OccultForum.org

I've been thinking about the prospect of industrializing magick.

Look at another field of study: movement. First humans walked, then we had the wheel, then we had boats, then engines, then planes, and now we're going to space ships.
It seems to me that magick is still at the walking level. We know there's something to be had here, but we've yet to really learn how to automate it, and move the heavy lifting from the person to a tool.
Instead of building cars to facilitate our movement, magick seems to be all about spamming books on proper walking technique, how to avoid breaking an ankle in holes, proper diet for the walking machine, etc.
It seems like we're investing all the effort into the wrong place. We're focused on the individual, but really, when it comes right down to it, there's probably a hard limit to how much a person can walk.

With magick, I think there's a hard limit to how much a person can physically train. We know that magick is based heavily in the mind, and we also know that the brain has a huge influence on consciousness.
Maybe it's time to realize that because the brain is a physical thing, there's probably a hard limit to how much it can change, and grow. Even if we assume that at least some of the factors on consciousness are non-physical, I think that if we're being honest, the brain is the biggest controller, so it's the weakest link in how good our mind gets. If you get hit in the head with a two ton brick, you're probably going to be having at least a little bit of a tough time thinking.

I think we need to stop working on walking technique, and learn how to apply our hands to some sort of new technology. We've tried very hard to walk, but in the end, we'll be long dead before we get where we want to be. We should have just built a car. I see magick the same way. By the time we can walk on water, etc., if we're honest, most of us are going to be dead. Maybe a few prodigies will make it because they run into a UFO that gives them an airlift to where they need to be, but they're just real lucky. We need to find a faster way to cross the distance.

Based on the first hermetic principle: all is mind. I find it reasonable to assume that the most important element in a magickal practice is to use your focus. Mind on mind. In my experience, the amount of focus applied to something seems to be directly correlated to the strength of a magickal effect. In fact, if you get multiple people in on a project, power seems to multiply based on the number of participants. Now, what's special about a human? Physically, they're not really any more special than a complex rock. But filling up my ritual space with rocks doesn't have the same effect as filling it up with people. We started at walking (solo practitioner), then we started walking in groups. That's like if your engine tech level is at 1, and outputs 5 power, instead of upgrading your engine tech to level 2 (5000 power), you just start building as many level one engines as possible. That's inefficient. We still haven't invented a wheel. We just have more people doing heavy lifting at once.

At the very least, I think the next step would be to learn how to make the power that people output, more easy to duplicate. We should move away from having five people in a ritual, and towards having four cameras set up, and only one magickian to coordinate them. The trouble is that a camera doesn't seem to output power in the same way a human does (even though they are basically both made out of the same unspecial matter.) Learning how to replace people would be like learning to make a wheel. From there, it would only be a few steps to being able to make an engine.

Got any ideas on how to upgrade magick to a new tech level?

Sure, upgrading yourself is cool. You can invest lots into your "energy body", work on your personality, work on your personal technique, etc. However, that's a lot like taking a generic bike, painting it with cool colors, upgrading its wheels for speed, greasing it to reduce resistance on the pedals, etc. It's still just a bike. And when your bike eventually falls apart or gets totaled after being hit with a car, you'll be wishing you had invested all that personalization time into sitting at a desk and drafting a schematic for a tank. If you've got a gun, it doesn't matter how disabled you end up later in life, because the gun is still going to work. If a magickian gets a concussion, gets paralyzed, etc., they can kiss thinking as well as any form of movement based magick good bye. That's a lot on the line. Especially when we all know our bodies are going to stop working sooner or later.

How do we move the power from ourselves, to something external? How do we make harry potter's magick wand? If a person can do magick. I so no reason why an inanimate object shouldn't be able to.
I think it's just a matter of figuring out what makes a person special, and adding it to a rock. Turn those cameras into observers.

blindwake wrote: If a person can do magick. I so no reason why an inanimate object shouldn't be able to.
I think it's just a matter of figuring out what makes a person special, and adding it to a rock. Turn those cameras into observers.

Human consciousness is vastly more complex than a rock or camera.
Magic, unlike walking, is not a physical action. It's an internal process that combines both intellect and emotions. So a machine can't do magic since it has no emotional response, even if you someday build and A.i. that is capable of achieving true human thought-patterns, it will lack that last ingredient.

And that is also the problem of massproducing magic. If you make a potion for me, you save me the time of doing it, but that potion will never have the same emotional bond to me as the ones I make myself. Buying a wand at a store will never come close to making your own. Especially not if you make one that you are actually proud of (usually your first one will be a bit of a disappointment).

A wand in a store is just a piece of wood. A wand that I've made with my own hand and times is emotionally charged to me. To you it's still just a piece of wood.

Human consciousness is vastly more complex than a rock or camera.

What is it then? Human consciousness might be more complex than a rock. But who's to say a rock isn't conscious? Is it because it can't express its consciousness?
In that case, is a completely paralyzed person with no ability to express their sense of self, but is still alive, conscious in the sensory sense, even if their mental faculties might be impaired?

Magic, unlike walking, is not a physical action. It's an internal process that combines both intellect and emotions. So a machine can't do magic since it has no emotional response

Intellect is physical. We've covered that if you get a massive concussion you won't be able to think.
Emotions are also physical. We can find the chemicals in our bodies which correlate to them. Emotions are a survival impulse. Older than complex thought.
A computer can do impulses just fine. All you need to do is have some true/false memory flags shared between separate processes. If one sets the flag, then suddenly all the other processes work on "impulse".

Unless by emotions, you mean the actual feelings, and sensory experiences, in which case, I get what you're saying.

even if you someday build and A.i. that is capable of achieving true human thought-patterns, it will lack that last ingredient.

I fail to see how a complex machine is any different than a complex brain. The only difference is that one is made out of silicon, and the other is made out of biological materials.
I see absolutely no reason why a human, because of their complexity, should be conscious in the sensory sense. At what level of complexity does a complex thing become conscious?
It's my opinion that consciousness is separate from whatever processing device it's attached to (brain, calculator, card board box, etc.)
If complexity results in consciousness, does that mean that the entirety of this planet is conscious? Earth is pretty complex.
It seems to me that the correlation between complexity and consciousness, is that consciousness is somehow attracted to the complexity. Not that it is the complexity.

And that is also the problem of massproducing magic. If you make a potion for me, you save me the time of doing it, but that potion will never have the same emotional bond to me as the ones I make myself. Buying a wand at a store will never come close to making your own. Especially not if you make one that you are actually proud of (usually your first one will be a bit of a disappointment).

A wand in a store is just a piece of wood. A wand that I've made with my own hand and times is emotionally charged to me. To you it's still just a piece of wood.

That emotional attachment is a physical reaction. The potion doesn't have to have the same emotional value as long as it contains active chemicals. Belief doesn't matter when you're drinking that potion.
Same thing with the wand. If the wand only works for you, that suggests that it's not really the wand with power, but you that are using it to focus your own power.
Still, that power has to come from somewhere. If it is your brain which affects your focus, and it is your focus which causes that power, then there is a direct link between physical mechanisms and the power.
With that in mind, it would definitely be possible to create physical machines to harness that power. However, in this case, making a physical machine might be as simple as cloning humans.

The appropriate contemporary term for "industrial magick" is "advertising."



~:Shin:~

blindwake wrote: What is it then? Human consciousness might be more complex than a rock. But who's to say a rock isn't conscious? Is it because it can't express its consciousness?
In that case, is a completely paralyzed person with no ability to express their sense of self, but is still alive, conscious in the sensory sense, even if their mental faculties might be impaired?

If I knew what human consciousness was, I wouldn't be here, I would be at the Nobel gala receiving my prize for solving the oldest riddle in the world.

Can a rock be conscious: This is the classic body/mind problem.

Yes, a rock could have a metaphysical consciousness and we would have no idea how to measure that. In some way this is animism.

No, A rock does not have a consciousness because it does not have the necessary parts, it does not have any sensory organs to receive information about the world, it does not have any nerve system to pass that information on, and it does not have any brain to understand and store this information.

A paralyzed person is either conscious or unconscious. But yes, if he was completely paralyzed, had all of his sensory-organs cut, but was still conscious he would be so because his mind is not only active but is also capable of storing memory, So he could still think and dream.

Could he do magic in a state like that. Yes
It would be really hard, but it is possible.

Magic, unlike walking, is not a physical action. It's an internal process that combines both intellect and emotions. So a machine can't do magic since it has no emotional response

I fail to see how a complex machine is any different than a complex brain. The only difference is that one is made out of silicon, and the other is made out of biological materials.
I see absolutely no reason why a human, because of their complexity, should be conscious in the sensory sense. At what level of complexity does a complex thing become conscious?
It's my opinion that consciousness is separate from whatever processing device it's attached to (brain, calculator, card board box, etc.)
If complexity results in consciousness, does that mean that the entirety of this planet is conscious? Earth is pretty complex.
It seems to me that the correlation between complexity and consciousness, is that consciousness is somehow attracted to the complexity. Not that it is the complexity.

I think you are underestimating just how amazing our brain is.
it is so much more than just a biochemical machine.

And I think you are equating awareness for consciousness. A forest can be aware, a river can feel, a tree can smell. That doesn't mean that it has a consciousness.

That doesn't mean that it's consciousness is the same as human consciousness.
A flower grows towards the sun, a piece of moss eats differently depending on what sources of food it has, a bug have a complex intellect to be able to fly. But that is nowhere near a human intellect.

And we have to remember with magic. Magic is not something everybody can do. just because you're human doesn't mean that you can do magic. Very very few actually get some useful results out of that, and even fewer of them can do it on a repeatable basis.

That emotional attachment is a physical reaction. The potion doesn't have to have the same emotional value as long as it contains active chemicals. Belief doesn't matter when you're drinking that potion.
Same thing with the wand. If the wand only works for you, that suggests that it's not really the wand with power, but you that are using it to focus your own power.
Still, that power has to come from somewhere. If it is your brain which affects your focus, and it is your focus which causes that power, then there is a direct link between physical mechanisms and the power.
With that in mind, it would definitely be possible to create physical machines to harness that power. However, in this case, making a physical machine might be as simple as cloning humans.

Magic is the effect without cause. That is why it's not science.
Magic works because it is ME who is having a emotional and physical reaction to it.
The small trace amounts of nutrition in the potion is not enough to actually heal somebody. It is the placebo effect that heals them, the belief in the potion is the catalyst.
The wand has no power of it''s own. Of course it doesn't, you can't measure it. They've tried that. If I write 'I love you' on a piece of paper that paper has no external force to it. but the person who receives it will feel very deeply about it.

There is no power. There is nothing to harness.

Although, a machine can certainly cause an emotional response in a human being. I have no idea how many times I've been mad at my computer for not doing what I want it to do.

Desecrated wrote:
Magic is the effect without cause.

Wait a minute.
This is a bullshit argument.
Of course it has a cause.

blindwake wrote: I think it's just a matter of figuring out what makes a person special, and adding it to a rock.

I don't think we understand how magic works well enough to be able to build something that produces it.

Desecrated wrote: If I write 'I love you' on a piece of paper that paper has no external force to it. but the person who receives it will feel very deeply about it.

A. If that is all magic boils down to, basically just applied psychology, why wouldn't a machine writing it on a piece of paper cause the same reaction?

b. Because it is a machine and we know that it is fake.

a. So magic only works if it is a real person doing a real action?

b. No,because we know that people lie to us and we believe them.

a. So magic is an internal process where you choose to believe something whether it's true or not?
So we should be able to make a machine that lies to us.

b. But then we know that it is lying to us, we know that it is fake, we know that it is a program. With a human being we don't always know if it is fake or not, and sometimes it is actually real.
A machine can never be real, because it is in the end a machine.

---

Having a machine light a candle for me will never cause the same effect as me having myself light a candle for me.

Shinichi,

The appropriate contemporary term for "industrial magick" is "advertising."

You might be right. That's a very interesting line of thought.

Desecrated,

If I knew what human consciousness was, I wouldn't be here, I would be at the Nobel gala receiving my prize for solving the oldest riddle in the world.

When in doubt, flip the paradigm. Instead of trying to figure out what consciousness is made of, figure out how consciousness makes up other things. If you can't get underneath it, maybe it's already at the lowest level.

No, A rock does not have a consciousness because it does not have the necessary parts, it does not have any sensory organs to receive information about the world, it does not have any nerve system to pass that information on, and it does not have any brain to understand and store this information.

You could posit that the rock is conscious of an unchanging state. I don't see how a brain storing patterns is any different than a rock storing patterns of atoms within its structure. The only meaningful difference is that a brain has a constantly changing state, so the state is meaningful in that it is dependent on what is in the outside world. The rock is unintelligent, and the human is. Both could still be aware though, and both store memory, it's just that only one can act on the memory, and only one can actively change the memory.

Side note: what if the rock isn't conscious, because it is in fact a lower component of an intelligence? You could argue that the entire world is like an intelligent entity, and that the objects within are like cells.
Maybe the rock doesn't have a nerve system because it is a part of a nerve system. Inanimate objects are, after all, great ways of transferring ideas. Advertisements work a lot like a nerve system.

And I think you are equating awareness for consciousness. A forest can be aware, a river can feel, a tree can smell. That doesn't mean that it has a consciousness.

That doesn't mean that it's consciousness is the same as human consciousness.
A flower grows towards the sun, a piece of moss eats differently depending on what sources of food it has, a bug have a complex intellect to be able to fly. But that is nowhere near a human intellect.

The problem isn't a misunderstanding, but in the difficulty of vocabulary on this subject.

I find that most dualists equate consciousness, in the sense of intelligence outside of the body, to some sort of soul.
A lot of people don't seem to make the connection that they could be aware, but not actually intelligent, or that "they" might not even be their body, but something like a camera attached to a body.
Even look at the name of one of our greatest problems: "the hard problem of consciousness" The name implies that consciousness, in the intelligence sense, is somehow necessarily tied to the experience.

If you opt to use the word "awareness", well, it's possible for something to be receiving and interpreting data in a purely mechanical sense, but not be experiencing. "Aware" can simply mean ability to detect.
Likewise, "sense", could be used in the sense that a metal detector can sense magnetic objects. That doesn't mean that the metal detector experiences anything.
With "experience", you could equate that to memory, which also doesn't have to be experiential in the hard problem sense.

For the sake of conversation, I think we can agree then, that "consciousness" refers mostly to the ability of an intelligence to be knowledgeable about its own existence.
Whereas "experience" refers to the sense of colors, sounds, etc., in the hard problem sense. I agree, a rock might experience, but it might not be conscious.

Sentience does not equal consciousness.

And we have to remember with magic. Magic is not something everybody can do. just because you're human doesn't mean that you can do magic. Very very few actually get some useful results out of that, and even fewer of them can do it on a repeatable basis.

I agree, not all people can do magick.

So, would you find it safe to say that magick is not so much dependent on the existence of experience, but on the complexity of matter itself? It's not the experience which causes the effects, but the intelligence.
If you posited that it's something about the complex state of a human brain that causes magick, that's actually a good support for being able to industrialize magick, because it would mean that the experience part is irrelevant. If you could figure out what about the complexity of a brain creates magickal forces, you could make machines do the same thing.

Magic is the effect without cause. That is why it's not science.
Magic works because it is ME who is having a emotional and physical reaction to it.
The small trace amounts of nutrition in the potion is not enough to actually heal somebody. It is the placebo effect that heals them, the belief in the potion is the catalyst.
The wand has no power of it''s own. Of course it doesn't, you can't measure it. They've tried that. If I write 'I love you' on a piece of paper that paper has no external force to it. but the person who receives it will feel very deeply about it.

There is no power. There is nothing to harness.

I disagree. If a human is reducible to physical components, then the power is within those physical components. What you're arguing is sort of like saying that pulling the trigger on a gun is unrelated to the firing.
Yes, it's the emotions that act as a trigger, but the firing mechanism is ultimately in the brain.

Although, a machine can certainly cause an emotional response in a human being. I have no idea how many times I've been mad at my computer for not doing what I want it to do.

But what is the difference between a mechanical impulse and a human impulse? I think there's more to magick than just the feeling. We never made guns to feel, but they still give out more force than the average magickian could. Maybe guns do feel, but we didn't factor that into their designs. The interactions are there regardless of the feeling. If anything, I'd say that a feeling is a product of magick, not the cause. It just so happens that magickal events happen to be paired with feelings, so causation between them is assumed.

Wait a minute.
This is a bullshit argument.
Of course it has a cause.

Alright.

I don't think we understand how magic works well enough to be able to build something that produces it.

Not yet, but I like to think that all people are those people that can't do magick. That's why we're not all walking on water right now. Maybe some just have slight "mutations". But that's still not much of an edge.
As a start, I think it's necessary to understand the difference between a magickian's brain, and a mundane's brain, in order to get an idea of what's important.
Learn how to build magickal effects out of something already capable of them (a human), before you start trying to reduce a human to just the parts necessary for magick, in order to build a machine.

A nuclear bomb is still just a big blob of atoms. It's the specific organization of the atoms that makes it a bomb. The only difference between a mage, and a mundane, is the neuron organization.
The components are all there, you just need to figure out how to intelligently put them together. Until you make an intelligent procedure, you're just randomly moving parts until something sparks.
Even if we assumed that magick is a human only thing, it'd still be important to understand on a non-religious level, what about certain thought patterns cause magickal effects.

A. If that is all magic boils down to, basically just applied psychology, why wouldn't a machine writing it on a piece of paper cause the same reaction?

b. Because it is a machine and we know that it is fake.

a. So magic only works if it is a real person doing a real action?

b. No,because we know that people lie to us and we believe them.

a. So magic is an internal process where you choose to believe something whether it's true or not?
So we should be able to make a machine that lies to us.

b. But then we know that it is lying to us, we know that it is fake, we know that it is a program. With a human being we don't always know if it is fake or not, and sometimes it is actually real.
A machine can never be real, because it is in the end a machine.

What's the difference between a machine and a human? Nothing. They're just different organizations of atoms. A boy feels all fuzzy inside when a girl sends him a love letter, because he is a machine that is programmed to respond in certain ways to machines that look like girls. If a robot wrote the guy a letter, but a girl gave it to him, the effect would be as if the girl wrote it. It's all in the boy's head.

With a human being we don't always know if it is fake or not, and sometimes it is actually real

We could make a robot that is honest at least half of the time, so the humans are never so sure they are being lied to. The difference between a human and a robot seems to be that a human sometimes doesn't know that they are lying, and sometimes their lies happen to be partly honest.

Having a machine light a candle for me will never cause the same effect as me having myself light a candle for me.

No, but we could have a machine light the candle, then overwrite your memory so that you think that you lit the candle. Then you would have the same emotional response that you would if you lit it yourself.
Or, if what you were aiming for was a way to trigger an emotion, and the candle was a crutch, you could just learn how to hallucinate the lighting of a candle. Instead of having someone overwrite your memory, you manipulate it all by yourself in order to reach a certain outcome.

blindwake wrote:
No, but we could have a machine light the candle, then overwrite your memory so that you think that you lit the candle. Then you would have the same emotional response that you would if you lit it yourself.

But that's just science fiction. Then we might as well just build The Matrix.

I feel that magic requires a consciousness, an awareness, a soul. I do not understand how an android could perform magic, because they would be purely made of earthly material, not containing the divine spark.

Desecrated,

But that's just science fiction. Then we might as well just build The Matrix.

I fail to see how that's a valid argument. Back in the 1200s, electricity would have been science fiction. Given modern developments in neuroscience, I find it quite reasonable to assume that we might be able to modify our memories within a reasonable amount of time.

Who's to say this isn't already the matrix? Really, building the matrix wouldn't be such a horrible idea. Who cares what's real? If I could get loaded into a simulation that would give me everything I wanted, and convert what would normally appear to be an 80 year life, into what seems like a 5000 year life, that would be wonderful.

chowderpope,

I feel that magic requires a consciousness, an awareness, a soul. I do not understand how an android could perform magic, because they would be purely made of earthly material, not containing the divine spark.

I'm not sure what "soul" means. I could definitely accept the existence of some sort of higher dimensional body.
And I agree that a consciousness and awareness seems necessary. I just fail to see how an android would lack these things. I don't think a human is any more special than a hyper advanced android.
Also not sure what you mean by "divine spark". If it was given to us, I don't see why we couldn't give it to something else.

chowderpope wrote:I feel that magic requires a consciousness, an awareness, a soul. I do not understand how an android could perform magic, because they would be purely made of earthly material, not containing the divine spark.

How could you prove machine has no divine spark? I'm made purely of earthly material. Maybe you are not.

Cerber wrote:

chowderpope wrote:I feel that magic requires a consciousness, an awareness, a soul. I do not understand how an android could perform magic, because they would be purely made of earthly material, not containing the divine spark.

How could you prove machine has no divine spark? I'm made purely of earthly material. Maybe you are not.

Because a machine has no consciousness. I don't think you could synthesize consciousness. You can make an intelligent machine that learns and mimics conscious creatures, but you cannot create a conscious being. That's my take on it, anyway. If you choose to think consciousness could be artificially created, I'm not going to stop you.

chowderpope wrote: Because a machine has no consciousness. I don't think you could synthesize consciousness. You can make an intelligent machine that learns and mimics conscious creatures, but you cannot create a conscious being. That's my take on it, anyway. If you choose to think consciousness could be artificially created, I'm not going to stop you.

I understand that's what you believe, my beliefs are different, but I'm not gonna claim you are wrong, I just want to hear your reasoning.
My believe based on few thing, on one had if I "treat" a machine as a conscious entity it responds to me in a subtle but tangible ways, it I need to work with it it work better, if I need to fix it, I sense where the problem is, might even say it tells ne. In the same way my body tells me what should do if I have some problems with my internal "machinery". On the other hand I've seen with my own "eyes" some amazing pieces of "astral engineering" so my believes significantly more flexible. And then again does tree has consciousness, or a Beatle, or a fungi, etc? Where would it start? Human cell? A cell is nothing but a collection of biochemical machinery.

It's a good question, and I'm sure it's been explored in science fiction works before. I would say yes, trees are conscious, fungi are conscious, beetles are conscious, even minerals are conscious. Whether things on the atomic level or chemical level are conscious, I don't know.

But I don't think you could synthesize consciousness. Like I said, you can make a smart machine, one that behaves as if it's conscious, but how do you implant the seed of consciousness? I don't think you can.

And yes, blindwake, the human being is a smart android composed of natural matter, but the animating essence within the human, the consciousness, is not composed of natural matter.

Like I said these are my opinions and do not represent the views of my employer.

If I might stretch it a bit further. Do you acknowledge that the that whole universe is a conscious living entity, made of all the atoms, celestial bodies and living organisms, with all the matter that exist as Its material body? In any sense? Because then you would be kind of claiming some parts of that living super entity are dead. In a sense, not part of the whole.

Yes, I would venture to say that it's likely we are part of a larger living entity. That's a weird thought.

With that said, the thinking machine would be composed of, perhaps, living, conscious matter, but the machine itself would not have its own individual consciousness.

Similar to how I am composed of, perhaps, living, conscious matter, however, I have my own individual consciousness that I was endowed by the grand architect of the universe whose power is much greater than mine in my current condition.

Who knows, I could definitely be proven wrong in the next few hundred years when robots become self-aware and cause a mass human extinction.

chowderpope wrote:Yes, I would venture to say that it's likely we are part of a larger living entity. That's a weird thought.

With that said, the thinking machine would be composed of, perhaps, living, conscious matter, but the machine itself would not have its own individual consciousness.

Similar to how I am composed of, perhaps, living, conscious matter, however, I have my own individual consciousness that I was endowed by the grand architect of the universe whose power is much greater than mine in my current condition.

Who knows, I could definitely be proven wrong in the next few hundred years when robots become self-aware and cause a mass human extinction.

So your consciousness is a separate construct, not part of that "Great Whole"? Sounds a bit lonely [sadface]

chowderpope wrote:It's a good question, and I'm sure it's been explored in science fiction works before. I would say yes, trees are conscious, fungi are conscious, beetles are conscious, even minerals are conscious. Whether things on the atomic level or chemical level are conscious, I don't know.

They are not conscious, they are aware. They receive some stimuli and then react to it. but they always react the same way.
None of them would do things like sticking their hand into the fire to see how it feels, or committing suicide because they're sad or drink poison every Friday night to be accepted by their friends.

blindwake wrote:
I fail to see how that's a valid argument. Back in the 1200s, electricity would have been science fiction. Given modern developments in neuroscience, I find it quite reasonable to assume that we might be able to modify our memories within a reasonable amount of time.

I see where you and I think differently. Electricity was not science fiction in the 1200, we just didn't have the technology to harness it, but we were aware of it, and some attempts had been made.

Our developments in neuroscience is not that great. What we are doing right now is reading blood flow in our brain and that's about it... We can tell what area has more blood the moment we write, and then we assume that is because that is the area we are using when we write. But the technology is still pretty primitive.
I have a longer post on MRI that I suggest reading.

I think you are overestimating machines and underestimating humans.
Look into the research of robots and A.I and you'll see that we are miles away from something that behaves even remotely human.

I see where you and I think differently

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Electricity was not science fiction in the 1200, we just didn't have the technology to harness it, but we were aware of it, and some attempts had been made.

Probably, but I didn't actually make any effort to do research. The point wasn't about electricity, but that people have always thought certain things were impossible, and so, never bothered trying.
Your "that's science fiction" seemed like an invalid rebuttal, because I'm more focused on theory, rather than practicality (in our lifetimes.) I'm arguing logic, nothing literal.

Our developments in neuroscience is not that great. What we are doing right now is reading blood flow in our brain and that's about it... We can tell what area has more blood the moment we write, and then we assume that is because that is the area we are using when we write. But the technology is still pretty primitive.
I have a longer post on MRI that I suggest reading.

Seems legit. Most science hype is fluff. By "reasonable amount of time", I really didn't have a number in mind. That could have been 2000 years. I was mostly just thinking about how our technologies have been picking up speed on a curve. Relatively speaking, we're at a very strong age of science.

I think you are overestimating machines and underestimating humans.

I'm not thinking of machines in a gears sense. I'm thinking of machines in an "input -> output" sense.
You're right that our modern day machines are pathetic in comparison to the complexity involved in a human.
That doesn't mean that a human is fundamentally different from an alarm clock though. One is just more complex than the other.

blindwake wrote:

I see where you and I think differently

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I simply mean that we are looking at the same thing and having different opinions about it.

Probably, but I didn't actually make any effort to do research. The point wasn't about electricity, but that people have always thought certain things were impossible, and so, never bothered trying.
Your "that's science fiction" seemed like an invalid rebuttal, because I'm more focused on theory, rather than practicality (in our lifetimes.) I'm arguing logic, nothing literal.

The point you are trying to make isn't a good one We've always tried to do what isn't possible, and sure there has been people who doubted those people trying to do it, but there as always been somebody who've tried anyway.

But theory isn't the same as fiction. There is a line in the sand between theoretically and hypothetically. We can imagine the world hypothetically being made of cheese. But that is just science fiction, because it makes no goddamn sense.

Seems legit. Most science hype is fluff. By "reasonable amount of time", I really didn't have a number in mind. That could have been 2000 years. I was mostly just thinking about how our technologies have been picking up speed on a curve. Relatively speaking, we're at a very strong age of science.

We see time differently then
2000 years is incredible far away in my mind.
But that is just a matter of perspective.
I thought we were speaking about making it happen now.

That doesn't mean that a human is fundamentally different from an alarm clock though. One is just more complex than the other.

I still don't agree.
I guess maybe, I actually do think something like a soul or at least that the sums of the parts create something more than just input-output.

But theory isn't the same as fiction. There is a line in the sand between theoretically and hypothetically. We can imagine the world hypothetically being made of cheese. But that is just science fiction, because it makes no goddamn sense.

The world isn't made out of cheese, but in 5 billion years, maybe we could learn how to convert it into cheese? [crazy]
In all seriousness, I get what you mean though.

I still don't agree.
I guess maybe, I actually do think something like a soul or at least that the sums of the parts create something more than just input-output.

There very well could be a 2 + 2 = 5 thing going on. Though a battery could be made up of the same parts as a ball of assorted scrap metal, the specific arrangement of the battery's parts makes it more than just scrap. I could easily envision consciousness being an emergent property of the brain. Though, I'd have to say that if anything were able to copy the brain pattern that causes the emergence of consciousness, that thing would also be conscious. I still see that as input & output. What's important to me is that the emotional filter that "humans are special and are the only things that can have souls!" is destroyed.

If you treat a soul as a separate entity, you could infer that the reason humans have souls, is that souls like to attach to certain specific patterns that only exist in humans.

What's important to me is that a "soul" isn't left as an abstract concept that no one understands, but worships as woo woo. If people are saying, "your soul goes to heaven when you're dead", they'd better be able to give a definite description of heaven, a soul, how it interacts with the body, and how to travels to heaven once the body is dead, otherwise I have to assume they don't know what they're talking about.

If it exists it must be able to be described in a definite way. I'm not really trying to reduce a soul to a materialist thing, so much as I'm trying to reduce the woo woo concept into something unambiguous. If it's not physical, but it interacts with the physical, at the very least, I know that I can use the physical as an interface for manipulating the soul. It doesn't have to exist as a physical thing, but it needs to exist as an unambiguously defined piece of data.

I think some of you are confusing "soul", intelligence and awareness. I've experienced existence without much of awareness or intelligence, so I don't believe much is necessary to be considered "alive". One can go one with much much less than what you guys think is necessary.