mentioned above , but we can evolve....
I appreciate your essay and rated it accordingly.
best regards
and maybe keep in touch
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 19:30 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus!
Thanks a lot for your appreciation and your high score.
Yes, I understand your message, and also what you write here about the only facet is not able to reveal the whole. However I'm aware of that too, I may be here at this present moment of the Total Simultaneity, because the two (and only two parallel exists and only the holographic one can contain many alternative facets of being and in only the latter one may exist a total simultaneity) realities convolutes in a never was so dangerous just right now moment.
I keep, and know there is not else utmost capability and power than the thought which may have no form even can contain every information and a proper shape in it. So that is a very dangerous capability for not adequately trained ones who are not fully naturally advanced humans.
Keep in touch, if you feel so. I wrote down here which presently max be enough to know for a proper decision making.
High regards,
Valeria
Petio Hristov wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Guende
We, the cosmos and all that exists are a fruit of the “idea” of the thought. On academic level it is even debated that we live in a kind of computer simulated world.
Are we an illusion? The reality that we all perceive, our physical existence and our thoughts are mere results of a dynamic, virtual processing of information.
We live in an illusion because we cannot see reality. The General theory of illusion is the always opposite of the Theory of Unity and can be expressed via the Theory of Relativity.
We at best can learn from the nature recognizing our inner outer nature its unconditional interconnectedness. To overcome the nature or conquer the cosmos should mean creating an autocratic power over us. We are connected with nature and we will learn from it. We are not above nature. The scale inflation and the scale cycle determine our life and the reactions are controlled by the idea.
I believe your essay should be rated highly.
I wish you good luck on the competition.
Regards,
Petio
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 07:57 GMT
Dear Petio!
Thank you for your comment, and your appreciation of my essay.
I think, we - our original beingness - are basically not an illusion. But some part of our consciousness how to think about our reality, what we may know about our original existence, had been advisedly engineered not necessarily with a kind of simulation of which fundamentals lie on contemporary computer technologies. We are in a very crucial moment in the JUST NOW on a culmination points of our alternative (realities) ideas to decide: Whether may we need to recall our lost knowledge gained from our natural origin if we want to keep our humanness or we would finally lose our natural origin.
I wrote much about it, on my last comments put on your essay page. I'm curious: Whether did you read it or not?
I also look forward for our mutual progress in a project which can bring together such specially dedicated scientists who are able to maintain a consensus about those ideas which are adequate for keeping our humanness and steering our fate at that stage which is desirable to steer.
I'm look forward for hearing from you and your books.
Kind regards,
---If I will be Anonymous here that is because the time elapses for typing my text, and the system will log me off. -----
Valeria (Gyenge)
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 05:55 GMT
Dear Valeria,
In relevant to your statement, 'our thoughts are mere results of a dynamic virtual information processing', I would like to emphasize that:
'Thought' is the result of real-time information process rather than virtual.
While my interpretation on your assumption, 'The light being as a pure existence not a standalone entity independent from a physical structure, but the concept which is an instant imprint about an entire physical body structure what the mind is able to apprehend at a speed of its own conceptualization instantaneously and it may be named light, or anyhow.' is explained as:
Light and ion are expressional from the eigen-rotational energy of string-matter continuum, in
ECSU paradigm.
Thus, 'thought' is the real-time process of information by the eigen-rotational energy of string-matter segments of molecules of Central Nervous System; that is unique for the higher species of living organisms.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Jayakar!
Thanks Jayakar for your comment.
You write: "'Thought' is the result of real-time information process rather than virtual." I think so too.
However, I distinguish at last two realities may co-exist. One is the original in which not necessarily exists any control system, but may be created with a kind of special technology which establishes sensing the...
view entire post
Dear Jayakar!
Thanks Jayakar for your comment.
You write: "'Thought' is the result of real-time information process rather than virtual." I think so too.
However, I distinguish at last two realities may co-exist. One is the original in which not necessarily exists any control system, but may be created with a kind of special technology which establishes sensing the reality(ies) in space time frameworks.
You write: '.. 'thought' is the real-time process of information by the eigen-rotational energy of string-matter segments of molecules of Central Nervous System; that is unique for the higher species of living organisms...";
I think, the real time thought may be naturally unique for higher living organism, but in my essay terminology: The 'eigen-rotational energy of string-matter segments' exist only in the created realities. I mean, there are created holographical matter segments of ones who are engaged on that experiments and their thoughts and bodily genetic arrangement either can eventually fit (resonate synchronic) with their original thoughts and genetic (end of simulation) or there may be several cycles in running and error correction systems for achieving of a termination of the process (a.k.a. reach the proper self ['eigen'] identities)
I feel, the problem is truly what you mentioned in your essay, the sequential feedback loops (thinking in linear time and only the negative back-coupling) for the projected identities are not enough for error correction to gather their likeness and to vibrate the original body(ies) with the several of alternating string-matter segments to get the original him/their back.
The bigger problem and danger is, the natural original humans were not originally involved and planned to partake in such kind of experiment, however their energetics and consciousness also had been disturbed, and later quite intentionally distorted!
I feel your work quite important, so I rated your essay high.
I glanced over your site, and I'd be glad if you could give an email address in spite of the contact form on your site. My one is in my essay.
Kind regards,
Valeria
view post as summary
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.