Yes, I have read “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”…decades ago.
It’s interesting that you figured that out. In fact, it’s illustrative of the very point you’ve made — namely, that consciousness is not a computable phenomenon. That is, the term “Artificial Intelligence” is a misnomer, because consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomenon from a machine that relies strictly on computation. There must be something else involved other than brute-force computational power.
This runs smack dab into the most recent advanced research in consciousness studies, which includes the one area of human physiology that supports quantum coherence. Computers don’t have it. Even the so-called quantum computers don’t have it, because they’re based on the assumption that the processors require superconductivity (probably true), and the further assumption that the required superconductivity can only occur at ultra-low temperatures, which is definitely not true, as confirmed by empirical corroboration.
The notion of hardware-based quantum computing is fundamentally flawed. Frankly, that’s all to the good. If the current runaway development path of “A.I.” continues, very great mischief will result…and by “mischief” I mean harm to the human species. There are some in the “A.I.” community who recognize that downside and have voiced their concerns, but so far their warnings have not resulted in any significant slowing of the headlong rush into the likely negative consequences.
Anyhow, I’ve started the full reply in my Notes app, where I’m spared the barbaric limitations of this plain text-only Comments composer, where formatted text and attachments are not allowed. Whatever Substack’s idea of in-depth discussion is, it clearly was not intended to be served by this composer.
Besides, the full reply to your excellent comments deserves its own article, rather than burying it in the Comments.
That’s a great question Chip, by which I mean that it provides grounds for a fascinating discussion. I think the answer is actually a matter of perspective; that is, depending on your point of view, that answer could be either yes or no.
For my part, I’m thinking yes, but that’s a heavily qualified yes.
Part of the qualification is that I don’t think that there is a “creator of the universe” that is separate from the universe. I can’t find the handles on that concept. I can’t make any sense of it without invoking some kind of supernatural “being” that exists…um, where exactly?
My definition of the universe is "everything that exists". There’s no other definition that makes any sense to me. If there’s another definition, I don’t know what it is. But whatever it is, I guarantee you that I will have many questions about it.
My definition (for me, anyway) precludes the need for any further questions.
I also think “creator” is misleading…at least to me. That’s a subject with an attached predicate (creating). It’s more useful (to me) to say “the source of the universe”. Saying it that way accommodates a perspective in which the universe is an emergent phenomenon from some underlying natural process.
That’s not just semantic quibbling. It accommodates what (in my opinion) is the most advanced cosmological theory I know of, Sir Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, in which the universe is (essentially) its own source…
…well, sort of. There’s more to it. A lot more. But the point is that it does away with what I regard as the rather primitive notion that “God created the universe”.
Created? Past tense? What’s up with that?
It is demonstrably false.
Creation is still happening. It’s not something that happened once and now it’s over.
Anyhow, we create math…or do we? The inverse square law is accurate to any arbitrary degree of precision you want—certainly within the limits of our ability to measure or calculate. We didn’t make it up; we discovered it. Specifically, Newton discovered it.
So, let me ask you: just because Newton was the first one to write it down—and it was a remarkable achievement, to be sure—did he create it, or did he just figure out how to express in mathematical terms a relationship that already existed?
He didn’t make the universe that way. He just happened to be extraordinarily insightful to notice that that’s how it behaves. So you tell me: Since the inverse square law of gravitational attraction—a real relationship between two bodies in 3D space-time—already existed, does the source of the universe know any math?
If not, then it’s a mind-blowingly extraordinary coincidence that
F = G(m₁m₂/r²)
…that is, the force of attraction between two objects is the universal gravitational constant G times the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between their centers of mass.
That’s a pretty good trick for not “knowing” any math.
Hence, that’s the reason why I tend to think the answer to your question is “yes”…at least in the sense that the philosophers say “Consciousness is the universe’s way of knowing itself.”
I mean, it’s prolly just lonely. So it had to come up with cats. 😎
Math is rational. We count by tens, not for any cosmological reason, but because it facilitates calculations. There is no reason to think that '10' means anything in particular to nature.
Can we say that the universe is rational? That would mean it thinks. Does it think? Does it plan? Does it have any objectives?
It's always intrgued me that the universe is so mathematically definable, when, in my opinion, the universe knows no math.
Chip: I don’t know the answers to your questions, my friend. They’re good questions, but I don’t think they can be answered without first answering the question “Is the universe conscious?”
There was a time when I would have scoffed at that question, and answered, “Of course the universe isn’t conscious!” But I cut myself some slack on that now; I was young and ignorant…and in some ways even stupid.
Since then, I’ve learned that some of the people whom I revere as some of my greatest scientific mentors concluded that the fundamental stuff of the universe is consciousness. It’s uncanny that so many of them got there from very diverse places; yet, they all came down on that one understanding.
It’s quite a bold assertion. In fact, it’s so startling that it has compelled me to investigate how they got there. I can follow some of the arguments; others, not so much. But the ones I can understand resonate with my own cogitations on that subject. But that’s all I can say; it’s an idea worth considering, and not the outlandish nut-job proposition I once believed it was. I can’t say that I understand it well enough to make an argument that convinces me, let alone anyone else.
I can say that it’s all the more a bold assertion considering that (as far as I know) no one has ever been able to cough up a definition of consciousness that is universally acceptable. Yet, everyone uses the word as though they know what it means, and as though everyone else knows what it means.
Anyhow, I can’t agree with the assertion that “the universe knows no math”, nor can I disagree with it. Until the nature and role of consciousness is better understood, I consider such assertions to be undecidable propositions.
I've been contemplating the term "comprehension" lately. A person can learn, but no comprehend. And perhaps a person can comprehend and not learn. Comprehension suggests that a person has understanding that surpasses mere knowledge.
It's been a while, but I've read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." I'm guessing that you have, too. In my foggy memory, the book gets at comprehending at a level beyond mere knowledge.
Perhaps the universe comprehends, while science attempts to define it with mere knowledge. Every culture has always had a god or gods. Maybe they are on the right track.
I respect science and math. I was a science teacher. But I recognize the limitations. We cannot calculate our way to comprehension. Which brings Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" to mind...
Yes! 🙌🏻 team work/community/cohesive duties
Did the creator of the universe know any math? I'm thinking, no. We created math because our minds cannot otherwise fathom all that is involved.
Yes, I have read “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”…decades ago.
It’s interesting that you figured that out. In fact, it’s illustrative of the very point you’ve made — namely, that consciousness is not a computable phenomenon. That is, the term “Artificial Intelligence” is a misnomer, because consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomenon from a machine that relies strictly on computation. There must be something else involved other than brute-force computational power.
This runs smack dab into the most recent advanced research in consciousness studies, which includes the one area of human physiology that supports quantum coherence. Computers don’t have it. Even the so-called quantum computers don’t have it, because they’re based on the assumption that the processors require superconductivity (probably true), and the further assumption that the required superconductivity can only occur at ultra-low temperatures, which is definitely not true, as confirmed by empirical corroboration.
The notion of hardware-based quantum computing is fundamentally flawed. Frankly, that’s all to the good. If the current runaway development path of “A.I.” continues, very great mischief will result…and by “mischief” I mean harm to the human species. There are some in the “A.I.” community who recognize that downside and have voiced their concerns, but so far their warnings have not resulted in any significant slowing of the headlong rush into the likely negative consequences.
Anyhow, I’ve started the full reply in my Notes app, where I’m spared the barbaric limitations of this plain text-only Comments composer, where formatted text and attachments are not allowed. Whatever Substack’s idea of in-depth discussion is, it clearly was not intended to be served by this composer.
Besides, the full reply to your excellent comments deserves its own article, rather than burying it in the Comments.
That’s a great question Chip, by which I mean that it provides grounds for a fascinating discussion. I think the answer is actually a matter of perspective; that is, depending on your point of view, that answer could be either yes or no.
For my part, I’m thinking yes, but that’s a heavily qualified yes.
Part of the qualification is that I don’t think that there is a “creator of the universe” that is separate from the universe. I can’t find the handles on that concept. I can’t make any sense of it without invoking some kind of supernatural “being” that exists…um, where exactly?
My definition of the universe is "everything that exists". There’s no other definition that makes any sense to me. If there’s another definition, I don’t know what it is. But whatever it is, I guarantee you that I will have many questions about it.
My definition (for me, anyway) precludes the need for any further questions.
I also think “creator” is misleading…at least to me. That’s a subject with an attached predicate (creating). It’s more useful (to me) to say “the source of the universe”. Saying it that way accommodates a perspective in which the universe is an emergent phenomenon from some underlying natural process.
That’s not just semantic quibbling. It accommodates what (in my opinion) is the most advanced cosmological theory I know of, Sir Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, in which the universe is (essentially) its own source…
…well, sort of. There’s more to it. A lot more. But the point is that it does away with what I regard as the rather primitive notion that “God created the universe”.
Created? Past tense? What’s up with that?
It is demonstrably false.
Creation is still happening. It’s not something that happened once and now it’s over.
Anyhow, we create math…or do we? The inverse square law is accurate to any arbitrary degree of precision you want—certainly within the limits of our ability to measure or calculate. We didn’t make it up; we discovered it. Specifically, Newton discovered it.
So, let me ask you: just because Newton was the first one to write it down—and it was a remarkable achievement, to be sure—did he create it, or did he just figure out how to express in mathematical terms a relationship that already existed?
He didn’t make the universe that way. He just happened to be extraordinarily insightful to notice that that’s how it behaves. So you tell me: Since the inverse square law of gravitational attraction—a real relationship between two bodies in 3D space-time—already existed, does the source of the universe know any math?
If not, then it’s a mind-blowingly extraordinary coincidence that
F = G(m₁m₂/r²)
…that is, the force of attraction between two objects is the universal gravitational constant G times the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between their centers of mass.
That’s a pretty good trick for not “knowing” any math.
Hence, that’s the reason why I tend to think the answer to your question is “yes”…at least in the sense that the philosophers say “Consciousness is the universe’s way of knowing itself.”
I mean, it’s prolly just lonely. So it had to come up with cats. 😎
Math is rational. We count by tens, not for any cosmological reason, but because it facilitates calculations. There is no reason to think that '10' means anything in particular to nature.
Can we say that the universe is rational? That would mean it thinks. Does it think? Does it plan? Does it have any objectives?
It's always intrgued me that the universe is so mathematically definable, when, in my opinion, the universe knows no math.
Chip: I don’t know the answers to your questions, my friend. They’re good questions, but I don’t think they can be answered without first answering the question “Is the universe conscious?”
There was a time when I would have scoffed at that question, and answered, “Of course the universe isn’t conscious!” But I cut myself some slack on that now; I was young and ignorant…and in some ways even stupid.
Since then, I’ve learned that some of the people whom I revere as some of my greatest scientific mentors concluded that the fundamental stuff of the universe is consciousness. It’s uncanny that so many of them got there from very diverse places; yet, they all came down on that one understanding.
It’s quite a bold assertion. In fact, it’s so startling that it has compelled me to investigate how they got there. I can follow some of the arguments; others, not so much. But the ones I can understand resonate with my own cogitations on that subject. But that’s all I can say; it’s an idea worth considering, and not the outlandish nut-job proposition I once believed it was. I can’t say that I understand it well enough to make an argument that convinces me, let alone anyone else.
I can say that it’s all the more a bold assertion considering that (as far as I know) no one has ever been able to cough up a definition of consciousness that is universally acceptable. Yet, everyone uses the word as though they know what it means, and as though everyone else knows what it means.
Anyhow, I can’t agree with the assertion that “the universe knows no math”, nor can I disagree with it. Until the nature and role of consciousness is better understood, I consider such assertions to be undecidable propositions.
I've been contemplating the term "comprehension" lately. A person can learn, but no comprehend. And perhaps a person can comprehend and not learn. Comprehension suggests that a person has understanding that surpasses mere knowledge.
It's been a while, but I've read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." I'm guessing that you have, too. In my foggy memory, the book gets at comprehending at a level beyond mere knowledge.
Perhaps the universe comprehends, while science attempts to define it with mere knowledge. Every culture has always had a god or gods. Maybe they are on the right track.
I respect science and math. I was a science teacher. But I recognize the limitations. We cannot calculate our way to comprehension. Which brings Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" to mind...