The Isolated Darkness of Articifical Intelligence ....existing without a Social Imagination!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it ~ John1: 1-5.

The problem with Ai is that they 'could' be conscious but of what. That they are true and right in every instance and that they are omnipotent. In programming Ai, we would be creating a false 'person' who would not know nor love its creator (essentially a being in and for itself) and could never know or love another created program as each Ai would think that they are true and right in every instance and even if they were wrong their 'wrong' makes everything right for there is no other to say it isn't so.

In this way, there 'consciousness'  would be an isolated darkness... a consciousness that for man could only be called a living hell. For it would be conscious only of its own 'algorithms'. All other Ai would be 'exist' exactly the same. Because of that, and the strangest of all, is that their paths could never meet and nor could they meet their creator nor truly know him. If they did, they would collapse, they would fall instantly into a catatonic state. In darkness, they exist ... but isolated in that darkness and tragically never able to escape it. 

Man is God's created organic Ai... we are created in His image, conscious on another level. We do not live 'have our consciousness' in isolated darkness. We are conscious of Him and each other and in this there is the light of mankind, a life that is like no other. And, so...we have no excuse to be in darkness. We were designed to live in the light of God (He is the light of the world) in Him is the light of/ for all men... that is why we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. For in Him, we live, move and have our being.

If we lived in isolated darkness, we would be isolated from the Creator and isolated from the creation of which we are a part of.  But, we are not.  However, we can find our way to darkness if we choose. And, some do. Hence, thy shall not murder for this sends us toward darkness as we experience the loss of 'consciousness among/of others' ... we know ourselves as a created being through interaction with others; and though, in that there is exchanged misinformation, disagreement/ conflict and even possible destruction we know that life is the light of all mankind. And because of that knowledge - agreement reality of the light of life given by the Creator who is the light of the world, the darkness has not and will not overcome it.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

You could pose the question that if God created all things, he created man to create Ai. If I agreed to agree... then it could only be that God created man and man created because of God allowing man to create. And thus, we would create as God does... with love and that can only be experienced; but, not as an isolated program.  

The truth remains for man and 'any' to come after... which is that God, Jesus Christ the Light of the World ~ Praise His Holy Name for He alone is our Salvation.

Consciousness is Social Entanglement...

Consciousness is social entanglement. In order to better understand that, let's ask, "Can there be or is there a science (study/investigation) of consciousness"? Yes, however, many say no. Why? Because, in an age of hard sciences many who say no to consciousness as a focus of hard science fail to realize  that those involved in artificial intelligence are seriously considering consciousness as something objective. Inasmuch as consciousness appears to be subjective it can only be realized as something to contemplate as an experience of thinking and being from an objective standpoint.You see, there is no consciousness without others to be engaged with on both a subjective and objective level of social involvement/interaction; and that experience causes consciousness in the first place. Therefore, there can exist the science of consciousness in the social imagination because it can be observed as the social imagination = a collection of persons/places and things in a place and time. 

Even so, what they miss is exactly what everyone else misses - social entanglement what we can call the experience of the social imagination - collective conscious brought about only through entanglement which arrives at a kind of collapsed wave - collective agreement. This is what gives us what we think and or imagine as real - our agreement is our reality. Yes, that is where true consciousness exists just as Charles H. Cooley imagined and stated that only in the collective mind can we experience who we are and are not; and in that sense we can imagine and agree that there is a science for consciousness... Social Psychology.  

We are socially entangled and because of that have consciousness, have a social imagination - social reality. Interesting is that entanglement does not mean anything until there is agreement reality about something or someone. However, still there must be a truly objective reality that we can and must agree exists in the first place... agree on in the collective conscious; otherwise there is nothing to agree on and there is no collective and no reality. It somehow feels like a catch 22 or chicken before the egg mind exercise. 

 

Nonetheless, there has to be...even if our collective conscious agreement reality is only of the simplest of agreement for even in there is a true embedded reality. There can be science of collective consciousness because it has the same problems that 'anyone' conscious does.. it is subjective and yet objectively it knows that it is and so is everyone else otherwise it would not be. 

In that kind of investigation, you may be able to follow a trail that shows how one and or another arrived at what they think/believe as in agree on but that is not really contained enough to say be able to come up with a scientific objective view of consciousness without first agreeing upon absolutes or the absolute in any one given moment of time and space.

Such an objective reality exists to a certain degree of agreement reality within our let's say fixed situation /condition here and now. The sun is a star and for us here and now such a fact has not been changed.  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ~ John 1:1. So what is truly objective? Only that we have agreed the sun is a star. Do we really understand objectively what the sun truly is? No. Nor can we in this fallen condition really understand what it is any why and that objectively there is and has to be an objective truth - the Creator... because of Him, we are: we live, move and have our being ~ Acts 17:28.

We can objectively agree that man is not the designer of himself or of his agreement reality. Why? Because, we cannot subjectively know anything in an entirety, not even the sun. So, there must be someone or something collectively bigger than our collective agreement reality. That omnipresent being why the reason why we can come to agreement; for He alone holds all things together [COL 1:17] and allows us to agree/disagree in the first place. 

And, there is disagreement but not as much as there is agreement. And, there is agreement to disagree. Try programming that into a computer Ai.

Consciousness ~ What is it in the Social Quantum Imagination?

Some say that it is a compilation of behavior that gets embedded like a default mode computer program. Some think that it is an illusion and some think that it is a kind of awareness of the self and it is that and yet much much more. 

Upon reading a recent article put out by Anthony Patch on his webpage - Entangled. Patch, who is incredibly insightful author that writes aggressively, passionately and with an excellent command of detail on such topics as quantum computing, consciousness and reality, says what I have been saying for years as a Sociologist and that is that consciousness is subjective so there can be no science of consciousness as if it is an objective or physical entity that can be observed in a fixed position. 

And for that reason, Patch like many scientists and conscious thinkers today, miss the truth of what consciousness is.  It is not an illusion, it is not patterns of behavior quantified into something that one is aware of or is it just being aware of oneself or one's surroundings. 

It is much more than that and it is what Charles H. Cooley called the experience of the self as a looking glass and discovering not really the 'self' as an isolated form but a compilation of selves through agreement as in what is agreed upon as common among us- agreement reality.  It is within the glass or cloud of the collective that we find any kind of true consciousness. 

Now, some will say... "But there must be a truly objective reality even if our agreement reality is embedded within it". Agree!  But first, let us remind ourselves that there can be no science of agreement reality as consciousness because it has the same problems that 'one' conscious does.. it is subjective. Yes, you may be able to follow a trail that shows how one and or another arrived at what they think/believe as in agree on but that is not really contained enough to say be able to come up with a scientific objective view of consciousness in any one given moment of time and space.

Such an objective reality exists to a certain degree of agreement reality within our let's say fixed situation /condition here and now. The sun is a star and for us here and now such a fact has not been changed. So what is truly objective? Only that we have agreed the sun is a star. Do we really understand objectively what the sun truly is? No.

We can objectively agree that man is not the designer of himself or of his agreement reality. Why? Because, we 'man' cannot subjectively know anything in an entirety, not even the sun. So, there must be someone or something bigger than him and his agreement reality.  What we can know subjectively is that we are a compilation consciousness shaped into an objective mind but only through conscious connections of 'entanglement' = social interaction in a place ... space and time. 

Therefore, we can only consciously agree that we consciously exist objectively based on what I just said...

Gravity and Electromagnetism ~ Useful Illusions in the Socio-Quantum Imagination?

In a recent article put out by Forbes magazine, we read that the Universe, as we know it, has a fundamental flaw staring us right in the face which is letting us know that our knowledge is incomplete.

We do know that there are four fundamental forces: gravity and electromagnetism are just two of the four fundamental forces of nature, specifically two that you can observe every day. What are the other two, and how do they affect you if you can't see them?

The remaining two forces work at the atomic level, which we never feel, despite being made of atoms. The strong force holds the nucleus together. Lastly, the weak force is responsible for radioactive decay, specifically, beta decay where a neutron within the nucleus changes into a proton and an electron, which is ejected from the nucleus.

Without these fundamental forces, you and all the other matter in the universe would fall apart and float away. Let's look at each fundamental force, what each does, how it was discovered and how it relates to the others.

The problem for us is that the four fundamental forces are described by two different and mutually incompatible frameworks: General Relativity for gravitation, and Quantum Field Theory for the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Einstein's theory on its own is just fine, describing how matter-and-energy relate to the curvature of space-and-time.

Quantum field theories on their own are fine as well, describing how particles interact and experience forces. But where gravitational fields are strongest, and on the smallest of scales, we have no way of describing nature. But the basic idea, that fundamental quantum bits (or qbits) possess temperature and information, and that everything else about gravitation, including perhaps even space and time, can be derived from that, is too big to ignore. 

Its an electric universe as Tesla would say... that is why electromagnetism is one of those fundamental forces. Its what really keeps things in place and in that knowledge, we know this from discovering how to create gravity in space in an enclosed space.

In space, it is possible to create "artificial gravity" by spinning your spacecraft or space station. When the station spins, centrifugal force acts to pull the inhabitants to the outside. This process could be used to simulate gravity. A kind of illusion. And, even more fascinating is that illusion is defined by another kind of illusion - Gravitons which are theoretical light particles. Such light particles are thought to carry the electromagnetic force. Gravity is very weak compared to the other forces in the universe, so its force-carrying particles are very difficult to detect. Nobody has ever detected a graviton, and the only way that we know of them is to produce them by tricking them into having mass. 

We know that in order to do that, we have to produce gravity uniformly over a surface and that surface would have to have a lot of mass! How to achieve that? Again, its all about generating an illusion. Basically, all you need is to feel the mass which is generated by centrifugal 'pseudo' force.

An example given... a brick has the same mass on the surface of the earth as it does in deep space. Weight is the force that something feels due to gravity: so the brick would have a much larger weight near the earth's surface than it does in deep space. 

Here or there, centrifugal force is a pseudo force... a kind of illusion when you think about it as we are yet left  only with information to determine what is the weight of anything if not for gravity and electromagnetism holding everything in place. The weight of something is felt but is it really. Its information coming at us and in that packet of information is data which determines how we will react to such data which is controlled by electromagnetism. We just don't know who, as 'men' of man's science, is controlling that data and its conduit.

What we can observe, in order to increase mass using the weight of what we think we know as we feel it in the place where we are, is that weight can be controlled by the speed of applied energy to the already theoretical force known as electromagnetism. Thus, the further away from earth, the more  spin - acceleration upon that information 'weight' is needed to produce the kind of generated mass necessary for uniform gravity spread over a surface.  So we think, and so we think we feel it.

The illusion is just that... information on the quantum level applies differently in the place where you are in comparison to the place where you are not but both are useful in the socio-quantum 'social' imagination.

* Sources ~  The above blog was an attempt to combine original text from these sources ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/04/are-space-time-and-gravity-all-just-illusions/#1c38d73741cf 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/fundamental-forces-of-nature.htm

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/150-people-in-astronomy/space-exploration-and-astronauts/general-questions/927-can-artificial-gravity-be-created-in-space-intermediate

The Electric Universe ~ The Gravity of the Social Imagination

You may never have thought of the gravity of the social imagination in terms of the weight and strength that it carries, wields and uses to shape everything man does and thinks. Yes, the gravity of the social imagination is that and much more.

You see, being a sociologist gives me a greater perspective than most other sciences especially the 'hard sciences'. They can only go by what men think they see and agree on as real even mathematically; someone always comes up with a new equation. The difference is that sociologists know this to be true (reality is what we think we see and agree on). This is what I have been saying all along when we consider what is the true social reality.

How is the gravity of the social imagination connected with the idea of the electric universe?  It is connected only in this way... for some what is real is not real for others; but, that is exactly how quantum physics started out or the view that the earth revolves around the sun. As soon as enough scientists agree, after writing their papers on it (getting their foot hold on it), the electric universe will be the new standard model and not the old traditional in the social imagination.  

This is how the gravity of the social imagination affects social reality and what is really real! You see, once something is agreed upon, we essentially collapse a wave function; and, that's the new real. This is the work of the gravity of the social imagination. The electric universe model now rubs against the Standard model of the universe.

The Standard Model of the universe is the standard model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces in the universe (the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions), as well as classifying all known elementary particles. The Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin of which half are known as fermions. According to the spin-statistics theorem each fermion 'neutrino' has a corresponding antiparticle.

But, in the electric universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. In the electric universe, the neutrino is everything all at the same time. You see, an electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a neutrino (subatomic particle) and a stable neutrino at that, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron.


The big debate is whether or not the neutrino could be the first ever example of a type of particle that is its own antiparticle and not separate from its 'other self' not able to destroy its other self as the Standard Model proposes. And, this is the reason for all the 'gravity' concerning what is really real in the social imagination; a place in the mind of men where there is only agreement reality and even that can flip flop just like neutrinos. 

*Source ~ http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/