The Inevitable Dossier
15 October, 2019
Server time: 14:35
 
The Dossier
Download it now!
Download statistics
Page hit statistics
Old statistics
Online reading
Sympathize
Corner Banner
Support / Donate
The Inevitable 'I'
Google Ads


Creeper
MediaCreeper
 
10. Appendix (-10.1.5)

It is often claimed the mind does not behave like a computer. Except for the fact that  the brain uses a biological mechanism more complicated than electronic computers developed so far, it would appear to operate exactly like a computer programmed to learn from experience and rebuild its circuits accordingly. Take sailors using a PC to land on a desert island and able to transmit files to parties landing on other islands. They program the computer to scan the beach for pirates and wild animals but are killed by a volcano. The next party scans for volcanoes but is killed by something unknown. Soon the computers will be evaluating how many parties were killed by something unknown and build it in as a risk factor, segregating out the remaining unknowns as they are identified and helping future parties to choose between patterns of known and unknown risks. As  computers develop, it is reasonable to expect they will improve on their own initiative and be regarded as conscious all the time they are switched on, as a human is only while he is alive. You might say that the human brain is superior to a computer in that it allows for uncertainties or areas of doubt. In fact, it reacts only to information possessed and not to information not possessed. The volcano would kill just as many people who did not know it existed as it would break computers and wipes out saints just as efficiently and indifferently as it wipes out sinners. You might reasonably argue that humans would be superior to computers, having the capacity to visit the island, consult with others etc. The human brain is perhaps a million times more complex than computers so far developed and is in a mobile machine. The mechanical computer might never catch up with the brain but if the rest of the universe is entirely predictable, why should the human brain be regarded as different? Its greater development and complexity proves neither that it evolved by chance nor that it did not but the balance of evidence is in favour of the Theory of Inevitability, which indicates that it did. Exponents of the idea there is something unique and spiritual in the human brain maintain that other animals are not able to think introspectively. This may or may not be so but software can be envisaged to review past success and carry out modifications to improve the computer’s relationship to survival of computers in their environment, which could be described as introspection.

Consciousness and awareness of surroundings seem to be the most accepted criteria for being human. Most humans are not aware they are living in a system proceeding inevitably in every detail, so their awareness of environment is limited; it is only recently we have started to consider such things systematically and unemotionally. It would be reasonable to describe a clock as a mechanism not aware of its environment, although its mechanism and these considerations of it are all part of the environment. On the other hand, a computer programmed to analyse its environment and, by modifying itself accordingly, to survive in it could be described as being aware of its surroundings. Ultimately the computer would recognise and analyse the inevitable pattern it found both around and within itself. At this point it would be as, or more, conscious than a human brain. Religion is what we  call this type of activity in the brain and so far it has assisted survival.

Complexity is a ‘new science’ studied in its own right. It has been tentatively concluded that the Internet might ultimately become conscious within itself, also that, if you were to connect together a great number of electronic circuits you would achieve a type of consciousness.

If you connected all the computers in the world together and put a signal to count them into the first, it would come out of the last with the exact answer, unless there was a breakdown - only one of the countless further proofs of the inevitability of the system within which we exist. If you fire rockets at distant planets a million times every one will be on target if correctly made, programmed and aimed. If rockets start to miss, it will eventually be found that a physical factor was the cause, even if a human has sabotaged the aim. If the whole universe has such inevitable consequences to actions, why should the human brain be regarded as different? An interesting question is whether, if the idea the universe eventually collapses into a small mass and then expands again is correct, will every molecule repeat its history or will there be a new pattern? Inevitability Theory considers that there are two possibilities. Either the history of the universe will repeat in exactly the same pattern or it will proceed to a new exact pattern the last detail of which is already programmed in the existing pattern. At this moment, or state of change, not enough detail is possessed to make the prediction but what and when (whatever this means) it will be, if ever made, is already inevitable in accordance with the Theory of Inevitability and independent of any supposed moral decision in the human brain, except in so far as it is a purely mechanical one and part of the Inevitability. If, alternatively, the universe does not collapse and does go on expanding infinitely, there is equally no reason to expect it or anything within it, to proceed other than in an inevitable and predictable manner.

A typical objection to the Theory is to say, "I just feel there has got to be more to life than that." Emotions are only a part of the mental programme in your mind. You are programmed to try to ensure the survival of the species; happiness and creativity are part of that program and the fact they are deeply embedded in the mind does not mean there is anything supernatural about them. Which community is, at the present stage of evolution, most likely to survive - one possessing the group selfishness of strong moral and religious convictions, or one with none? Incidentally, the universe does not care about survival, even though it is ingrained and popular to think that it does.

Sorry, but death fits-in with Inevitability Theory. We all proceed on an inevitable and exact path to the point at which our brains cease to function; we are no longer conscious and do not become so again, unless we have been frozen and revived, or the universe repeats its pattern as mentioned above. If the universe grows again to a new pattern determined by the old, it is not impossible that such a pattern could include recollection of memories of the present but these would still be part of the Inevitability and the chances - based on experience - are we will not be aware of them.

 


 
Google Translator
Inevitable Ads
Advertisement
 
 
Visitors
Today 's Top 20
 100 % United States
Amazon Ads

 
       
© 2019 The Inevitable Dossier