[Thomas An.]

... but I should be still existing deformed/disassebled, don't I? ...

Doubtfull, because your conscience needs to be maintained by an energy source. Your brain provides that source (Its the cumulation of all cerbral activity combined).

Once it stops (and decomposes) it is like pulling the plug.

[tom]

I meant just the existance set of "I", like the particles set. No matter in which form or having consciousness or not. In the end, this non reversible destruction wouldn't make me non-existing to other creatures still in their living forms but would make me non-existing to previous I. And the previous "I" means actual "I" for now. Maybe the time is the guilty for all this logic.

[Thomas An.]

I meant just the existance set of "I",...

Can you remember yourself (the 'I' ) before you were born ?

I think a lot of it is wishfull thinking due to our self preservation insticts ... we do not want to die or disapear ... and it is more pleasing to imagine that the "I" will somehow linger indefinately.

However, just because it sounds convenient, doesn't necessarily make it true. If we are really open, then we should be open to possibly "uncomfortable" findings as well. (uncomfortable in the sense, in the sense of unexpected solution that were not prepared for)

[Frances]

I totally buy the Big Band Theory. It's the Bing-Bang Theory I have a problem with.

Oh wait. You meant "Big Bang"...um...okay.

[tom]

Can you remember yourself (the 'I' ) before you were born ?

Absolutely no! The current universe is here because I perceive it, convince me you're existing without the help of my perceptions.

[Maxer]

Interesting. Is it then possible, in your view, that a computing device could theoretically attain what we would term consciousness?

Theoretically, yes.
More theories can be extracted from this as well.

For example: If it is theoretically possible to construct a complex enough computational system that attains consciousness, then at that point "man" has become a "creator".

Taken this to it logical generalization, we can:
- place "man" at position N (on a mathematical line)
- place "man's" creation at potition N+1
- we can also extrapolate that the N+1 consciense can theoretically produce an N+2
- working backwords, the N conscience could have been produced by an N-1 conscience and simililarly the N-1, by an N-2.

Wouldn’t an N+1 conscience be one that is fundamentally different than ours since we don't consider children N+1's. If that's true then it's values and beliefs will be vastly different than ours. At that point will our existence serve any function but to amuse that being, we will be obsolete.

[JDHill]

Theoretically, yes

That's an interesting point of view, Thomas. I think it brings a question...

If we assume N being (an advanced computing device, for this purpose) to have consciousness, that is awareness of 'self', we may conclude that it will also eventually be compelled to make similar queries to those in this thread. I would wonder though, if the programmer (N-1) had introduced bugs in the system, the perception of device N would be, by definition, unable to perceive them. And so there is a paradox: Is a machine made conscious by pure adherence to logic, categorically unable to detect deficiencies in its' own logic?

...any thoughts?

[tom]

...any thoughts?

Yes, I have thoughts. AI will remain as AI. But, the strange thing is, if the human intelligence is just the result of enough complexity then it is artificial, too.

[Thomas An.]

Can you remember yourself (the 'I' ) before you were born ?

Absolutely no! The current universe is here because I perceive it, convince me you're existing without the help of my perceptions.

The mind uses sensory to translate (map) the physical world in a virtual format in order to navigate through it.
You are confusing the "virtual" universe (say the 3d datapoints collected by your mind) with the actual universe. Then you are trying to argue that once this virtual image is gone the actual universe must be gone too.

[tom]

You are confusing the "virtual" universe (say the 3d datapoints collected by your mind) with the actual universe. Then you are trying to argue that once this virtual image is gone the actual universe must be gone too.

Strictly I'm not confusing this but you're first* assuming there is a real universe and then you invent a virtual universe. Contrary I do not assume any of them but I call my perception is my reality, it's not possible to talk beyond it, it would be dreaming then...

[tom]

Another interesting point is "dreaming" in mind and the following order:

... > Physical Universe > Perceived Universe > Dream Universe > Dreaming in dreaming Universe > ...

Which one is the reality? Easy, we all say the "Physical Universe". Why? Because it's the topmost* one and we don't know something before it. But when someone perceive this universe wrong, we say, you misperceived (perceived universe) or if someone talking about dreams we say, they are your fantasies (dream universes). However, it's not possible to find something more real than physical universe because it could be beyond our sensors. Why not?

[Thomas An.]

Theoretically, yes

That's an interesting point of view, Thomas. I think it brings a question...

If we assume N being (an advanced computing device, for this purpose) to have consciousness, that is awareness of 'self', we may conclude that it will also eventually be compelled to make similar queries to those in this thread. I would wonder though, if the programmer (N-1) had introduced bugs in the system, the perception of device N would be, by definition, unable to perceive them. And so there is a paradox: Is a machine made conscious by pure adherence to logic, categorically unable to detect deficiencies in its' own logic?

...any thoughts?

If there are bugs to the system, then it will likely degenerate and collapse. You mean the biological system (of N) or the the entire universe system ?
Eitherway ...

if there is bug, it will most likely manifest in the form of incorrect behavior. For example it is possible that we were designed to survive in harmony with nature in a sustainable way... this doesn't seem to be working ... eventhough we are capable of reason, the net effect of our behaviors is non ecologically sustainable and the system runs the danger of collapse and possible extinction. At that point the DNA bluprint code named "HomoSapiens" will have proven to be buggy, lacking sufficient operational stability and destabilizes through time.

Of course the process of nature, being iterational, will repeat and new permutations will be attempted (brute force) until a stable conscience design is attained.

[ivox3]

Another interesting point is "dreaming" in mind and the following order:

... > Physical Universe > Perceived Universe > Dream Universe > Dreaming in dreaming Universe > ...

Which one is the reality? Easy, we all say the "Physical Universe". Why? Because it's the topmost* one and we don't know something before it. But when someone perceive this universe wrong, we say, you misperceived (perceived universe) or if someone talking about dreams we say, they are your fantasies (dream universes). However, it's not possible to find something more real than physical universe because it could be beyond our sensors. Why not?

This is obvious, ..and I suspect you already know that the truth lies in the non-physical one. It is the one wiithout end. This is where we reside, ..always have and always will.

[ivox3]

Interesting. Is it then possible, in your view, that a computing device could theoretically attain what we would term consciousness?

Theoretically, yes.
More theories can be extracted from this as well.

It's not posible, ...the best you could ever do is create a very fine illusion of consciousness. The moment you design a system implies constraints with whatever algorithms you use. Conscioussness has no constraints. If you have a 'bug' in your design, ...that alone is a deal breaker. It implies there could be a predictable (non-free will) based event/action. Close, ...but no cigar. Try again please..........

[tom]

..and I suspect you already know that the truth lies in the non-physical one.

I don't know. But it's quite strange that we're like a waveform dancing between Physical universe and Dream universe. Sometimes rarely up to dreaming in Dreaming Universe Has somebody seen himself/herself dreaming in while he's already in a dream? It seems possible and probably most of us go deeper without being aware of it. Bu maybe very rarely this oscillaciton might be reaching beyond the physical universe too. (In opposite direction to dreaming universe I mean.)