Or is this "multiple personality syndrome"?

I thought we already established that there is no satisfactory definition for "free will" so why bother beating a dead horse?

There is no satisfactory definition for "life" so shall we move living organisms from the ethical pedestal to which we have elevated them or give up searching for the possibility of extraterrestrial life? And reality, and truth, and consciousness ... you get (and know) the picture? Don't we always use working (transient) definitions, theories etc to attempt to elucidate the nature of phenomena?

Yesterday I attended a meeting of the IEEE Robotics, Computational Intelligence, and Cybernetics Chapter. Dr. Alan Rosen gave a presentation about humanoid robotics in which he proved that machine consciousness is possible. In the question and answer session afterward, I asked him about the ethical implications of conscious robots and the possibility of free will. He replied that not only would a conscious robot not have free will, but you and I don't have free will either. He said not to worry about the ethics.

So I guess that settles it.

Doubtful, just because one man says something is true, doesn't mean it is. This world is open to interpretation Rick, we have been wrong so many times in the past. I am in continuous amazement at the belief that the new theory will somehow magically be 'right'.

Wait 20 years and you will have a whole new set of cybernetic theorem as new discoveries are made to bridge the gap between neuroscience and computational science.

Neuroscientists are just now beginning to work on consciousness. An area that was before exclusive to philosophers. How can he claim to know so much about consciousness when the neuroscience community doesn't even know themselves?

We really at the beginning stages of understanding consciousness, it's a bit to early for such wide speculation. Yes, it should be possible to technically emulate a human brain in the future, naturally scientists are already working on it. However, the implications of such an occurance are still up in the air.

What were his arguments to support this? Also, did he suggest any implications for ethics more generally?

Dr. Rosen said up front that he is a reductionist (as I am). That is, he believes that everything can be reduced to explanations involving the laws of physics and empiricism. I believe, from his tone, that he subscribes to the usual reductionist free-will-denier argument. As may be inferred, I believe I have demolished those "usual arguments" earlier. Reductionism and free will have no inherent conflict.

As this was in the oral questions period after the presentation, he did not elaborate on the ethical concerns, except to dismiss them. I believe that if there is any possibility of creating a being capable of suffering, that the ethical concerns should be addressed up front. I was polite and respectful on this issue in that public forum, however, as there will be other days and better fora for battle.

Question # 1: How did he go about that?!
Question # 2: If there was such a thing as God (as in Christianism, for example), would he/she have free will?

Buttons, I believe Rick just stated that Dr. Rosen attempted to use a Reductionist theology to logically explain the possiblilities of machine consciousness.

He does not have any hard evidence, just theoretical proof. After all, if he managed to create a conscious machine, news would spread like wild fire.

So essentially Dr. Rosen has 'proved' machine consciouness through using modern physics theory and empirical logic.

The problem with this theory I find is:

a. We don't even know that much about the brain to begin building consciousness theories off of it

b. Theory and reality can often differ. We need some hard evidence before we can go further with these claims.

1. You can see his paper at

http://sprangle.com/steve/rcicc/Turing%206-1.pdf

You tell me if you think his "proof" is convincing.

2. I believe that since people have free will, and that we are also gods, in a sense, then the big kahuna type god (as in the incorrect monotheistic view) would also have free will.

What Maximus says just above is, I think, essentially correct.

Could it be possible for two fre-willed "big Kahuna" type gods to co-habitate in the same universe? Or would they need separete universes? Completely unaware of each other?

The ancient Egyptian and Greek models of theology were successful for thousands of years, so the answer is "yes".

Zeus had his Olympic Games, and Apollo had his Apollonian Games (at which the laurel wreath of victory was awarded). Peaceful coexistence to two major gods.

There were many others (often sun gods) around at the same time, including but not exclusive to those worshipped by African and South American tribes. Indeed, some of those remain in beliefs. I wonder if Jehova knows about them?

How will multiple post-Conciousness Singularity human beings co-exist in the same universe? What will their code of ethics be in an infinitely free-will environment?

code, you're not suggesting that post-Conciousness Singularity humans are gods, are you?

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m just bouncing ideas off of receptive and intelligent minds; and trying to learn something in the process. We probably can’t even begin to comprehend what an enhanced state of consciousness such as the CS will be like. But we can put bits and pieces of information together, via skeptic speculation. There are already some outrageous statements out there that turn out to be truth. For example: “The world is our creation, it is a thing created by mind, it is a mental construct� Shawn Mikula.
Statements like this leave the mind to wonder about the possibilities in a world where the human mind rules over the forces of nature. If I can't address these kind of questions here, I don't know where else to take them.

If you were a part of a larger body and as such had been living your life in an illusion that you were separate from that body you may not be aware of those energetics that you are constantly seeking outside of yourself as being already available.
If suddenly those things you sought in life came available to you and the way to keep them was to support the whole, would you remove yourself with your gifts to try and collect them for yourself in fear they may be taken away or would you move deeper into cooperation expanding and intensifying not only what your wildest dreams could create but enhance every part of yourself the others and everything around you as well?

The next most obvious question is do you believe something like this is possible?

There are no limits to the human condition other than those we artificially impose.

Only joking. Power to you.

I think ethics will be unchanged. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Won't they all be one and the same?

Wireless Internet access: $ 30.00

Laptop computer: $1,200.00

Kudos from Hey Hey: Priceless

I think the cell analogy works well with this question, individual cells are still capable of surviving on their own, they just don't have anywhere near the power of billions of cells brought together are one singular individual.

We may prehaps see multiple singularities and multiple supra conscious beings emerge while some humans remain individual, in comparison - stupid, but individual.

Ethics and freewill could be a problem with a singularity, because it would be one conscious being rather than multiple individual beings.

Corr, I was getting worried until this, as there was no room for conflict in the post-Conciousness Singularity future! And how would we survive without that? (joke, not a joke, joke, not a joke, joke, not a joke, joke, not a joke, joke, not a joke, joke, not a joke, joke, not a joke, joke, not a joke, joke, not a joke ...)

What will be the mechanisms for the Conciousness Singularity? Shawn does not believe that it will be random variation and natural selection ( http://brainmeta.com/index.php?p=consciousness-singularity ), but will be humanly contrived.

When Shawn says that, "... I do not believe there will be just 'one' consciousness singularity, but many, since states of consciousness are all relative ...", could this imply that there might be infinite singularities ahead? Or could there be a limit, set say by the life of the universe? Or will the consciousness singularity allow the transcendence of even this? Could it have already happened? Hey, is there a god? And does it have free will?

Depends on the definition of God.

Any absolute definition is the attempt to limit the infinite within boundaries.
The will that cannot recognize its own infinite potential is bound by its inability to let go of its attachment to the beliefs that somethings about life and experience cannot change. Then if that is associated to the God that is inclusive of all potential, that thread of potential that has limits excludes God from being infinite and so ones own experiences. That idea of potential then is formulated from ideas grounded in limitations and boundaries.

There is Truth and there are illusions of truth.
If the mind cannot find itself beyond the need to define reality, science cannot prove what is beyond its system of measure.
The argument that there is no proof creates the illusion that there is nothing real beyond the experience that repeats itself according to the nature of belief, but it doesn't mean that something not known or experienced does not exist.

Free will cannot be denied absolutely only believed to be something or nothing or unbelievable or unsubstantiated or bla bla bla bla bla.....

We are the singularity

Bingo

Would you care to explain yourself?

Oneness. Of course!

What I mean is we are all our own realities, so the world differs for each of us. This makes me believe that every living thing is a singularity, each with its own reality. Reality is like a web of energy, interconnected. Lifeforms are like mountains towering up within reality. The peaks of these mountains are the singularities, they are consciousness.

Cop out?

I don't think so, more like questioning the nature of reality.

Well the consciousness singularity is a theory, an educated guess at where we're heading. This wont involve one single person suddenly becoming the singularity, from what I understand its an attractor pulling us towards it. In my opinion, this means we each have this singularity attractor within us, and that it is our own consciousness and hive-like coherency that will move us towards the CS.

Since we wont suddenly merge into one super being 1000ft high shooting fireballs out of our ass, I understand it to be within us all. This Singularity feels like the essence of the feather symbol, our curiosity and search for the Truth. Thats what will get us there, continuous research.

Wrong here. Most likely, one of us will enter CS first. Leaving full account of their actions in the process.

All present laws of physics shall not apply at the CS level. Which means we'll probably all fit in a point infinitecimally smaller than the smallest possible point in space and time, while simultanously encircleling the known universe an infinite amount of times.

I agree. Well, almost - of course several individuals striving for the CS could achieve it (or similar) simultaneously - we have to try and be perfect in our scientific descriptions (this will be good fuel for Joesus!).I like it! Very Harry Potter!

You think anyone has made it yet?

Excluding the deluded?

Do you think ANYONE made it yet?

Do you think there are extraterrestrials?
Do you think there is a god?

How would I know?

We (literally you and I; or the rest of the human race) might not ever know.

With the evidence available to me, and within my limited knowledge of any technological or neurological possibilities to date, I do not think that ANYONE made it yet. I am quite sure that some deluded individuals might think they have. But then again, some deluded individuals think there is a god.

Have you ever been in love?

More than you know.

Ok then, I'm clearly putting my own interpretation on the CS. However the CS forming within one individuals mind, or simultaneously in a few, doesn't invalidate what I've said. It is the collaboration of our minds that will produce this CS, isnt it?

Damm you Hey Hey! My popcorn was still in the microwave!!!! HEE HEEE HEE HOO HOO HOO HOO HOO HOO!!!!!!

I'm not an expert and whatever insight I have I've found it in the vaults of BM. But, your reasoning goes along with what is commonly understood about the subject.

How can you prove it?
In the U.S. 50% of the marriages end in divorce. Does this mean that the love that eventually ended in the divorce wasn't real?
Is there any scientific proof to the fact that what you think is love is absolutely nothing other than the hormonal changes of sexual attraction?
Did someone teach you how to fall in love and is the love you believe you experienced textbook love or scientific love or spiritual love?

Over 90% of humanity believes in a God and tho people speak of God is it because of others and their influence, such as religion being an influence that God becomes a subject of belief?

There are probably more love songs, romantic poems and tales of love loss that humans are exposed to than there are stories of God. Oddly enough many link the two together.

The beliefs regarding relationship and love are just as influential as those institutions of religion.
Adolescents are often obsessed with love and find themselves distracted from their studies because of their infatuation with the opposite sex. But this type of distraction is not isolated to adolescents. Kings have forfeited their thrones in the name of love.

People kill each other and commit suicide over love. Isn't this delusional and also doesn't this make some of those who are in love potentially suicidal or lethal to humanity?
There is an industry committed to supporting the belief in love, dating services and computer matching of personalities. Sexual aids and even pornography. Perhaps its not an emotional feeling but something less than spiritual? more Scientific? or Economic?

How do you know you aren't deluded in your beliefs of having fallen in love? Do you have any proof that what you call love is/was real?
It was you who said,"My vendetta, as you put it, is against believers in fairy stories .... (more specifically belief in anything that it not supported by clinical trials or empirical evidence,)" Not much room for romance in that approach...
Did you get a second opinion outside of your field of influence such as an non-invested party to qualify your experience of love and then did you have that qualified again by several other un-invested individuals?

If what you love is taken from you would you feel less than whole? Many do. Isn't that an illusion?

You say you don't know if anyone has made it to the CS or if there is a God but you are pretty sure anyone who believes in God is deluded.
Isn't this your fairy story?

You mean like the hundredth monkey type of thing. Get enough energy behind the thought and it becomes True?
Don't you think it would have worked by now to produce a God that everyone could tangibly experience?

Or is God and the CS already there but unattainable through limiting beliefs, like the ego trying to stuff the infinite in a quart jar?

No-one taught my cat to catch mice but he does. Do I need to explain further what the "genetics+experience" of catching mice is? And how it is connected with survival? And how love is similar? But of course you already know that superdeity does it all via his remote control.

Hey, you'll have heard this one before, but here we go .... Why can't god appear just the once and show us simpletons that he's real? Hey, we're all busy. And if he can't 'cos there's no real, then I'm back on the carousel for another turn at this nightmare.

Then your of mind to accept that belief in God and deity worship similar to falling in love is genetic.

I'm not quite following you on the survival connection, since we're talking about love and not procreation. Are you comparing yourself to your cat?