Intuiting Miss Personification; AI, God & Gaia

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:10 pm

Confused? Just imagine how I feel. I thought up the damn title...

Anyway, we love ranting about religion and gods. So much so that I'm personally getting bored with it. So I thought I'd offer up a different sort of debate, that in some ways do fit in the same category.

What if god is real, but isn't sentient?

I don't know if you lot knows how ecosystems interact, what emergent behaviour is, or how the majority of the lifeforms on the planet communicate and make decisions. It's far more than 3 separate fields, and a thorough examination of any part of those questions would take up a medium-sized library at least, but I'll try to explain very briefly.

Many people think bacteria don't make decisions. Many people are wrong about a great many things, this one included. Bacteria are anarchists. Not quite like yours truly, but in practice they're not so different. Bacteria change according to their circumstances, and do so very rapidly. Further, they pass on this change - information - to their peers. Peers then whether they need to act on that information, based on their own circumstance. Obviously no sentience is at work here, it's just how the little things behave.

And so do ants. The fat little blighter in the center of the hive, doesn't actually order anything around. It just responds to information passed on by the individuals that make up the hive - just like the individuals themselves do. If a bunch of workers come across a nice carcass in the woods, for example, they'll communicate this information to the rest of the hive. If similar feedback from other workers means multiple food sources can't be utilised fully, the queen spawns more workers than it otherwise would have. It's neither hivemind nor monarchy, individuals simply act on the available information to the best of their ability, and for non-sentient things, it's a very damn efficient way to go about things.

Thing is, similar individuals aren't the only things that function this way. Ecosystems govern themselves in a similar fashion, across species and individual specializations. Introduce change to any aspect of an ecosystem and the information about that change, and it's impact on individuals and species, is almost instantly conveyed to the entire ecosystem and all of it's individual parts. If a tree is infected with juicy little beetles, for example, it changes it's chemical signature slightly, alerting nearby woodpeckers in the process. If the woodpeckers damage the tree sufficiently to threaten it's existence, it's chemical signature changes again, alerting, for example, a horde of ants to come make the woodpeckers miserable. And on and on it goes.

Obviously the tree is completely oblivious to the consequences of it's actions, just like beetles, woodpeckers and ants are. Yet they exchange information and change their own behaviour based on it. In fact, there's a reasonably plausible theory out there called Gaia Theory, that speculates the entire Earth interacts in this way, and in doing so not only balance ecosystems to their environment, but plays a major part in determining everything from climate change to evolution. It's the great big invisible hand, and unlike anything else we've come up with, it explains why things are so finely tuned in nature - like the capacity of carbon sinks.

Interestingly this anarchic information exchange also governs how shit individual cells work, and human brains. Yups. Human brains. Sentience. And it's how we're trying to construct AIs these days.

We're actually pretty good at the latter. It's reasonably simple to construct simple systems of information exchange that gives rise to emergent behaviour. Most of you have probably tried a chat bot at some point, and that's exactly what a chat bot is; a simplistic system that adapts to the information fed into it. The ability to carry on a simple conversation with a human being, is emergent behaviour. It isn't inherent in the system. Sort of like neurons firing in our brains and exchanging information with each other doesn't necessarily result in anything more impressive than a gnat, but in us humans usually give rise to sentience.

Hopefully the obscure topic title is beginning to come clear now, but I'll help. I think "seeing God (or whatever) in nature" is a perfectly sensible thing to do. I see it too. Difference is, I don't attribute sentience to this god thing. I simply see it as a consequence of a lot of different things exchanging a lot of information, resulting in changes in behaviour for anything from the lowliest amoebae to global things like the climate. And while I think it lacks any kind of sentience, I do think it is an extremely intelligent mechanism.

This latter bit, as I've already stated, is my personal opinion. It's not fact and I'm not trying to pass it off as science. Nevertheless, it explains so much shit that, frankly, don't make an ounce of sense otherwise - divinity included.

But while disclaimers are interesting, they don't make for debate, so what do I actually want to discuss? Well... All of it. Do you believe an AI rules the world? Why don't you? Is this a really elaborate way of saying natural forces can account for everything? Do you think some other mechanism or entity can explain how homogeneous and fine tuned everything from nature in general, to specific bits of it in particular, is? Tell me your thoughts, damnit Cool

NB: Before you jump on me, this isn't an original idea thought up by yours truly. Einstein believed it long before I was born, for example. The science that sort of suggests it, isn't new either. But it is newer than the age old tired arguments we usually have about divinity.

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:06 pm

this theory is very interesting, and, believable.

no offense to those that do beleive in a god, or divine being, but religeon does nothing but cause humans to kill eachother, and, over the years we have adapted new weapons and have become more fit to kill eachother, as we have adapted to reacting to given information.

this all precludes to the survival of the fittest, the more adapt one becomes, the higher the probability that one will become the successor.

i think i'll stick science, and say that the AI theory powers nature, and humans/society, however, this also dictated by science, as without it, none of us would be able to log any information or track animals' behavior...

what i'm reallyt saying is that AI complements science really well.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:17 pm

A shame that more people dont post in here instead of those boring god threads.
I myself have for a long time considered myself to be a tiny part of a giant organism that would encompass the universe and probably more that cant be explained.
Do I think of this One as God?No,no more than an atom if it was conscious should think of me as its god.I am a part of something incomprehensible in its enormity and that cool enough for me.
Wish I was better at getting my thoughts into print but hey I tried. Very Happy

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:30 pm

i think part of the organic system to replying to given factors is in part of quantum mechanics. since every neuron fires, it may release a sort of energy, that, may correspond to human thoughts and connections with other organic things... little off-topic... but it gets the point of human creativity past....

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:21 pm

toulji wrote:

this theory is very interesting, and, believable.

We agree, obviously Smile

Quote:

no offense to those that do beleive in a god, or divine being, but religeon does nothing but cause humans to kill eachother, and, over the years we have adapted new weapons and have become more fit to kill eachother, as we have adapted to reacting to given information.

Nice twist Razz

It's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it, though, and very one-sided. Religion, in general terms, has been just as much of a driving force of social reform and innovation.
I think - but again, it's just me - that hierarchic social structures are the driving force of human misery. If we organised in a manner similar to those ants I mentioned, for example, killing each other wouldn't have been efficient since something like 2,000 BC.

Quote:

this all precludes to the survival of the fittest, the more adapt one becomes, the higher the probability that one will become the successor.

i think i'll stick science, and say that the AI theory powers nature, and humans/society, however, this also dictated by science, as without it, none of us would be able to log any information or track animals' behavior...

That's just it. The process dosen't exert any force upon anything. We're not forced to act on the input we receive from our environment. We can if we want and have the ability to process the information we're fed, but the choice is ours. It's a bit different for simpler lifeforms, because they don't have choices. They always act, in so far as they can, to further their own best interest, based on the information available to them. Beyond basic bodily functions, humans don't do that too often, for reasons largely unknown to me.

Krill wrote:

A shame that more people dont post in here instead of those boring god threads.

Yups. You'd think this was more controversial than the usual atheist/theist tirades.

Quote:

I myself have for a long time considered myself to be a tiny part of a giant organism that would encompass the universe and probably more that cant be explained.

Do I think of this One as God?No,no more than an atom if it was conscious should think of me as its god.I am a part of something incomprehensible in its enormity and that cool enough for me.

I don't see any reason to think there's more to this than meets the eye. I hesitate to call it an organism, because to me that implies an agenda. The information aggregate I'm talking about has no agenda or sentience, it simply influences it's individual parts in the way most beneficial to the individuals.

toulji wrote:

i think part of the organic system to replying to given factors is in part of quantum mechanics. since every neuron fires, it may release a sort of energy, that, may correspond to human thoughts and connections with other organic things... little off-topic... but it gets the point of human creativity past....

It's not the least bit off topic, on the contrary. I think you're operating under a misconception though.
The reason I've mentioned the human brain several times, is because it too is an information aggregate. It just operates very differently from the one we usually refer to as 'nature'.

And this can quickly become both an argument for and against the sentience or existence of divinity... I'm reaching for the words here, so bear with me.

Your mind builds layers upon layers of processed information. These layers further process each other. Eventually you emerge as a result of all this processing. You, your personality, your sentience.
The universal AI I talked about is somewhat different, in that it processes information by distributing it, rather than refining and post-processing it.

Of course, at some level, both aggregates are closed, so on some level, both engage in post-processing information. Whether this has any kind of implications for the universal AI is a damn good question. I don't think so. But human beings obviously wouldn't be the clever little fuckers we are, if it didn't have implications for us.

Did I just make an argument for the existence of deity X? I haven't the faintest idea. Perhaps I did, but I doubt it could be a personal deity in that case.

Ah well, time for coffee and a cigarette - and for admitting up front that I may be completely wrong about all the observations I've made in this thread.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:31 pm

I always thought religion was more of an idea to combat "Cause I said so" or some sort.

This IS coming from a 10+ year Catholic school student.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:39 pm

mike94se wrote:

I always thought religion was more of an idea to combat "Cause I said so" or some sort.

This IS coming from a 10+ year Catholic school student.

as said before, religion spawned because those that cant fathom the existence and then nothing. i believe that there is no afterlife, nor reincarnation.

religion could could just as well be some BS some guy thought of... but on the other hand, three 'holybooks' all acknowledge that jesus did indeed walk the earth.

religion is intended to control people, nothing more.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:45 pm

Please try to keep it moderately on topic so the mods don't get an itch in the ThreadLock finger.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:45 pm

Krlll wrote:

A shame that more people dont post in here instead of those boring god threads.
I myself have for a long time considered myself to be a tiny part of a giant organism that would encompass the universe and probably more that cant be explained.
Do I think of this One as God?No,no more than an atom if it was conscious should think of me as its god.I am a part of something incomprehensible in its enormity and that cool enough for me.
Wish I was better at getting my thoughts into print but hey I tried. Very Happy

orgasm yeah i like that buddy anyway yuse a only one talkin sense hyer duz ANYONE get past word 3 of those boring shit asses?

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:46 pm

ben130A wrote:

Krlll wrote:

A shame that more people dont post in here instead of those boring god threads.
I myself have for a long time considered myself to be a tiny part of a giant organism that would encompass the universe and probably more that cant be explained.
Do I think of this One as God?No,no more than an atom if it was conscious should think of me as its god.I am a part of something incomprehensible in its enormity and that cool enough for me.
Wish I was better at getting my thoughts into print but hey I tried. Very Happy

orgasm yeah i like that buddy anyway yuse a only one talkin sense hyer duz ANYONE get past word 3 of those boring shit asses?

you mean ORGANISM? some people are dumb...

are you capable of speaking real english with something known as 'grammar'?

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:32 am

orgasm lol yes perhaps a freudian slip.

But yes this is a very interesting topic and I have had immense trouble as many other figuring out the complexities of the natural world.
There is one thing that we problebly need to address, almost all of our interactions are chemical or electrical, its the chemical ones I'm interested in. Feks if I have 2 dogs feed one and starve the other, if I then take blood from the feed dog and give to the starved one, the starved one starts releasing enzymes into the digestive system to digest food that isnt there. This was the discovery of hormones in 1903.

We know of other (natural) chemical communication between plants and animals, feks feromones. There is also a fascinating plant in africa that giraffes graze on that when injured (or grazed upon) releases chemicals from the sap that alert nearby plants (of the same type) that there is something bad in the neighborhood and all the leafs of these plants become poisonous and the giraffes are forced to move on. Also dogs can assess threats from other animal by smelling pee or dung. If you put wolfs pee over a doorway the dog does not dare to cross it. (dont do this wolfs piss has an extremly strong odor, and is hard to get rid of)

Its very likely that since most all larger organizms share this trait that it must have been passed along by our smaller ancestors all the way down to the microscopic level, so they must inhabit this trait to.
So the Gaea (earth) theory seems correct at least in part.

We can teach animals to associate colors, smells, sounds. certain times of day or even movements with food or pleasure. So if a woodpecker came upon a tree that had a certain smell and there where huge amounts of easy pickings there, wouldnt it be more likely to investigate that smell next time? (I always run to the smell of bacon Wink

)

The real question is, isnt this just an evolutionary selection and evolution of the individual being (i.e learning)? That may or may not be passed on to the next generation through genes and/or teaching.

This also gives rise to the question if all organizms interact with each other why did we need a brain in the first place.

But I think questions like how the brain works and why it works so well are fascinating, because evolution explains why we have a brain (how it evolved) and why we need one today (to survive) but not why or how organizms got together or how they work (I might be wrong)

I dont really like any forums they lack the dynamic instant response of a converstion. Thats a real debate. I just joined the other day but I think this might be my last written argument. (also I really suck at esseys but rule almost all verbal debates). I dont even know why I'm sharing my opinion there's always someone else that knows the same things I do and has done the same things I think of doing. Its becoming harder to invent and be someone special. Thinking really does suck a man down into a depressive state I dont even know why I'm posting this here the last post was in mid 2007.

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:25 pm

i'm glad you brought it back up Smile

interesting topics never last too long here =(

but anyways, it seems that nature and the way things interact are always based on the need. Obviously the plants have adapted to secreting poison to ward off other animals from eating the rest, I really doubt god said it should, so it does Laughing

but anyways, i've always seen people so worried about global warming, i'm certain that many of earth's animals will adapt to this given circumstance. Sure, we might kill off some of the species, but just look at the extinction of dinosaurs... Hundreds of (known) species were wiped out, only to see the rise of mammalian life. This is a classic interaction of climate vs. adaptation.

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:01 pm

yo thats my dude

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:34 am

sersbjutien wrote:

... I dont even know why I'm sharing my opinion there's always someone else that knows the same things I do and has done the same things I think of doing. Its becoming harder to invent and be someone special. Thinking really does suck a man down into a depressive state I dont even know why I'm posting this here the last post was in mid 2007.

toulji wrote:

i'm glad you brought it back up Smile

interesting topics never last too long here =(

my sentiments exactly - never stop thinking, that is the true death - i read this post before but felt i couldn't really contribute, but it's nearing that season when people will have a lot of time on their hands and i'd like to know some of your thoughts on this - i thought it was a great topic, then i saw how badly the movie The Happening mangled this idea

Disconnected wrote:

I don't know if you lot knows
... Bacteria change according to their circumstances
... And so do ants
... tree ... changes it's chemical signature slightly
... And on and on it goes.

... Gaia Theory

toulji wrote:

but anyways, it seems that nature and the way things interact are always based on the need. Obviously the plants have adapted to secreting poison to ward off other animals...

the movie The Happening tried to portray this ideal but did a foul job of it
Earth/Gaia will kill us if we don't stop trying to kill ourselves

toulji wrote:

... three 'holybooks' all acknowledge that jesus did indeed walk the earth.

even so that does not make JC divine

toulji wrote:

religion is intended to control people, nothing more.

most organized religions - yes
otherwise religion is just a set of beliefs,
the optimist in me believes that eventually we will come to a religion whose beliefs will be founded in reason based upon fact and truths

Quote:

...people so worried about global warming, i'm certain that many of earth's animals will adapt to this given circumstance. Sure, we might kill off some of the species, but just look at the extinction of dinosaurs... Hundreds of (known) species were wiped out, only to see the rise of mammalian life. This is a classic interaction of climate vs. adaptation.

Disco wrote:

capacity of carbon sinks

nearing if not at full capacity - meaning CO2 will rise dramatically
are humans the next dinosaur then? is one willing to accept their own extinction?

everyone needs to find their 'soul-mate' the one that completes them, their complement to help create a balance, the yin to my yang

Disconnected wrote:

Confused? Just imagine how I feel. I thought up the damn title...
What if god is real, but isn't sentient?

it is my personal belief that each of us have a tiny glimpse of the truth, the entirety of those that can be considered alive (not necessarily human) respond to stimuli and combined is the driving force hence all life is important, love thy neighbor type stuff, and even a cabbage feels pain so don't feel so bad about that shrimp scampi

Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:37 pm

this topic is extremely interesting as it feeds directly into my views on human existence. i subscribe to the gaia theory and have for many years. thoughts i offer for debate:
given that one accepts the gaia theory and/or god is in nature; where does purpose and evolution, in the sense of continual refinement enter into the equation? in other words; if disseminating information and acting upon it is a survival mechanism; is individual survival the point or is survival of the information aggregate the overriding message.
p.s. this is the first time i've ever posted any comment to anything in my life. most threads seem to degenerate into drivel that by the time i'm ready to respond to what i'm reading it becomes moot.