Computers & Aliens: The Abstract (as opposed to the concrete)

Continuing on the topic of placebo universe, i.e. why is the placebo necessary/why can’t you just believe without believing in something? Basically, it’s a concrete vs. abstract concept. Concrete (or supposedly concerte) concepts are a lot narrower than abstract concepts, which is also why abstract models become what I would call “higher level” on the hierarchy - because they encompass more by becoming looser.

What is a concept? How do you define any concept? When you give (or attempt to give) something a “definition” or “meaning”, it becomes more concrete, i.e. you seem to have a better “grasp” of what something is.. but really? Sometimes the opposite happens, and you realize how absurd it is to attempt to define anything at all, and you’re then left only with abstract uncertain unfalsifiable ideas. Ok sure, but then why do most human beings seem more accustomed to concrete concepts even though there’s no real “meaning” in that? Why is concrete preferable and more statistically apparent in thought patterns than abstract? Or what I mean is, why do the things that constantly swirl my mind hardly ever (if not never) stir any attention at all in the vast majority of other people in the universe? Is it because they’re not “real” people?!

I’d like to bring the topic to the human discussion of “mind”: What is mind? What is an intelligent being? What is having consciousness? In particular, computers and aliens: Can a computer have a mind/be consciously aware? Does intelligence exist outside of earth? These are all questions that human beings LOVE to ask, and seem to gain much pleasure from attempting to answer, but from my perspective, it’s absolutely absurd!!!!

Humans talk about minds and intelligence as if they had the slightest clue what “mind” and “intelligence” even are (just like they talking about what God is or isn’t). They invent definitions for what they think “are” mind/intelligence, which are clearly nothing more than “definitions” and then they have a battle of definitions and languages that touches on absolutely nothing beyond language and conclusions that have nothing to do with minds and intelligence at all. Actually that’s even the better type. Most people don’t even seem to think that far, that is, they don’t even attempt to concrete-ify the already abstractly existing ideas of mind/intelligence, but jump directly to the assumption that mind/intelligence is and can only be what we as humans “know” as mind/intelligence even though they clearly have no clue that they know nothing about what mind/intelligence is.

I’m really tired of people going after computers/robots and aliens having “human consciousness”. You “people” find it so difficult to form an abstraction of the concept of mind that you don’t even realize that you’re still caught up in the human bubble of experience that’s got nothing to do with what conscious awareness even means. Stop trying aliens out there that will comprehend in the exact same way that human beings do, because if they do, then they’re not even extraterrestrial intelligence anymore, they’re just human beings! And stop asking whether computers can be intelligent, whether they have the capacity to experience things the way humans do - if they could really do all of that then they’d be “human beings”, not “computers” and that’s got absolutely nothing to do with whether they’re consciously aware either!

Please, people - actually know what you’re talking about (i.e. know that you know absolutely nothing about anything at all) before you go of explaining things as if you had a clue what an explanation even is. Oh the trouble/joys of incomprehension of (human) comprehension.

Severe Lack of Dimension in Language

Haven’t posted in a really long time, partly because there are so many ideas that keep on popping up in my mind that I literally can’t afford the time to document all of them (especially because it’s a lot more time consuming to attempt to document them using words). Usually they pop out within a matter of seconds - the idea - but to document them is a whole different task, an act of translation, even, or more like a mapping. Language is so limited, I’m almost certain all it could ever do is provide a mapping - a 3D cube onto a 2D piece of paper - you lose one dimension, but you get the gist of the idea, although what you get is most certainly not a cube, but some random 2D arrangement of lines. Language is like the paper, except it’s not just one dimension lower than the actual idea that attempts to be portrayed, it’s i don’t even know how many dimensions lower. It’s just incredibly limiting, and most of the time I find it bewildering to even think that it’s at all possible to convey anything meaningful using language.

Language is a tool of communication - its primary purpose - but it is most certainly not the most ideal tool for communication. At times I wondered why I should even attempt to convey these ideas using language at all, but I suppose if the primary purpose of these posts is to document my ideas before they risk disappearing, then the inverted spectrum of language problem doesn’t really since I’m only trying to communicate with myself? Although if I were to forget completely the original idea one day and then re-read this post, that would be a different story. But I’d like to believe that that won’t ever happen because I like to believe that it’s indeed not possible to forget anything at all, and therefore I won’t. 

Random Thought

Incomprehension is incomprehensible once you comprehend.