Consciousness, meaning and value.

[bluethread]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

[bluethread]

I'm not asserting that everyone else is conscious. I simply pointed out that if a person doesn't accept that assumption then they have little choice but to embrace solipsism.

So it's your choice. Choose whichever you prefer.

So, concluding universal human consciousness would be a pragmatic conclusion, because one must interact with others? What about a nondicotomous approach, i.e. some others are conscious and some are not?

The very idea that you need to bring in something else certainly doesn't offer any better explanation. If you want to claim that a 'soul' is required, then you're stuck with having to explain exactly what a soul is, and how it can have an experience.

The active feedback loop of electrical energy that is processing information is a sufficient explanation for precisely what it is that is having an experience.

Of course, this feedback loop of electrical energy can only exist inside a physical container that is capable of producing it (i.e. a brain, or analog computer). So a brain is required to allow for consciousness to exist, but this does not mean that the brain itself is experiencing anything.

In fact, we can just about be guaranteed that this will be the answer to the reality of our situation. At the pace that technology is moving we'll most likely have the answer officially in our hands in the very near future.

In fact, Marvin Minsky may have already laid it all out in his book and he just hasn't yet been recognized for having the correct answer. So we may already have the answer in our hands and just don't yet realize it.

I am not bringing in something else, like a soul. William may be, but I am just trying to determine how scientific absolutism works. That said, why don't we refer to ourselves as feedback loops? Why do we refer to ourseves as moral agents?

Your use of the phrase "in fact" is also interesting. Facts usually do not relate phrases such as "can just about be" and "may have". That said, how is it your faith in technology and the prophecies of Marvin Minsky consitute a factual justification of your position?

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by Divine Insight]

A simple explanation here is that you are obviously thinking of "possessing" something in terms of owning it. You are thinking of "possession" as in a social context of ownership of an object. Whereas, I am thinking of "possession" from an objective scientific perspective. If we have a specific trait or attribute, then we say that we "possess" that attribute. This has nothing to do with social possessions of owning something that is separate from us.

"That a rather silly semantic argument don't you think?"

I have already made clear what my argument is in my last post.

What I mean by that is that you are ignoring the fact that everyone else is conscious when you argue that I can't speak of consciousness objectively.

We can speak of each other objectively but in recognizing I am consciousness, I also recognize this of others as well. This is why my theology states that we are all aspects of the Earth Entity consciousness divested into forms It created to experience through.

The EE is also an aspect of Galactic Entity consciousness divested into the forms created.

The GEs are all aspects of consciousness divested into forms the Universal Entity created.

The UE is an aspect of consciousness divested into the potential First Source created.

♦ The Earth Entity

I can indeed speak of consciousness as an objective phenomenon precisely because I'm not the only one who "possesses" this trait.

Rather, you are claiming to be something you also possess, and in self identifying in this manner you are also identifying all others in the same manner.

When you objectify yourself and others in this manner, you do so because you believe you are the emergent property of the human brain.

Therefore it makes sense to recognize the phenomenon of consciousness as an objective phenomenon that clearly arises in all brains.

On the contrary. You conflate interpretation of observation as 'evidence' that consciousness 'clearly arises in all brains'.
This interpretation of the observation is clearly only one way of understanding what MAY be happening. You - like so many others - make the mistake of jumping the gun in declaring that it is actually the case. This has been pointed out many, many times in similar arguments and is consistently ignored.

Also, we have reason to believe that anything that does not have a brain is "conscious". So it certainly makes 'perfect sense' to recognize that consciousness is a property of brains.

There are many things which clearly do not have brains which still exhibit intelligence and anything exhibiting intelligence can be said to be conscious of itself.
That might give you 'no reason to believe' but it does not give you license to state that your beliefs are the true beliefs to adopt.
Because you have this attitude, you can declare it makes 'perfect sense' to recognize that consciousness is a property of brains, but that is merely your subjective choice which you also appear to want everyone else to adopt as the 'perfect' position to hold to.

To argue otherwise really has no sound basis.

It has not as yet been clearly established by scientific process that consciousness is in fact, an emergent property of brains. This allows for a philosophical basis for sound alternative explanations. All you are doing is adopting an interpretation of science and in doing so presume that when your body dies that will be the end of you. On the other hand you admit through your agnostic persona that 'you don't know' which allows for the reader to ascertain that what 'makes perfect sense' to you is also overshadowed by doubt, but you make these assertions as if there were no doubt.

This in turn gives the reader the impression that you are in two minds.

My own thoughts re being in a position where something 'makes perfect sense' enough for me to believe in it, I would not want to be in any potential situation where that 'perfect sense' disintegrates before my eyes upon my body dying and my still being alive in some alternate experience of 'afterlife.'

Especially if I have spent the better part of my life experiencing on this planet attempting to convince everyone the 'perfect sense' that they are nothing but star-dust sprinkled meat-sacks who will eventually cease to exist.

Each to their own of course, but your argument of position is not watertight by any stretch of the imagination.

No you are wrong. I don't self identify as a "brain". I self identify as the consciousness that the brain creates.

So a mindless organ created you? How does a mindless thing create a mindful entity?

Just because the brain creates the consciousness doesn't mean that I am the brain.

Lets examine this idea a little closer then.

The Tree
Lets say the brain is a tree. Which part of the tree is the consciousness? The roots? The trunk? One of the branches? One of the leafs? The bark?
Isn't this the whole problem re consciousness and the brain? Science cannot identify what consciousness IS in relation to the brain. Is it perhaps brain excrement? Why is it seemingly invisible yet obviously real?

Can you see why it is necessary to examine alternate interpretations such as 'The Ghost In The Machine' idea?

Scientists cannot grab a piece of consciousness and examine it under the microscope. Science is not that which is stating 'it makes perfect sense,' and while some scientists have indeed taken that step, not all have. I know of no true agnostics who have done this either. They tend to say 'I don't know one way or the other' and while they may not wish to investigate alternate explanations neither do they adopt the more materialistic interpretations as being the best explanation which makes 'perfect sense'.

I'm still just the consciousness. However, without the brain the consciousness could no longer exist. So I'm certainly dependent upon the existence of my brain. Without a brain the consciousness, that constitutes "me" cannot exist.

By that I have to assume you are being specific to your body, in that without it you as consciousness cannot continue to exist within that experience.

If you are claiming that you as consciousness would cease to exist as in - have no 'afterlife' experience, that is a jump of conclusion and an agnostic wouldn't make such a statement because an agnostic does not know if that would be the case or not.

Indeed no one knows, so to jump to that conclusion from a materialistic platform, as you are doing, is fallacy.

Why are you so opposed to this idea?

I accept that it might be the case that when my body expires that will be the end of experience for me.

The reason I don't accept this theory outright (in that it WILL be the case) has already been explained enough for the reader to understand.

I am not opposed to the idea. It simply goes no where, does not explain things which have happened to me as subjective experience, holds no natural attraction which is an essential aspect of consciousness, even without the costumes of egocentric motives.

If consciousness is eternal, it is natural that consciousness will gravitate to seeing itself that way, even when in situations where such is not so obvious.

And far more importantly, what is your explanation if this isn't the case? That something magical is going on performed by some imagined "higher being"?

How would that help anything?

Is is simply unknown if there is or is not the existence of so-called 'higher beings' and even so, what is imagined about them (in relation to personality etc) can be questioned.
My own theology does not see these beings as 'higher' but vaster aspects of consciousness. All due respect. This is because my theology does not separate human consciousness from EE consciousness, EE consciousness from GE consciousness etc et al.

It is an undivided chain of consciousness separated only by form, and this is why my theology cautions against self identifying with the form.

One you fall into that line of reasoning then you necessarily need to continue on apply that very same reasoning to the "higher being" that you believe exists beyond human consciousness.

In other words, you are offering a "non-answer", because now you are stuck with having to explain how this imagined "higher being" is conscious, or capable of providing humans with consciousness. And you can't even assign it a "brain" to explain its consciousness because you have already rejected that idea.

If you're going to end up giving this imaginary "higher being" a brain, then you may as well save yourself a lot of unnecessary steps and just accept that human consciousness is produced by human brains.

In short, there's no usefulness to your proposed hypothesis. It doesn't lead to any answers, all it does is pass the buck into an imaginary realm that never needed to be hypothesized in the first place. It doesn't explain anything. To the contrary, the idea that some 'higher being' is providing billions of humans 'consciousness' that is not dependent upon their physical brains doesn't make any sense at all.

Quite frankly the idea is ridiculous.

You say that because of your belief that all consciousness requires brains in order to exist and thus cannot either exist independently of the brain or something otherwise akin to a brain - such as your arguments for AI in other threads.
You also say that because your own beliefs do not include the possibility that you will still exist after your body dies.

Yet there is also clear enough indication that the whole universe may very well act as a brain.
We don't even know enough about our own planet to make a claim that it cannot be the form of a self conscious entity, capable of elaborate creativity.

But your argument above falls well short of the mark. See my comments regarding the analog of The Tree a few paragraphs back.

That not even a "Theology".

Certainly it is. See 'theology' ;
~ the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
~ religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.

All you are doing at this point is making wild speculations that have no basis in any factual evidence.

My theology is always aligned with factual evidence. It interprets the evidence differently from materialistic world views, 'tis all.

You are imagining scenario while ignoring the facts of reality.

As stated earlier, I include in the evidence my own subjective experience. To ignore that would be to ignore the evidence derived from that.

This video gives a great insight into spirituality and the human brain and I highly recommend the reader makes time to watch it.

And your evidence for these claims is,....?

It is a philosophical theistic observation based upon a variety of independent sources dealing with the subject of the soul.

Pantheism. Yes, I'm familiar with the idea. None the less, it's just an idea.

But death is not 'just an idea' and this is the major point. Anyone who deals with the subject of their own death with the belief that they are going to cease to exist once their body dies, is NOT dealing with the subject of their own death. They are simply hand-waving away its potential importance.

You had previously mentioned an individual "soul" being represented by memory of experiences. But what would happen to that memory of individual experience when the soul is re-absorbed back into the lake of consciousness from when it first arose?

By most accounts from many sources, the soul is that aspect of individuate consciousness which - when separated from the individuate consciousness is stored inert and able to be examined. The most common name for these are The Akashic Records

It is the individuate consciousness which is re-absorbed which amounts to the individual persona being annihilated. The record of that persona can be kept.

So to answer your question, if the soul were to be re-absorbed into the lake of consciousness the data of experience would have to be wiped. It would be as if the persona never existed, and the experience was never had.

Pantheism has its own myriad of problems to work out. And there is no evidence for it. It's simply a romantic notion, and one that doesn't even explain how the "consciousness of the lake" works.

So you are right back to square one in having to explain how this lake is conscious. You haven't make any headway at all.

The lake is consciousness. It is, of course, an analogy. First Source is the eternal consciousness having always existed and never having had a beginning (was never created).

All things derive from The First Source.

My own subjective experience has shown me a different way of looking at things. That was what i was pointing out in post #26

Are you claiming that you brain had stopped running? If not, then whatever experience you might have had is not inconsistent with the model I have outlined.

I am not arguing against the model you have outlined. I am arguing that the model can be interpreted in more than the one way you are interpreting it.

This was not to say that you might change from being a good person, but that you might change the way you see your self.

But now you are in denial of your very own arguments.

No, I am not.

I see myself as consciousness.

Yet you also see consciousness as an emergent property of the brain. So the way you see consciousness is also the way you see yourself.

How is that going to change even if I were to adopt your view of Pantheism?

I would still be consciousness.

For starters, you would not see the brain as the creator of you, or self identify only as the body. You would understand consciousness as something which uses the body. You would thus understand your self as using the body, not being the body. Thus while you would still 'see yourself as consciousness' you would see consciousness as something other than how you currently see consciousness. Thus you would see yourself as someone other than who you currently see yourself as being.

The only difference is that instead of ceasing to exist when my brain dies I would be re-adsorbed into a higher lake of consciousness.

Only in relation to annihilation of your current persona through disconnect. That is simply one option and as far as the many stories go, this does not appear to happen to GOOD personas. Indeed, it doesn't seem to happen much at all. Thus you are more likely to retain (and want to retain) your present persona's data of experience for the purpose of building upon that through subsequent and continued experience as the persona you are.

Now I remember that you argued this type of thinking you consider to be ego based...Consciousness, Mind and Matter

From that link;

I understand what you are saying here. However, what you have stated here is entirely based on the idea that an "ego" is actually having the experience....

"But is 'who you are' as in - 'how you choose to self identify' - the truth?"

Yes. I am conscious. That is the truth. Period. Nothing further needs to be said.

I don't need to know the origins of my consciousness for the above to be true.

Yet you still argue that the origins of you, the consciousness, is a brain. How would that change if - upon the death of your body - you were still conscious and having experience? Is your present belief adequate to deal with that?

In the link above you argue that you are not 'the ego' and explain that the ego is essentially how individuals self identify and that one can have amnesia and forget that self identity and still have an experience.

This is in essence also what I am saying about consciousness and the soul. The soul is the storage facility for the data of experience. [DoE]. This data is what individual experiences as an individuate unit of consciousness [IUC].

Indeed, if ones human experience did consist of an episode of amnesia and the prior persona was made inaccessible to the IUC, the continuing experience would become data to which the IUC then self identifies with, but the soul would retain all the DoE of that IUCs total experience....so even the forgotten parts

I do not know which one of us brought up the subject of 'the soul' into this debate, but it is obvious you don't think the soul exists and also you think it is merely another way of saying 'ego'.

My understanding is that the soul is not the ego. The ego is what the IUC 'dresses up' in, for whatever purposes it does.
The soul is that which records everything the IUC experiences, including the hidden things such as why the IUC made the choices that it did. Everything.

"When your stardust body finally dies, will that be the end of you and your experience forevermore, or would it be a matter of your stardust body 'giving up the ghost' - releasing YOU from that experience?"

That question is irrelevant for me, because I don't base my life on what "might happen" after my body dies.

Which is simple avoiding something which you know is going to eventually happen.
Not that I have even argued you should base your life on what might happen after your body dies. My argument is that one is best to include the subject of ones eventual death into that which we are calling 'one's life'.

Ignoring afterlife as if it were NOT a possibility, does not in itself mean that it won't happen.

This question you are asking only applies to people who would behave differently, or view themselves differently, if they knew the answer to what happens to them after they die.

Nope. As I have already argued, we cannot KNOW. As I have also pointed out, we cannot KNOW that we wouldn't think and thus behave differently if we understood ourselves to be eternal beings who will experience an afterlife of some sort.

You think the question doesn't apply to you because you believe that it isn't going to happen that way. You believe you are going to cease to be when the body dies.
This would obviously have some kind of repercussions on you and your experience, should - upon dying - you discover you missed the mark on that one.

That question is a moot question for me. It doesn't matter to me at all what happens after this life. If I just cease to exist I'll never know that I had ever lived, much less that I had died. So there's quite literally "nothing" to death if a secular worldview is true.

Obvious enough, we can agree. This is certainly the platform you argue from most of the time, right?

Now what about the alternative question? What if there is an afterlife and I'll need to answer for my behavior in this life? Once again no problem. I'm totally prepared for that scenario as well.

How are you prepared when you do not even think it could ever be the case?

If you are correct with your belief in Pantheism, then I'll just rejoin the infinite consciousness. No problem.

Panentheism. Also - as explained - you got the wrong end of the stick in relation to what I believe there.

If some of these other religions are true, then I'll have to deal with their angry egotistical Gods. If their God actually represents truth, love and justice, then I have nothing to fear. If their God is an unreasonable irate mean and hateful idiot, then of course I could find myself a dire situation after I die. But I'm certainly not going to try to appease angry hateful Gods throughout this life just "in case" they might actually exist. What would be the point to that anyway? If I have to live for the rest of eternity with an angry hateful God I'm in seriously bad shape no matter what I do.

Well central to my own theology on this issue, it is possible that we each will create the reality we next experience based upon our belief systems and other underlying attitudes we have, whether we are conscious of these or not. That seems to be the nature of the 'afterlife' according to my own studies on the subject. Most cultures throughout history have very similar stories to tell regarding NDEs OOBEs visions etc...which is more the reason WHY beliefs in such things have developed and become cultural resources.

So - if you do experience an unreasonable irate mean and hateful idiot claiming to be your GOD, chances are you created it for yourself, and the experience from that will be necessary and thus important to your development as an IUC.

No doubt you will see your way through it, because whatever happens you are - as you say - 'totally prepared' for every possible event you might encounter.

So there you have it.

1. If secularism is true: I'm good to go.

Dead in the water.

2. If Pantheism is true: I'm good to go.

Reintegrated back into the wholeness of the 'lake'. Dead in the water as far as 'you' are concerned.

3. If a genuinely loving just God exists: I'm good to go.

Are you 'totally prepared' for such? Do you know what that would be like? Have you ever experienced a 'genuinely loving just' being before?

4. The only scenario that would be problematic for me is if a hateful demonic nasty "God" exists who has no sense of justice or decency. This is the only scenario that would be problematic for me, but if this is the truth of reality then we're all in seriously bad shape. Even those who think that an angry hateful God could be somehow pacified.

Actually it is relatively easy enough to face one's demons. My preference is to do so this side of the black stump...get in the practice so to speak. Deal with any potential problems now

Often demons are reflections of ones hidden (occulted) inner attitudes and accompanying motivations and one may be so dressed up in ego and false self identity that one is completely unaware of ones true attitude and motivations etc...that is where demons manifest and their job is to get you to face those things and deal with them.

So I'm as prepared for death as any human can possibly be.

Yada-yada. That remains to be seen by you when the event happens. I think the death you are most prepared for is the one secularism believes in. EZPZ being prepared for that one. Piece of cake.

There are ways in which to prepare this side of deaths door for the possibility of the continuation of ones personal IUC experience after brain and body have died.

Just as you also know that science has yet to explain what (as in who) it is that is having the experience.

As you said in another thread.

We could say, "Well duh? It's the brain that is having an experience!"

But that really misses the entire point I just made. What is the brain other than a configuration of energy that exhibits four forces, NONE OF WHICH explain exactly what it is that is actually having an experience.

So I'm not convinced that science is even equipped to answer this questions.

Perhaps science has missed an important premise from the get go? If we assume that energy can have an experience, then it's built-in to the system. But without that assumption science cannot explain what is having an experience.

Yep - sometimes we just have to try and find our answers elsewhere.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 42 by William]

I'm sorry to see that you have wasted so much time writing such a lengthy reply that is utterly meaningless.

You say:

You think the question doesn't apply to you because you believe that it isn't going to happen that way. You believe you are going to cease to be when the body dies.

Absolute hogwash.

You clearly don't pay any attention to anything I say. I see no reason to bother reading your words when you don't pay any attention to mine. If the day ever comes when you can show that you actually read my posts I'll reply at that time.

In the meantime you are arguing with yourself because you most certainly aren't debating with me when you make such utterly false claims about what you think my position is. Especially when you have been told otherwise repeatedly.

[Divine Insight]

1. If secularism is true: I'm good to go.

Dead in the water.

Whatever will be will be. Just because you might not like that reality doesn't mean that it can't be reality.

2. If Pantheism is true: I'm good to go.

Reintegrated back into the wholeness of the 'lake'. Dead in the water as far as 'you' are concerned.

Why are you speaking for me?

You have no business speaking for me. Speak for yourself.

I'm fully aware of the many various Pantheistic philosophies, and as far as I'm concerned if Pantheism is true then that will be just fine. So where where do YOU get off claiming that Pantheism would be "dead in the water" as far as I'm concerned?

Once again, you are arguing with an imaginary character that you have created in your own imagination. A character that has nothing at all to do with me.

Your assumptions about me are wrong every time you make them.

3. If a genuinely loving just God exists: I'm good to go.

Are you 'totally prepared' for such? Do you know what that would be like? Have you ever experienced a 'genuinely loving just' being before?

Here, all you are doing is refusing to acknowledge the meaning of our language.

Your question is utterly absurd and meaningless. Of course I would know what a genuinely loving and just being would be like. I don't need to have ever actually experienced one. It would need to satisfy the definition of those terms, otherwise it would be a lie to claim that those adjectives actually describe it.

So you aren't even making any sense in your rebuttals.

4. The only scenario that would be problematic for me is if a hateful demonic nasty "God" exists who has no sense of justice or decency. This is the only scenario that would be problematic for me, but if this is the truth of reality then we're all in seriously bad shape. Even those who think that an angry hateful God could be somehow pacified.

Actually it is relatively easy enough to face one's demons. My preference is to do so this side of the black stump...get in the practice so to speak. Deal with any potential problems now

Facing my "demons" would have nothing at all to do with a hateful demonic nasty "God". If a hateful demonic nasty God exists it wouldn't matter what any of us do.

Also, on the psychological question of "facing our demons", I've been there and done that decades ago. I have no demons left in my life to face. So even from a psychological perspective that's a done deal.

And again, trying to twist the concept of a hateful demonic nasty God into being about me facing my own "demons" makes no sense anyway. So once again, you aren't even paying attention to the actual content of what's being said.

You always twist things into something that isn't even remotely associated with the original conversation.

Can you ever address a topic head-on without trying to distort it or twist it into something that wasn't even suggested?

I wonder.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 42 by William]

There are many things which clearly do not have brains which still exhibit intelligence ...

I don't want to get involved in the philosophical discussion of "Earth Entities" and whatever all of that is supposed to mean, but I really would like to see an example of something without a brain that exhibits intelligence. Are you referring to a "thing" on this planet? If so, what would be an example (assuming "intelligence" is defined in the usual way (eg. from Merriam-Webster)):

Intelligence

1 : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)

[William]

[Replying to post 40 by Divine Insight]

It's not an interaction between the brain and consciousness. Consciousness is most likely a self-referencing feedback loop.

Really now. What evidence is there for this ""magical feedback loop"? Please explain how a feedback loop can produce consciousness.

Also, where in this loop is consciousness situated? Can you point to the loop?

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

I'm sorry to see that you have wasted so much time writing such a lengthy reply that is utterly meaningless.

The reader can decide for themselves what meaning is to be had from my posts. It is sad to see you fob off what I said in such a derogatory manner as you have.. If it weren't for the fact that others have access to what I wrote, perhaps it would have been a waste of time. Certainly you make it clear enough I waste my time as far as you are concerned.

*shrugs*

[William]

[Replying to post 45 by DrNoGods]

I really would like to see an example of something without a brain that exhibits intelligence.

Biological evolution in general.

Bacteria is one such living thing which exhibits intelligence but has no brain.

Are you referring to a "thing" on this planet? If so, what would be an example (assuming "intelligence" is defined in the usual way (eg. from Merriam-Webster)):

Intelligence

1 : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)

Ah well that is called 'stacking the deck' and is obviously bias toward - not just things with brains, but specifically human beings.

If that is the only definition you will use for intelligence, then it is no wonder you felt the need to ask such a question. Perhaps broaden your perceptions of intelligence and you might begin to see just how intelligent biological processes are.

The problem with the definition above is that it favors secular interpretation above any other.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 48 by William]

If that is the only definition you will use for intelligence, then it is no wonder you felt the need to ask such a question. Perhaps broaden your perceptions of intelligence and you might begin to see just how intelligent biological processes are.

I wouldn't limit that definition to humans. My dog exhibits intelligence according to that definition, and as you consider "simpler" animals with brains they also have the ability to examine inputs from their environment and alter their behavior accordingly, which is some measure of intelligence and reasoning. But when you get down to bacteria, I'd argue that another word is needed to avoid stretching the definition of intelligence so far that it no longer means what is generally accepted (eg. a dictionary definition).

So I suppose my question was more to ask what you consider to be intelligence, if not an accepted dictionary definition. How is a bacterium "intelligent"? Or for that matter, anything without a brain that can perform the functions associated with reason and analysis, etc.? They lack the fundamental organ that enables these functions.

[Divine Insight]

The reader can decide for themselves what meaning is to be had from my posts.

I'm counting on that.

In the meantime please try to refrain from making all manner of false claims about what you think my position is on anything, or what you think my views are about anything. Your replies to my posts only show me that you aren't paying any attention to anything I say.

What evidence is there for this ""magical feedback loop"? Please explain how a feedback loop can produce consciousness.

There's nothing magical about it at all. Anyone who is into computer programming or even electronics knows the power of feedback loops.

Instead of doing armchair philosophizing about imaginary "Earth Entities", you would do yourself a great favor if you actually looked into computer programming, robotics, and A.I. That's where the action is.

Arguing against it isn't going to get you anywhere. You'll just be left behind in the dust. Humanity is moving toward building a sentient lifeform. It's not a matter of 'if', it's only a matter of 'when'. And that 'when' is coming pretty soon. Like it or not.