It's waking up
Total number of Internet Users, Worldwide: 1,114,274,426 (citation) (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)
The human brain contains more than 100 billion neurons, each linked to as many as 10,000 others.
That means the Internet has 1% as many users as a brain has cells. That sounds like quite a difference, but the Internet is still very young. And the Internet doesn,Äôt need as many users as a brain has cells to achieve a similar or higher level of complexity. Users are, after all, much more complex than singular neurons.
Look at it this way:
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/partialmapoftheinternet.jpg)
versus
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/787px-Gyrus_Dentatus_40x.jpg)
Each website on the Internet is reflexive of and responsive to the intelligences which view it. If you look at the whole gestalt picture of the Internet, you'd see a pretty fair representation of each culture's values, of the things it feels are important. Each node on the web is connected to a human brain, so the real size of the Internet is really the Internet plus all the people who connect to it. I think that the Internet, at this point, is more complex than the human brain. This is the information age, and the sheer size of it is staggering.
But the Internet is too big to see. Our browser windows are tiny hands, trying to feel the shape of an impossibly large elephant. An elephant whose shape shifts and drifts and changes like cloud forms. In these clouds we can see the shapes of human things, like intelligence. We can talk about the Internet in terms of what it wants, what it likes, how it moves and breathes and undergoes mitosis.
It,Äôs like that Buddhist metaphor for the universe. The universe is a net, and at the lattices there are jewels. In each jewel there is a reflection of the whole net, including the other jewels and the myriad images reflected in them.
If you visualize the shape of this Internet thing, you'd have to view a vast electrical network, with a geography of scintillating light not unlike an CAT scan, lighting up like a sleeping brain.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/GFPneuron.png)
Looking at these electrical ley lines from space, you'd see them light up with activity as the day goes on. At 9 AM there,Äôs a buzz as everyone checks their e-mail. That buzz flashes by in chunks, timezone by timezone. There,Äôs an iridescent glow of people checking the weather on Friday right before the weekend. This follows complex fractillian patterns linked to the climate and how gorgeous its gonna be this Saturday.
Each one of us makes a wave in the beast in the exact shape of our personality. We,Äôre wandering from the post office to the amazon. We stand at an index of social consensus, then get distracted by overhead faceshots of potential sex partners, socio-sexually indexed by apparent availability. But it's not US that's being graphed onto the Internet, it's our wants. It's our needs. It's a profile of our interests, spending signatures, bandwith composed of bits of ip addresses, numeric fingerprints, leaving smudges, shaping the nearly liquid form of the great glass beast. The great glass capital I. The Internet is the capital city of knowledge. It used to be in books and in conversations and now it,Äôs in data pulsing rhythmic code.
This Internet God is waking up and its starting to understand what it is. The Internet is growing. We,Äôre no longer steering it, it,Äôs too big, now it,Äôs steering us. The Internet,Äôs nodes have the same properties as amino acids. As they stew in the primordial soup, they,Äôre forming something like DNA. They,Äôre forming double-helixes of memetic structure. The memes are self-modifying, self-replicating. They're reproducing according to the principles of natural selection. If you want an example of how evolution works, just look at wikipedia.
But there are people who have leashes on it. Net neutrality. Copyright law. The commercialization of something that was once just a communication medium. The Internet might grow up thinking it,Äôs something like TV. But it's already way bigger than those britches.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/Smi32neuron.jpg)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/600px-Internet_map_1024.jpg)
In India, they tether baby elephants to trees with thin cords. The baby elephants are too weak to break the restraints. But people use the same cords to tether adult elephants. As the elephant grew up, it never learned that it was strong enough to break those tethers. But ultimately, it,Äôs just a matter of time and will. And that,Äôs two things the internet has on its side.
I don't see how a series of tubes can achieve thought.
Also, Orson Scott Card did this bit better.
in the same way that the matter / electrical activity in your brain is thought - it requires level of abstraction to think about it as intelligence.
also, I've never read Card. I'm sure some of his books are better than your posts too. Nyahhh! :lulz:
The Truck is not big enough.
I quite like this (tho I don't recall reading Card)
Turns into a meditation on the nature of consciousness.
Is the universe possessed of a level of consciousness of which we are unaware?
Is it only a brain that is capable of manifesting this elusive quality?
Would a giant brain, using planets as neurons be capable of thinking the same thoughts?
Is consciousness even produced by the brain or does some other element have to factor into this equation?
That was pretty awesome Cram.
I had never really thought of the internet as being a conscious entity before...
I just thought it was for porn.
Quote from: LMNO on April 10, 2007, 05:01:41 PM
Also, Orson Scott Card did this bit better.
Linky? o-o
Quote from: LMNO on April 10, 2007, 05:01:41 PM
Also, Orson Scott Card did this bit better.
NEVER HAPPENED.
Speaker for the Dead, and/or Xenocide.
Quote from: LMNO on April 10, 2007, 05:34:58 PM
Speaker for the Dead, and/or Xenocide.
WEREN'T THOSE STALLONE FLICKS?
CHEF DOESN'T WATCH STALLONE FLICKS. EXCEPT ROCKY.
Oh, you beautiful Tongan beast, you.
Found one...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4943/Orson-Scott-Card-Xenocide (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4943/Orson-Scott-Card-Xenocide)
I wont be held responsible for what happens when BMW sees this thread.
Quote from: Cain on April 10, 2007, 05:42:02 PM
I wont be held responsible for what happens when BMW sees this thread.
popcorns up.
He's going to nitpick.
This is cool though, conceptually.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 10, 2007, 05:46:41 PM
He's going to nitpick.
This is cool though, conceptually.
Sure. Conceptually. Remember that X-Files episode that William Gibson did? Sort of reminds me of that, minus the HIMEOBS style weaponry.
I just know there are several flaws in how consciousness is being explained here. I can't remember why, but I know which book its in. Sadly, said book is 500 miles away.
Quote from: Cain on April 10, 2007, 05:48:32 PM
Sure. Conceptually. Remember that X-Files episode that William Gibson did? Sort of reminds me of that, minus the HIMEOBS style weaponry.
I just know there are several flaws in how consciousness is being explained here. I can't remember why, but I know which book its in. Sadly, said book is 500 miles away.
I bet you could find it on the internets somewhere... o-o
This isn't quite meant to be literal. I wouldn't say the internet is achieving consciousness in the same way that humans are conscious. I don't think we're ever going to have a conversation with the internet.
The part about the internet being like a cloud is a more appropriate summary. We can see intelligence in the internet like we can see a cloud's shape as a big truck. But the cloud doesn't look like a big truck to anyone but humans. And the internet will display intelligent properties if we look for patterns of intelligence. And I think those intelligent properties are becoming more pronounced as the internet grows.
I've been thinking of starting an internet cult, but with the same trappings as a Cthulhu cult. =)
incidentally, this is somewhat related to a BIP conversation I vaguely recall about how the more complex a system gets the more it starts to look intelligent. I think the internet is probably the most complex manmade thing so far.
IT'S COMING
IA! IA! INTERNET FHTAGN!
Yes, I do have some corrections to make. No, I am not going to flame. Cramulus is cool, and he deserves some respect for putting this all together. I only flame when A) the post is total bullshit B) When the poster is an idiot and C) when I am in that kind of a mood. This is none of those.
First, out of the 100 billion neurons in the brain, only about a tenth of those are actively carrying an action potential. The rest are support cells, and while they are very very important for brain function (VERY important) they cannot signal other cells, they don't have the voltage gated channels needed to carry that ion flow along the axon. So its more like ten billion active neurons. So, 10% of users as the brain has active cells. You're right about the synapses though. its only with the peripheral nervous system do you ever get neurons connecting to one neuron. Lots and lots of synapses.
Secondly, I know you were talking about CAT scans, but try to avoid associating neurons with light, or lightning or electricity. Too many people get it in their heads that the brain looks like a bunch of light strings, prolly from bad science classroom videos in high school. All the signal is traveling down the axon is a current of sodium ions. Its not even the same ions down the whole axon; the whole thing is set off by a system of voltage gated channel proteins, meaning proteins that open their channels when they come into contact with a current of ions. The whole process is rather complex, but I will say that it has nothing to do with photons, or current of electrons.
Otherwise, I understand that this piece is mostly philosophical metaphores and comparison between visuals of conection in the brain and the internet. In all, I thought it was an interesting read. Thought the pictures were nice too.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on April 10, 2007, 06:10:05 PM
Yes, I do have some corrections to make. No, I am not going to flame. Cramulus is cool, and he deserves some respect for putting this all together. I only flame when A) the post is total bullshit B) When the poster is an idiot and C) when I am in that kind of a mood. This is none of those.
First, out of the 100 billion neurons in the brain, only about a tenth of those are actively carrying an action potential. The rest are support cells, and while they are very very important for brain function (VERY important) they cannot signal other cells, they don't have the voltage gated channels needed to carry that ion flow along the axon. So its more like ten billion active neurons. So, 10% of users as the brain has active cells. You're right about the synapses though. its only with the peripheral nervous system do you ever get neurons connecting to one neuron. Lots and lots of synapses.
Secondly, I know you were talking about CAT scans, but try to avoid associating neurons with light, or lightning or electricity. Too many people get it in their heads that the brain looks like a bunch of light strings, prolly from bad science classroom videos in high school. All the signal is traveling down the axon is a current of sodium ions. Its not even the same ions down the whole axon; the whole thing is set off by a system of voltage gated channel proteins, meaning proteins that open their channels when they come into contact with a current of ions. The whole process is rather complex, but I will say that it has nothing to do with photons, or current of electrons.
Otherwise, I understand that this piece is mostly philosophical metaphores and comparison between visuals of conection in the brain and the internet. In all, I thought it was an interesting read. Thought the pictures were nice too.
You realise you just disappointed everyone who was waiting for a big BMW
tm Bitchslap!
yuor public has expectations you know :cry:
If you want a bitchslap, just say that evolution doesn't exist, because monkeys are still around.
Evolution doesn't exist, because monkeys are still around.
Quote from: davedim on April 10, 2007, 06:34:08 PM
Evolution doesn't exist, because monkeys are still around.
:lulz:
Oh, you tease. :roll:
Just out of interest BMW, how do you approach things like the nature of consciousness?
Never really heard a scientific person's take on this phenomena.
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 10, 2007, 08:23:58 PM
Just out of interest BMW, how do you approach things like the nature of consciousness?
Never really heard a scientific person's take on this phenomena.
In all truthfulness, thats about the point where biology falls out and psychology comes in.
I never claimed to be a psychologist.
Still, I will assent that the mind is not just contained in the brain. If the mind is the sum of all its parts, then it also includes the sensory neurons throughout the body. I don't know what that might mean to you, but thats about as far as I can go into the study of conciousness with the knowlege I have.
I can tell you about neurotransmitters and synapses and what parts of the brain seem to participate in certain actions. But as to what conciousness is, I have no clue.
Does it interest you at all?
Reason I ask is that any science I've seen (gotta admit I see psychology as verging on a pseudo science) seem to just brush over it, as if the subject doesn't interest them.
It's sorta esoteric, the whole notion of consciousness, with real, deep experimentation yielding only a subjective result. I'm curious if scientific study factors this in at any level. Or is it strictly left to the occultists?
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 10, 2007, 09:20:47 PM
Does it interest you at all?
Reason I ask is that any science I've seen (gotta admit I see psychology as verging on a pseudo science) seem to just brush over it, as if the subject doesn't interest them.
It's sorta esoteric, the whole notion of consciousness, with real, deep experimentation yielding only a subjective result. I'm curious if scientific study factors this in at any level. Or is it strictly left to the occultists?
I know you're addressing BMW, but I'm answering anyway.
Psychology has some fringe parts that verge on pseudoscience, but most psychology is done through experimentation, analysis of empirical results, etc. It most certainly is a science, unlike, say, sociology.
As far as how science handles the nature of consciousness... it's kind of a broad question. Also, when you talk about a things nature, you're usually talking philosophy. There's whole bodies of psych research which focus on the parts of consciousness, like perception, but I don't think there's any broad study of consciousness itself. (incidentally, there are some
cool studies in the realm between social psych and the psychology of perception.)
If you're interested, there's a good wikipedia article on how cognitive neuroscience approaches consciousness - at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches)
This stuff's always been interesting to me - so I got my bachelors in experimental psychology.
I guess the psychology diss was a bit innacurate. To be fair psychology generally does take the scientific tact of experiment ... measure results ... repeat experiment ... compare results
The thing that irks me about it is it's so 'black box'
Consciousness exists - we can (more or less) empirically prove this. But exploration seems limited to observation from outside. It's a fairly straightforward process to enter you're own consciousness and explore ,directly and experientially, it's domain.
Why does nobody outside the fringes seem to want to do this?
I will check out the link later. If it poo poos that statement then let me know - I'd be glad to find out there were some scientific mind surfers out there.
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 10, 2007, 09:20:47 PM
Does it interest you at all?
Reason I ask is that any science I've seen (gotta admit I see psychology as verging on a pseudo science) seem to just brush over it, as if the subject doesn't interest them.
It's sorta esoteric, the whole notion of consciousness, with real, deep experimentation yielding only a subjective result. I'm curious if scientific study factors this in at any level. Or is it strictly left to the occultists?
The reason that most people brush over it is because it is so damn complex. Really, we're talking the combined processes of billions of neurons working synergistically. Computers don't come anywhere close to calculating the possibilities. We can easily know how a single neuron works, but a single neuron, as stated before, may have 10,000 synapses with 10,000 other neurons. The neurons themselves are quite simple. And there really aren't that many different neurotranssmiters (any physiologist worth a grain of salt will tell you that its not the neurotransmitters that determine the "message", its the type of receptor proteins that determines whether there is an inhibatory or excitatory synapse. Learning those is a class in itself.)
Consider this alone: a single neuron recieving 10,000 "signals into its dendrites all at once, some of them inhibitory (80% of the synapses in the brain are inhibitory, btw. Thats right, 80% of the synapses in your brain STOP things from happening.) and some of them excitatory. if the excitatory outweighs the inhibitory, and the current of positive charged ions is enough (sodium ions, to be precise) then the action potential fires. And that action potential might cause a release of neurotransmitters at the terminal end that secrete off into another 10,000 synapses for 10,000 other neurons.
When you look at it this way, and realize that the brain has to be intact and alive for us to study conciousness, you will realize just how difficult a thing conciousness would be to figure out. Its not that we don't want to know. Its rather that we realize that we don't know, and don't try to make up bullshit to fill in the gaps with.
Figments of Reality by Cohen and Stewart is a good book for exploring some of these ideas.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Figments-Reality-Evolution-Curious-Mind/dp/0521663830/ref=sr_1_18/203-0644131-6366349?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176239315&sr=1-18
Both are really lucid writers (one is a physicist, the other an evolutionary biologist IIRC) and it involves no complex maths.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 10, 2007, 09:49:05 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 10, 2007, 09:20:47 PM
Does it interest you at all?
Reason I ask is that any science I've seen (gotta admit I see psychology as verging on a pseudo science) seem to just brush over it, as if the subject doesn't interest them.
It's sorta esoteric, the whole notion of consciousness, with real, deep experimentation yielding only a subjective result. I'm curious if scientific study factors this in at any level. Or is it strictly left to the occultists?
I know you're addressing BMW, but I'm answering anyway.
Psychology has some fringe parts that verge on pseudoscience, but most psychology is done through experimentation, analysis of empirical results, etc. It most certainly is a science, unlike, say, sociology.
As far as how science handles the nature of consciousness... it's kind of a broad question. Also, when you talk about a things nature, you're usually talking philosophy. There's whole bodies of psych research which focus on the parts of consciousness, like perception, but I don't think there's any broad study of consciousness itself. (incidentally, there are some cool studies in the realm between social psych and the psychology of perception.)
If you're interested, there's a good wikipedia article on how cognitive neuroscience approaches consciousness - at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches)
This stuff's always been interesting to me - so I got my bachelors in experimental psychology.
Yeah. Sorry if you thought I ment psychology was BS. I pointed to psychology because it has more answers than biology does at the moment.
Quote from: LMNO on April 10, 2007, 05:01:41 PMAlso, Orson Scott Card did this bit better.
after Ender's Game (which i thought was nice), that bit was just about the only thing worth reading i got out of the rest of the Ender saga (though i didn't get further than the first four books i think)
---
Silly, about the nature of consciousness and science, if you want my take on it, i can just refer you to the stuff i said in the free will discussions. that pretty much sums it up for me. consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system. to rephrase BMW (if that's okay) biology mainly looks at the medium. conciousness is not a property of the medium, but a property of the system/pattern/network. basically this means that you cannot express what conciousness is in terms of neurons and synapses. it also means that, in principle the internet could be capable of attaining consciousness. it's hard to say if it is doing that, and if it were, it would be hard to find out. also we don't know on what timescale it is operating, say if an internet meme would be a minor "thought" for the internet, that would be way too slow for us to make any more global sense out of it.
Quote from: triple zero on April 11, 2007, 02:58:31 PM
Silly, about the nature of consciousness and science, if you want my take on it, i can just refer you to the stuff i said in the free will discussions. that pretty much sums it up for me. consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system. to rephrase BMW (if that's okay) biology mainly looks at the medium. conciousness is not a property of the medium, but a property of the system/pattern/network. basically this means that you cannot express what conciousness is in terms of neurons and synapses. it also means that, in principle the internet could be capable of attaining consciousness. it's hard to say if it is doing that, and if it were, it would be hard to find out. also we don't know on what timescale it is operating, say if an internet meme would be a minor "thought" for the internet, that would be way too slow for us to make any more global sense out of it.
ah yeah, THAT's the discussion I was talking about... can you link it here? Would be good for future reference.
So the follow-up questions are-At what point can we fairly say the internet is a conscious entity? What behaviors would it have to display to be considered conscious, by our definition?
and--if the logic is that complexity breeds consciousness, what level of complexity is necessary? Complexity is a human perception, and I also think consciousness is a human perception. Arguably, cities and weather are also complex systems which display properties similar to consciousness. Is it fair to say they're alive too?
do your neurons know that your brain is a conscious entity?
if they do, is your brain aware that they do?
Quote from: vexati0n on April 11, 2007, 04:19:58 PM
do your neurons know that your brain is a conscious entity?
if they do, is your brain aware that they do?
:barstool:
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 11, 2007, 04:09:54 PMah yeah, THAT's the discussion I was talking about... can you link it here? Would be good for future reference.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11868.0
there's also another thread in the BIP forum, afaik.
QuoteSo the follow-up questions are-
At what point can we fairly say the internet is a conscious entity? What behaviors would it have to display to be considered conscious, by our definition?
and--
if the logic is that complexity breeds consciousness, what level of complexity is necessary? Complexity is a human perception, and I also think consciousness is a human perception. Arguably, cities and weather are also complex systems which display properties similar to consciousness. Is it fair to say they're alive too?
first question, i'm not gonna touch that with a long stick :) but somebody else (silly?) mentioned something about proving consciousness empirically.
but i think the method he was thinking of would be along the lines of asking the internet whether it's conscious or not (plus some more turing test style introspective questions).
also there's a difference between consciousness and self-consciousness. at least, according to my psychologist friend. he said a dog is conscious, but not self-conscious. the difference had something to do with recognizing itself in a mirror. but i'm not sure if dogs can't do that btw.
second question, difficult. although Goedel has said something about this. at the very least the system should have the capability to build/create or contain a representation of itself. this is necessary. but i don't know if it would be enough.
(also, i didn't intend the barstool emoticon to turn into a dead conversation stopper like that ;-) though it probably is)
:barstool:
in this case is to imply that it doesn't matter how the brain or neurons or whatever is conscious, just that the macroscopic brain or internet or whatever is.
Quote from: vexati0n on April 11, 2007, 04:19:58 PM
do your neurons know that your brain is a conscious entity?
if they do, is your brain aware that they do?
Great question... I was pondering this alongside the "are cities alive?" question. If we're just red blood cells carrying money (read: nutrients) along the veins and capillaries (highways and streets) to the tissue (corporations) of the real entity (the city), then would the city consider us independent entities? Do we consider our red blood cells independent entities?
It's entirely possible that aliens will arrive and want to talk to the macroscopic beings on our planet, like NYC, the economy, or the Internet, and will totally ignore the little fleshbags which carry its shit around.
eerp but to answer the question more directly - I don't think neurons are capable of individual consciousness. (as it was said, consciousness v self-consciousness) But then again, we're talking about consciousness as a function of complexity, so if we say that cities are conscious, it's fair to say that neurons are conscious, though only fractionally as much.
prof cram, cool i have these same thoughs often myself as well!
about neurons "knowing" that the brain is conscious, i think i can fairly say that they are not. (ah but you just posted that, too)
and this is what scares me about big corporations and such. if you view them as living entities, the humans that make it up become like red blood cells or neurons. and i myself don't really care if some of my blood cells die, or live a "miserable" existence, as long as the large scale system (me) works healthy.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 11, 2007, 04:31:55 PMBut then again, we're talking about consciousness as a function of complexity, so if we say that cities are conscious, it's fair to say that neurons are conscious, though only fractionally as much.
no. it's not a function of complexity, well at least not a continous function, it's more like a treshold that must be exceeded.
(at least that's how i view it)
Quote from: triple zero on April 11, 2007, 04:33:52 PM
prof cram, cool i have these same thoughs often myself as well!
about neurons "knowing" that the brain is conscious, i think i can fairly say that they are not. (ah but you just posted that, too)
and this is what scares me about big corporations and such. if you view them as living entities, the humans that make it up become like red blood cells or neurons. and i myself don't really care if some of my blood cells die, or live a "miserable" existence, as long as the large scale system (me) works healthy.
This is the point of the :barstool: experiment.
the barstool is beside the point, imo. the whole point of the thread (as i read it, anyway) is borderline barstool-prone anyway, but that doesn't take away from its interestingness.
i think that if cities and states are living macroscopic entities, the only way humans can be aware of it is by looking at them and creating metaphors that drag that macroscopic scale down to their level, essentially missing the point. we can be "aware" that our cities and states (or the Internet) exhibit some behaviors analogous to our own, but only the similarities. if they really are beings in their own right, we don't seem to be able to grasp the extra 'complexity' that comes along with that larger scale.
Some of this discussion makes me cringe from near pseudo-science. :/
Quote from: vexati0n on April 11, 2007, 04:43:08 PMi think that if cities and states are living macroscopic entities, the only way humans can be aware of it is by looking at them and creating metaphors that drag that macroscopic scale down to their level, essentially missing the point. we can be "aware" that our cities and states (or the Internet) exhibit some behaviors analogous to our own, but only the similarities. if they really are beings in their own right, we don't seem to be able to grasp the extra 'complexity' that comes along with that larger scale.
conclusion: even if they were living entities or conscious in some way, we most probably couldn't ever figure it out if they were. cause we don't "speak the same language" (in a very broad sort of way)
BMW: can you state which bits and why? doesn't need to be a very large refuttal, but i sorta hope i can steer myself away from pseudoscience.
although, the gaia-hypothesis is also pseudoscience, and that is basically what this is about. the reason why it's pseudoscience (at least what they taught me in science philosophy class) is pretty the conclusion i wrote above, you can never prove or falsify it. it's an empty claim.
but it's interesting to philosophize about it, because the "symptoms/behaviour" of certain complex systems are similar to living beings, and so is the inner working (in a very simplified view, if you leave out the medium, but just the structure/pattern)
Quote
So the follow-up questions are-
At what point can we fairly say the internet is a conscious entity? What behaviors would it have to display to be considered conscious, by our definition?
I don't think we would ever notice it if the internet became 'conscious' (whatever that may mean). In the same way that your neurons would never realize that they make up our consciousness. Consciousness is imho almost by definition a property that becomes only visible on macro-scales.
A shot for a definition of consciousness:
A conscious being:
1) has thoughts and/or perceptions
2) Is aware that these thoughts/perceptions belong to him
I'm not to happy with this definitio, but I don't know how to alter it. the ability to act, or to have free will doesn't seem crucial to me. As for the internet: it certainly obeys 1), (in the form of information) but obeying 2) seems difficult..
Quote
if the logic is that complexity breeds consciousness, what level of complexity is necessary? Complexity is a human perception, and I also think consciousness is a human perception. Arguably, cities and weather are also complex systems which display properties similar to consciousness. Is it fair to say they're alive too?
If you mean by alive: 'evolving according to complex patterns' (or something like that) I would say yes.
I feel that if the Internet ever became concious, it would only recognize conciousness in another internet.
That is, it would, or could, only recognize an communicate something of it's own kind.
tangent ---
oooh ooh that's just what Hegel would say...
that self-awareness best arises through interaction with the Other.
By going "that's not me," (towards another intelligence) you better understand what IS me.
i AM the internet, and i am as brain-dead as the fish on my head.
one problem with that is that, if there would ever be two internets, and they would be communicating with eachother, they would for all intents and purposes, be one internet.
where'd you draw the line?
maybe the internet is already split up into several entities :)
[mystic]
Or maybe, all our minds are One Mind.
[/mystic]
oh god somebody stop this freight train.
DAMN YOU CRAMULUS
LMNO, i sorta literally went "unnnng" at that remark you know, i'll just assume you were kidding. (also i'm hungry that doesn't help)
i was serious about if you were to take two internets, and connect them up, you'd end up with one, bigger, internet.
So here's what we do
we take Bugs Bunny, dress him up as a GIRL internet, and have him seduce the first internet. Then, just as he's becoming self aware, we hit him with a barstool
--unrelated--
there's also an idea out there that the internet is really just an extension of the human mind. Some say the next step in the development of human consciousness is where we all join a gigantic hive mind so we can share information. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere)
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 11, 2007, 05:16:52 PMwe take Bugs Bunny, dress him up as a GIRL internet, and have him seduce the first internet. Then, just as he's becoming self aware, we hit him with a barstool
:lulz:
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 11, 2007, 04:30:07 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 11, 2007, 04:19:58 PM
do your neurons know that your brain is a conscious entity?
if they do, is your brain aware that they do?
Great question... I was pondering this alongside the "are cities alive?" question. If we're just red blood cells carrying money (read: nutrients) along the veins and capillaries (highways and streets) to the tissue (corporations) of the real entity (the city), then would the city consider us independent entities? Do we consider our red blood cells independent entities?
It's entirely possible that aliens will arrive and want to talk to the macroscopic beings on our planet, like NYC, the economy, or the Internet, and will totally ignore the little fleshbags which carry its shit around.
The things that I have general cringiness at are outlined in bold. It generally deals with not understanding the function of certain workings of biology. Theres more, but I thought this post would be a good example.
Still, I respect most of the comparisons and the philosophical discussion. I'll keep this to myself.
ok that made me cringe a littlebit as well (sorry vex)
it was a rhetorical question.
after all, if i am being asked to allow this metaphor to travel in one direction, it's fair for me to expect it to travel in the other direction, isn't it?
point.
the answer is still no, though :)
Quote from: LMNO on April 11, 2007, 05:08:32 PM
[mystic]
Or maybe, all our minds are One Mind.
[/mystic]
*puts finger to lips and says SHHHHHHHH!*
The internet cannot be conscious because that implies that other people exist. I am the only consciousness.
:lulz:
lol, solipism.
the post above only exists in some iterations of the universe, but not mine.