ABSTRACT: Roger Penrose argues that consciousness must be hyper-algorithmic (not-computable). Penrose suggested we study the brain with a view to how macro-level quantum effects might take place there despite the hostile (noisy, hot) environment; recent empirical developments in quantum biology seem to support Penrose. Penrose says a hyper-algorithmic quantum theory is needed. Rupert Sheldrake points out that contrary to traditional scientific dogma, the universe may be non-entropic; serious theories (Big Bang; Cosmic Inflation) by prominent living physicists seem to lead to such a conclusion. If Penrose (on consciousness) and Sheldrake (on entropy) are both correct, then the future may bring a never-ending expansion of consciousness rather than its extinction. KEYWORDS: Entropy; Energy; Computation; Quantum biology; Determinism; Hyperalgorithmity; Algorithm; Kurt Gödel; Quantum gravity; Cohomology.
ABSTRACT: Algorithms do not seem to capture "non-zombie" human experiences − e.g., red perceptions, sad feelings, creative insights, or time-asymmetric decisions to struggle for truth, justice, and world betterment. According to Roger Penrose, Gödel non-computability or hyper-algorithmicity is a physical property of the conscious mind. “Orch OR” is a hyperalgorithmic physical theory of consciousness by Penrose and Stuart Hameroff that takes seriously the fact that not all of mathematics is algorithmic. Although noncomputability has typically been interpreted as bad news for "strong artificial intelligence" attempts to emulate consciousness, Charles Tandy concludes that Orch OR and hyperalgorithmicity could in principle lead to a "technological singularity" and (Orch OR constructed) super-conscious trans-humans. KEYWORDS: Artificial Intelligence; Computation; [Kurt] Gödel; [Stuart] Hameroff; Hyper-Algorithmity; Orch OR; [Roger] Penrose; Process Philosophy; Technological Singularity; Trans-Humans.
ABSTRACT: Educational Implications of the Philosophy of
Kenneth Boulding (1993 Ph.D. Dissertation by Charles Tandy, Ph.D.)
ABSTRACT: John Rawls (1921-2002) analyzed the conditions of a just society and of decent relations between societies. We piece together his various revisions of his own work and present a new and original scheme of five (not two) principles of a revised Rawlsian “justice as fairness” original position, listed in lexical priority. This “Revised Rawls” is then used as a springboard toward developing our own alternative position. Rawls’s conception of “fairness” leaves out, in an important way, the injustices of nature. We show that “almost now” is the opportune time for “almost universal peace” via implementation of our non-controversial PFIT (Peaceful, Free, Intentional, Transparent physical-social technology) proposal. Technological humans have become a force of nature.
ABSTRACT: A system may be structured so that even when all of its actors make rational choices, the results are nevertheless irrational/disastrous, both for each individual and collectively. Today’s “wild” social-political system of Planet Earth represents such a (generalized) Prisoner’s Dilemma of weapons and violence. But an Extraterrestrial Prisoner’s Dilemma does not substantially exist at the present moment. Thus the task of stable peace in extraterrestrial space – if we proceed RIGHT NOW at this unique point in history – is doable. Perhaps our extraterrestrial offspring (i.e. ALMOST ALL of our offspring in the LONG RUN) will be grateful because, at a unique point in history, we ENFORCEABLY banned extraterrestrial weapons.
ABSTRACT: In his articles "The Dead" and "Can The Dead Really Be Buried," Palle Yourgrau argues for the reality of nonexistent objects. Yourgrau does this by arguing that the dead do not exist and yet are real. In this paper Catterson claims that Yourgrau's argument rests on a crucial premise: whatever no longer exists does not exist at all. Catterson then argues that this premise can be shown to be false even on an A-theory of time. He accomplishes this by outlining an A-theory that does not require the past to go out of existence, and yet does not spatialize time. Finally Catterson attempts to show on independent grounds why Yourgrau’s original theory of time should be discarded in favor of a model of time in which the past continues to exist and affect the present.
ABSTRACT: Dr. Tandy announces the end of humanity’s childhood and the beginning of (almost) universal security and prosperity: 16 candles are lighting the way (or, the “GrinSmile2 Up To PFIT” acronym). Four general areas of advancing technology (“GRIN”). Six specific future capacities of unusual power and relevance (“SMILE2”). Finally, a six-pronged proposal to nudge us toward survival and thrival: “Up To PFIT” may put us “Up To” a “PFIT” future of (almost) universal security and prosperity. Dr. Tandy has established a website for SEGITs: <www.segits.com>. SEGIT communities or SEGITs = Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat Intentional Transparent [self-replicating] communities. Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?
ABSTRACT: According to this review of Can Death Be a Harm to the Person Who Dies? by Jack Li (aka Jack Lee), the monograph successfully espouses a new theory of harm. Harm to persons is neither the thwarting of desires nor the deprivation of goods, but the impairment of objective interests. The argument concludes (with respect to the person who dies): death CAN be harmful (contra Epicurus); premature death is ALWAYS harmful; and, posthumous events CAN be harmful. Other topics, including the Lucretian Symmetry Argument, are discussed by Li/Lee; the reviewer explores the concepts "death" and "personhood", sometimes disagreeing with Li/Lee. However the reviewer believes the monograph deserves wide readership.
ABSTRACT: Due to advanced technology our extinction may be at hand — either in the literal sense of doomsday or in the functional sense of dystopia. But the danger is also an opportunity; we need to take advantage of the opportunity before it is too late. This paper explains how to turn the danger to our advantage. Part One of the paper focuses on the past evolution of our cosmos. Part Two focuses on the future evolution of our cosmos. Part Three focuses on our present choices, projects available for implementation if we want to prevent doomsday and dystopia.
ABSTRACT: The first part of the present report introduces the reader to the term "cryonic-hibernation." The second part of the report summarizes "the bioethical principles” of Beauchamp and Childress (B&C) based on their highly respected text. Part three considers "cryonic-hibernation in light of the bioethical principles” of B&C. It is concluded that the bioethical principles of B&C — 1) respect for autonomy; 2) nonmaleficence; 3) beneficence; and, 4) justice — produce congruent, rather than conflicting, prima facie obligations to the cryonics patient. This four-fold congruence means that biomedical professionals have a strong (not weak) and actual (not prima facie, but binding) obligation to help insure cryonic-hibernation of the cryonics patient.
↓Click Button to get Adobe Reader↓
ABSTRACT: Based on specified logical, ontological, and other relevant considerations, it is concluded that in the very-long-run: (1) forward-directed time travel capacity is highly likely; and, (2) past-directed time travel capacity is likely. Four logically possible forward-directed, and four logically possible past-directed, types of (hypothetical) time machines are identified. Two different approaches (the "practical"; the "bi-temporal") are utilized in attempting to characterize the meaning of time travel. It apparently turns out that the concept of "embedded-subjective time" (i.e. the embedded-temporality of the human time-traveler, as distinguished from either merely-subjective time or literal-wristwatch time) is especially helpful in characterizing whether time travel did or did not occur in a particular circumstance.
↓Click Button to get Adobe Reader↓
ABSTRACT: Albert Camus (1913-1960) saw himself primarily as a creative literary artist (not as a professional philosopher), but here I focus on his philosophical works. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus asks “Is my life worth living?”; in The Rebel, Camus asks “How do I live a meaningful life?” Choosing to live is a value judgment, a standard or limit with implications for one’s relation to others. When I rebel against absurdity, my action is on behalf of all. My individualistic act is an act of solidarity or unity. Descartes had said: “I think – therefore I am.” But for Camus, suffering is a collective experience: “I rebel – therefore we exist.”
↓Click Button to get Adobe Reader↓
ABSTRACT: The political structure of island Earth, which is neither a Law of Peoples nor a Law of Persons, is unworkable. But at this unique point in history it is both desirable and feasible to establish a Terrestrial Law of Peoples (via the UP: Union of Well-ordered Peoples). The political structure of extraterrestrial Space, which is neither a Law of Peoples nor a Law of Persons, is unworkable. But at this unique point in history it is both desirable and feasible to establish a Treaty Organization of peoples structured so as to necessarily ultimately generate an Extraterrestrial Law of Persons (via the TO: Treaty Organization Acting for a Better Cosmos).
This website is sponsored by
Dr. Charles Tandy <www.segits.com>