software

Otherworldly view on “our” nature. Users

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

Let’s contemplate the thought experiment:

Three different families bought the same type of a TV. These identical TVs were sold in one and the same store and produced at the same enterprise… But the first family constantly watch the news broadcasts, the second family prefers various TV series, and the third one is a fond of sports programs. There is nothing to be surprised about. Why? Because in every family there is a primary User of the device purchased (a TV set in this case) and exactly this person determines its usage policy. As a rule, this TV was bought to satisfy the wishes of this particular User…

 The same situation is with all other devices…

 In fact, the term “device” always denotes some object (device, mechanism, construction, installation …) human beings have created for their own needs to perform strictly defined functions (personal computer, mobile phone, TV, radio, refrigerator, air conditioner, cookstove, car…)

 

For example, a personal computer (PC). Computers are called “personal” just because they are used by certain “persons”, i.e. “Users”. As a rule, each personal computer has one user. Each user is free to use his personal computer in his own discretion: to play computer games, to develop any innovative facilities, to constantly surf the social networks, etc.

 What is an obvious conclusion we can arrive at after the results of this thought experiment?


Using a lot of identical devices, will never help different people to create the same information, since it is called “personal information” for a reason, that is, Users (“persons”) create it as well as possess it. And each user produces his own “personal information”, using the certain devices he prefers.

The same situation is with people…

Despite the similar functionality of the human bodies as well as the possibility to duplicate (clone, copy) their genetically identical material bodies, they all have and will always possess different memory, different consciousness, different character, different knowledge, different experience… Why is it so? One of the possible variants is that various people just have various Users.

The material body just provides “own” User with the opportunity to cognize “our” World and perform certain actions in it. It is he (“our” User) who feels anxious, thinks, dwells on something, enjoys… And each reader can guess what is the name of “his” User — it’s your Personality.

There are good reasons why such terms as a person that denotes the integrity of a human being (from the Latin persona) and a personality denoting social and psychological aspects of a human being (from the Latin personalitas) have the same deep root persona.

Experimental proof of “immortality” of a human being’s Personality and its Consciousness as the basis for changing the vector of development of modern humankind in the future

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

Modern scientists claim that they have already determined the directions that will enable humanity to make a breakthrough into its radiant future: nanomaterials, smart houses, travelling to other planets, cloning various creatures, storing information in DNA-like media, artificial intelligence, robots and biorobots, studying ocean depths and the depths of Space…

I dare say that most of the state-of-the-art technologies created today are so significant that their creators may erroneously believe that it is the development of these technologies that will allow their owners to “rule ‘Our’ World” in the nearest future.

 But, from my point of view (and, unfortunately, not only mine), modern mankind currently has no future. All new technologies will only lead the modern mankind to collapse. The more revolutionary the new technology is, the faster it leads the modern humanity to the end.

It is not because these technologies are harmful, but solely because people use the fruits of any technological revolution primarily for such purposes as arms race, seizures of power, turning people into ‘zombies’, etc.

Invention of a wheel and a knife proved to be a much less dangerous technology for humans than creation of new viruses and bacteria, climate and chemical weapons over the past 100 years. And most importantly, the inventors (creators) of these technologies are not able to prevent such use in any way.

Many modern researchers realize the current situation and consider it to be hopeless so far, since up to the present there have not been found any acceptable solutions for mankind’s exit from its “nosedive” to death…

While investigating prospects for development of the mankind, I carried out many imaginary experiments, and as a result I “saw” the following main causes of this problem:

  • Cause #1: Most people consider themselves “the center of the Earth”, kind of “ kings of Nature” and don’t realize their true place in the hierarchy of the Universe. These earthlings honestly believe that they are at the top of the “food chain” and they can do whatever they want with complete impunity throughout their short life on the planet Earth.

  • Cause #2: People haven’t yet realized that a human being actually is a kind of an essence of field nature, which is “dressed” in a material body. This body is only a part of a human being, and it’s far from being the most essential one.  

The result obtained in this experiment clearly showed thatno technological improvements of human bodies and the environment of these bodies are able to change the people’s attitude towards the Nature (the Universe) and to all its inhabitants, including their own species…

That is why, it is not the body of a person that should be “altered” – it is, first of all, people’s worldview, way of thinking, meaning of their lives. Change of the outlook will automatically lead to replacement of current dominant values ​​(money, power, fame…) with new ones, such as harmonious relations with the objects of the Universe and with all its inhabitants. These new values will determine behavior of people and their social relations in the long run. On this basis, the direction of the modern mankind’s development will change automatically.

“You are looking into the interlocutor’s eyes and realize that a bag of meat and bones cannot radiate an intelligent look. You see the flesh, but you communicate with an invisible spiritual essence.”  Yuri Larichev, writer and philosopher

Obtaining a strictly scientific proof of immortality of a human Personality and its consciousness and disclosing it to the general public (by means of demonstrating so-called ‘miracles’) should become the cornerstone of this crucial task.

At present, due to the conservatism of the official science, even studies in these areas are considered absurd, and any publications on such topics in scientific journals are kind of a taboo and are considered “undesirable”…

“The consciousness, which is already transforming and organizing a hefty chunk of “our” solar system, is denied objective existence only because traditional science doesn’t know how to approach it, didn’t create an appropriate conceptual apparatus and scientific tools for its study, and it is in no hurry to correct these mistakes and to overcome the arising difficulties.”  George Somov, “Matter of Consciousness & Consciousness of Matter (Материя Сознания и Сознание Материи)“

This situation has led to the fact that even ‘crazy investors’ “do not see the advisability” of investments in this field. Investing in human development has become completely unprofitable, as the payback period can reach 30-60 years. Investors don’t realize that they themselves are blocking the most promising areas of investment in the history of “modern mankind”.

“If there is no immortality, then neither is the remorality: all is permitted.”  Vladimir Bekhterev,  “Immortality From the Scientific Point of View”

 “It sounded an excellent plan, no doubt, and very neatly and simply arranged; the only difficulty was, that she had not the smallest idea how to set about it…” Lewis Carroll, “Alice in Wonderland”

 I do have an idea how to.

Continue reading →

Objects and Philosophy of the Compatibility of Their Hardware with Software Components

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

In my everyday life I use iPhone 6, hardware of which – completed with the iOS 8 operating system – saw the light in late 2014. The frequently changing Apple`s iOS operating system was rapidly developing during the following three years: iOS 8 -> iOS 9 -> iOS 10 -> iOS 11. Today my iPhone 6 doesn`t maintain many of the latest features of this operating system as it requires more advanced hardware, i.e. faster processor, more RAM, more advanced camera and photo-flash, etc.

Despite the fact that iPhone 6 and iOS 11 are compatible with each other, the user is able to reveal incompatibility of its hardware with software part, which appears in use as restricted functions of the apps being installed.

I attempt to develop a “fantastic” hypothesis. If we assume that any objects of the Universe, the bodies of which are based on well-known substance, consist of hardware and software parts (they have material bodies and immaterial field “Selves” incarnated into them), then we understand many facts from everyday life of the animals around us.

Many Eastern scientists claim that “the Selves” of human beings can incarnate (set, install, penetrate …) into the material bodies of animals. I will not discuss the reasons for these incarnations in this article, but I want to draw the attention of my readers to the very clever animals around us, they just cannot tell us many things … there is incompatibility of their hardware with their software parts … there is incompatibility of capabilities of their material bodies with potentials of the immaterial field “Selves” that have incarnated into their bodies…

Of course, the animal brain is less developed than the brain of a human being (a kind of analogy is less operative processor, running on the algorithms that differ from ones of the human beings), less volume of consciousness (a kind of analogy is less amount of systematized information in the permanent memory) … so, it is quite possible that they want to say something, but most often they simply aren`t able to do it … and just look devotedly into our eyes …

At the will of Nature (self-organizing objects of the higher hierarchies), in the next 100-200 years many animals on the Earth will speak and communicate with us “in the language of the common man” … For this purpose, their material bodies will be fast-evolving, improving the parameters of their brains, the parameters of the central nervous systems, the parameters of their auditory and visual organs, etc. … changing their voice apparatus with its vocal cords… But 100-200 years on the Earth is 50-200 of their generations, during which their material bodies will evolve, passing down through the generations those changes that will contribute to their survival in “our” World …

Look carefully round you …

© 2018, Helen Zhoglo, translation into English

Continue reading →

Philosophy of Consciousness

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

In this article, the author gives definitions of such notions as consciousness, sub-consciousness, being and entity for any biological or non-biological objects. He also considers these notions in relation to computer systems. Different approaches to objective estimation of various objects’ consciousnesses are also suggested. Besides, the writer offers the way to determine the exact point when a conscious object turns into a being or an entity.

Additional Key Words and Phrases: Consciousness; Subconsciousness; Superconsciousness; Knowing; Cognition; Awareness; Manifestation; Body; Organism; Being; Creature; Entity; Evolution; Human; Life; Life Cycle; AI; Artificial Intelligence; Computer; Computer Program; Operation System; Application; Software; Computer Science; Information; Information Carrier, Information Storage; Data; Alphabet; ABC; Word; Sentence; Phrase; Language; Concept; Thought; Brain; Thinking; Conceptual Thinking;

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Disputes over the interpretation of such notions as consciousness, subconsciousness and a being have been taking place throughout the history of the so-called modern humankind and provoke people’s interest up to this day. Nowadays these debates have reached their climax.

Scientists from various research centers actively develop different structures (e.g. devices, robots, mechanisms, and so on), which, as they claim, possess artificial intelligence.

So, now – like never before – there is a need to formulate unified terminology and related nomenclature, which will be used within various areas of research, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, biocybernetics, computer systems, etc. It will help modern researchers to find a common language, which, in its turn, will contribute toward development of the technologies that will benefit the whole humankind.

I think that the future of the modern humankind is tightly intertwined with answers to such questions as “What are consciousness and subconsciousness?”, “What is a Being?”

This paper is devoted to finding answers to these questions.

 

2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

“There is a conceptual gap between science, which stands for objective measurement and the conclusions we can draw thereby, and consciousness, which is a synonym for subjective experience. We obviously cannot simply ask an entity in question, “Are you conscious?” If we look inside its “head,” biological or otherwise, to ascertain that, then we would have to make philosophical assumptions in determining what it is that we are looking for. The question as to whether or not an entity is conscious is therefore not a scientific one. Based on this, some observers go on to question whether consciousness itself has any basis in reality.” [1] Ray Kurzweil

“Proposals have been regularly presented that purport to be scientific theories linking consciousness to some measurable physical attribute — what Searle refers to as the “mechanism for causing consciousness.” [1] Ray Kurzweil

 “As British psychologist and writer Stuart Sutherland (1927–1998) wrote in the International Dictionary of Psychology, “Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved.” [1] Ray Kurzweil

  Continue reading →