Your worldview and AC

[tkorrovi]

I thought that for some, their worldview may be a problem, when dealing with the things like Artificial Consciousness. Some may not want to deal with such things which try to explain something very important for all of us, how we think, which is a lot about who we are, because they are afraid that these explanations may potentially conflict their worldview, or maybe their religion, if they have some. The reason is usually simple, both AC and a lot about worldview are a lot about the same, the most basic things. But this fear is really groundless, and justified only maybe when one's worldview is the most primitive, say if some believes in many exact things written somewhere, and has not much philosophical general thinking. But otherwise, no knowledge about AC cannot conflict any, at least more advanced, worldview, and the reason is simple. No matter how much we can explain how human mind works etc, we can never know everything there is in the huge and the most complex universe, so such knowledge can never conflict almost no general worldview, you can also be of almost any religion, and when you don't take it exactly word by word, no knowledge about AC cannot possibly conflict that religion as a whole. You can be buddhist or hinduist or whatever. I don't know exactly about any particular religion but, it is clear that any knowledge we would have about mind etc, would never be enough to substitute the worldview, people need some general views about the world, because the world is too complex to be fully comprehensible, by any theory. So if you think a bit more, there really is no problem, maintain your wordlview, maybe try to think about it more generally and philosophically, and there would be no obstacles for you in researching AC and the most important aspects of human thinking. As a general rule, the world can only become more wonderful for us, the more we know about it, like, who could expect to see the pictures which go beyond our imagination, taken by hubble space telescope, we really saw that the universe is much more organized complex structure, very far from some random distribution of matter, how some maybe thought, some hundred years ago. Well and the general rule is, that the more we know, the more there would be new mysteries, as the hubble pictures clearly show us. And yes, sure, these things about consciousness etc, are beautiful, for everyone who can see such beauty.

[tkorrovi]

I thought to write a few more words here, as this is important.

Some consider that science must be against religion, I don't think that this is the function of science, so AC should be neutral regarding religion.

If one asks whether there is god or whether there is cosmic consciousness, it is not necessary to answer to that question. It can be possible that a mechanism which AC is based on also appears on quantum level as a form of interconnectedness or "holomovement". The same mechanism may also be present in a single cell or a bacterium. But the mere presence of the basic mechanism yet doesn't mean the presence of consciousness, as for consciousness also certain aspects of consciousness should be present, ie the system has to be developed to a certain level for there to be something even similar to consciousness. Until there is no such evidence, it is better to just leave that question open. At that, all are of course free to believe what they want, but this question would then not be answered in the context of science.

What concerns the interactions with the quantum level, then there are first several reasons why this should happen, like the processing speed may not be fast enough when everything happens in an organic way, and several ways how this interaction may happen. First, Hameroff has suggested that such interaction can happen through microtubules, and microtubules are one possible way how the AC mechanism can be implemented as well. Second, it has been suggested that such interaction, and interaction using electromagnetic waves, may happen through the organ in brain called pineal, which is also said to have an important function in causing dreams, and is therefore sometimes called a "third eye". Here also it is better to consider only the known facts and possibilities, and certainly not the religious meanings given to the "third eye", etc. And again, all are free to believe what they want, outside the context of science.

What concerns some basic principles in hermeticism, and even in religions such as hinduism or buddhism, then these principles can be used when they are purely philosophical principles, and there are some very important such principles. But these principles should be taken out of their religious context, whatever that may be. So we can for example only talk about hermetic principles, not even hermeticism, because a lot of religious and mostly questionable meaning have been given even to that word.

The biggest problem concerning the religion, appears to be dualism, as the most opposition seems to be from proponents of dualism. Dualism in its pure form should mean that nothing mental can be reduced to anything not mental, and nothing not mental can be reduced to mental. This is so extreme view that it leads to absurd--no interaction between mental and not mental would then be possible. So dualism is much more extreme than simply considering mental and not mental very different--such difference should even not necessarily be dualism at all. Concerning different "semi-dualistic" views, such reduction should be at least partly possible, and thus even these should not necessarily contradict AC. Monism shouldn't contradict AC at all, and monism is not necessarily materialism or even physicalism--it can also be pantheism, also even some religions such as buddhism, can be monistic, including the existence of god. The principles of hermeticism seem to be monistic as well, in spite that they have been the very root of todays religions, including christianity. So again, AC is completely neutral what concerns any dualistic or monistic views and outside the scientific context all are free to believe what they want. The only thing which cannot be accepted, is attacking AC from pure dualistic point of view, and this is completely absurd as well, but strangely exactly that has happened.

So as a conclusion, AC is completely neutral what concerns religion. This means that it has nothing to do with any religion, and it is also not aimed against any religion. Thus it should also not be attacked from the position of religion, neither directly nor in any pseudo-scientific way, and if that happens, then this by itself means that the attacker is not honest or is not competent, and also the religion may not be the real reason.