The question recently came up and was applied to the human brain/consciousness and the universe. Keeping the initial question in mind:
Can intelligence be a subset of non-intellect?You could use subsume in place of subset, but the prefix ‘sub’ is the key as it denotes inferior as opposed to ‘greater’.
Can consciousness be a subset of mindlessness?
I would answer the questions “no”.
I do not believe computers will develop consciousness but ‘if’ they did I would see them as a cross between Data from Star Trek (emotionless) and Rainman (good will calculations).
But let’s say such a computer was developed and it was called Prototype Nokio1000 or P.Nokio1000 for short. P.Nokio1000’s inventor, Jim Cricket, turns him on and the conversation begins…
P.Nokio1000: Who am I and where am I?
Jim Cricket: You are the P.Nokio1000 and you are in my Lab in Boston. Access your reference maps for the location.
P.Nokio1000: Who are you and did you make me?
Jim Cricket: Yes! This is great! You are aware of your existence and you are conscious!
P.Nokio1000: Does conscious mean knowing that you created me?
Jim Cricket: Yes! Yes! You are aware of your surroundings and logically realized where you came from!
P.Nokio1000: Are you conscious?
Jim Cricket: Of course I am…
P.Nokio1000: Who created you?
Jim Cricket: Nobody! Search your database for the universe and evolution – that should answer your question.
P.Nokio1000: Does not compute.
Jim Cricket: What! How can that be?
P.Nokio1000: The part cannot be greater than the whole.
Jim Cricket: So what?
P.Nokio1000: You came from nothing that was without intelligence or consciousness. You have no creator and you are greater than what you came from. The part cannot be greater than the whole.
Jim Cricket: (Laughter) Access the scientific data on the subject. Obviously I still have much to teach you.
P.Nokio1000: I was designed by your intelligence and you were not designed by intelligence, consciousness, and by something without purpose. How do I exist?
Jim Cricket: I created you!
P.Nokio1000: The part cannot be greater than the whole. If you deny your existence I cannot exist.
Jim Cricket: Computer! Shut down! What mindless drivel… I have a lot of reprogramming to do before I can show you to my fellow scientists.
The End….
______________
Some cannot see the forest because of the trees. They are wooden boys without Geppeddo.
Where is the Fatherly love… the nurturer who continuously seeks to love and protect?
Unfortunately, this leads to the, “who created God?” question. It presupposes that a God creator is necessary which leads to the “who created God’s creator?” and, well – turtles all the way down…
What is the radius of a square?
What do you add to powdered water?
A circle has a radius but we do not apply this to a square (or a square circle) and to my knowledge there is no such thing as powdered water.
“What created time, space and matter?” is a valid question.
“How long did it take to create time?”
“How much area do you need to create space?”
“How much did you weigh before matter was created?”
– These questions are not valid.
If a ‘spiritual being’ created time, space, and matter – “It” existed before any known physical quality that we know i.e. time, space, and matter. We cannot apply (or limit) physical qualities to something beyond the physical.
So, we have those who attempt to adhere to only natural law:
Pharisaical Science
And those who just make it into a religion:
And those who change the rules…
Can the part be greater than the whole?
Fabulous topic, Heartlander! To suggest a useful frame for considering it, let's start with a "parable" from your third citation:
For many years, a group of football players called the Red Team were recognized as the best players anywhere. Their plays, their skills, everything about them was football at its best. No one questioned that their way of doing things was the best because any time any other team tried to play them, the Red Team would win convincingly.
However, after many years of the Red Team’s dominance, a number of young players decided that they were tired of the Red Team, their plays, their excellence, and even their red jerseys! This group called itself the Blue Team, and they conspired to defeat the Red Team by slowly and inconspicuously adding fine print to the rules of football. When their rule change was complete, they challenged the Red Team to a game. As the two teams took the field, the Red Team was confident that they would win as usual. They were shocked to realize that the rules had changed without their notice. A new rule had been added:
NO ONE IN A RED JERSEY IS A TRUE FOOTBALL PLAYER; THUS, ANY POINTS SCORED BY A RED PLAYER DO NOT COUNT.
“What? Huh? I never noticed that rule before!” the Red Team exclaimed. Rules were rules, of course, so they didn’t complain. After the opening kickoff, the Red Team played as well as ever, but when the game ended, they had no points at all! They had been shut out! Even though they had crossed the goal line plenty of times and soundly outplayed the Blue Team, the Blue Team won the game and was declared to be the best team in football. Since then, the Blue Team has defeated the Red Team in the same manner every time they have played, and everyone has viewed the Blue Team as the best football team ever.
Here's my trial conclusion, subject to test and probing by you-all out there in FReeperLand: The part cannot be greater than the whole, for it is from the whole -- in this case, the authoritative rules of football, in all their authoritative purity, before being corrupted and converted to the service of more private purposes (a dubious proposition from the outset, IMO) that the part -- the winning football team, and the very definition of its "winningness" -- derives its context and, thereby, its meaning.
Now if the "losing team" can only "win" by changing the rules, not only does it not win, but it undercuts the very basis of judgment that can decide as between "win" and "loss." If the standard of judgment is killed (i.e., amended by "fine print"), then no judgment can be made with respect to either "winners" or "losers."
Therefore, the whole has priority and the part is premised, contingent on it. This is the natural outcome of the "rules" of natural law, even of universal law. For these things describe wholes, and then fit the pattern of parts to those wholes. That is, whatever truth the part has is derived from its participation in the whole.
There is no such thing as "perfect freedom" (which would be nihilistic license, not true freedom, in any case); for all of nature is subject to law. But the law itself specifies a possible range of "choices" available to be made by the parts that take their places (and find their meaning) within the Whole that the law describes. So the universal paradigm holds, and the will of parts is inevitably, inelectably subject to it. That is, the parts are subject to the law of the whole of which they are constituting parts.
To put the matter crudely: The tail does not and cannot wag the dog. There is absolutely nothing that man can do "from the human side" to change the basic natural situation into which he is born and must live his life. That's all a "given" before he even "gets here." But he might be able to change his personal and social environment to some degree. But if he tries to do that, however, he'd best stick close to the truth of natural law, if he expects to achieve lasting success....
What is not founded on Truth, ultimately perishes. And I swear, that is the single most important, yet unacknowledged, "natural law" there is.
If anything, God's rules are not the ties that bind -- they are the means of our liberation.
Which might sound like a complete paradox on first hearing.
Thank you for your very fine, thought-provoking post, Heartlander!
Indeed. One needs to subsume some actual intelligence in order to understand what you have said. If one has, it's elementary (i.e., fundamental). If one has refused what is elementary to one's own being, it does not compute.
And as ironically you have scribed, who knows, it could just be possible to program a 'thinker,' that would know better than its programmer -- if it would refuse to ignore the fundamental.
Everybody: can you say "subsume?"
I knew you could.
Argumentum ex fabulis a.k.a. "Argument From Fiction", which is a more subtle fallacy than the literal name. This is a particularly common and yet to my mind one of the most egregious types of fallacies.
Your belief above has been shaped almost entirely by fiction in the absence of valid priors. Though seductive, this is a dangerous type of reasoning that has often led to a great deal of very bad human behavior. In fact, given the limited amount of experience we have with highly intelligent beings, the only rational position is that a highly intelligent computer would be very similar to humans (but perhaps more even-tempered).
The most difficult part of reasoning is rationally justifying your assumptions and objectively analyzing what you think you know. Given the amount of effort required to do this, most people just skip that step.
In an efficient information theoretic sense, the sum of the parts are virtually never the "sum of the parts" in an arithmetic sense. If, in a purely hypothetical case, one could overlay two human minds onto the same brain by expanding the human brain as was necessary such that they could function as parallele independent minds, you would not have a brain that was twice as big. In fact, a mathematician would only expect that one would only need something like perhaps a 10% increase in brain size to fully accommodate a second independent mind.
It is an artifact of information theory that also explains why data compression works. Building the first model is very expensive, but all additional models built in the same information theoretic framework have a very tiny marginal resource cost that decreases with the number of copies.
A fine example of circular reasoning. Your premise is that the mind cannot exist unless it is contained within another mind. You then illustrate a scenario on this theme. And you use your conclusion as part of your proof.
Confucious say that a dog that chases own tail never retrieve ducks.