Q: Chris, I'm not a mathematician or physicist by any stretch, but I am a curious person and would like to know more about the CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe). I am particularly interested in the theological aspects. Can you please explain what the CTMU is all about in language that even I can understand?
A: Thanks for your interest, but the truth is the CTMU isn't all that difficult for even a layperson to understand. So sit back, relax, kick off your shoes and open your mind...
Scientific theories are mental constructs that have objective reality as their content. According to the scientific method, science puts objective content first, letting theories be determined by observation. But the phrase "a theory of reality" contains two key nouns, theory and reality, and science is really about both. Because all theories have certain necessary logical properties that are abstract and mathematical, and therefore independent of observation - it is these very properties that let us recognize and understand our world in conceptual terms - we could just as well start with these properties and see what they might tell us about objective reality. Just as scientific observation makes demands on theories, the logic of theories makes demands on scientific observation, and these demands tell us in a general way what we may observe about the universe.
In other words, a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation, but about theories and their logical requirements. Since theories are mental constructs, and mental means "of the mind", this can be rephrased as follows: mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence at the most basic level of understanding. This linkage of mind and reality is what a TOE (Theory of Everything) is really about. The CTMU is such a theory; instead of being a mathematical description of specific observations (like all established scientific theories), it is a "metatheory" about the general relationship between theories and observations…i.e., about science or knowledge itself. Thus, it can credibly lay claim to the title of TOE.
Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory". Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation. Since reality always has the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone. Instead, it must be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, and this process is based on the relationship of mind and reality. So the CTMU is essentially a theory of the relationship between mind and reality.
In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.
Thus, the attempt to formulate a comprehensive theory of reality, the CTMU, finally leads to spiritual understanding, producing a basis for the unification of science and theology. The traditional Cartesian divider between body and mind, science and spirituality, is penetrated by logical reasoning of a higher order than ordinary scientific reasoning, but no less scientific than any other kind of mathematical truth. Accordingly, it serves as the long-awaited gateway between science and humanism, a bridge of reason over what has long seemed an impassable gulf.
Q: Hey Chris, what's your take on the theory of Max Tegmark, physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. He has a paper on the web which postulates that universes exist physically for all conceivable mathematical structures. Is it as "wacky" as he postulates?
Since Max claims to be on the fast track to a TOE of his own, I just
thought I'd offer a few remarks about his approach, and point out a
few of the ways in which it differs from that of the CTMU.
contrast, the CTMU deals directly with the outstanding paradoxes and
fundamental interrelationship of mathematics and physics.
Unlike other TOEs, the CTMU does not purport to be a
"complete" theory; there are too many physical details and
undecidable mathematical theorems to be accounted for (enough to
occupy whole future generations of mathematicians and scientists),
and merely stating a hypothetical relationship among families of
subatomic particles is only a small part of the explanatory task
before us. Instead, the CTMU is merely designed to be
consistent and comprehensive at a high level of generality, a level
above that at which most other TOEs are prematurely aimed.
Einstein says that gravity is a result of "mass-energy"
causing a curvature in the four dimensional space time continuum. At
the planck scale, (10^(-33)) centimeters, is space still
continuous?, or is space discontinuous? I have read books
saying space time may have holes or breaks in continuity. Are
these holes related in any way to "gravitons", or reverse
time causality? (Question from Russell Rierson)
A: From the CTMU, there emerge multiple levels of consciousness. Human temporal consciousness is the level with which we're familiar; global (parallel) consciousness is that of the universe as a whole. The soul is the connection between the two...the embedment of the former in the latter.
In the CTMU, reality is viewed as a profoundly self-contained, self-referential kind of "language", and languages have syntaxes. Because self-reference is an abstract generalization of consciousness - consciousness is the attribute by virtue of which we possess self-awareness - conscious agents are "sublanguages" possessing their own cognitive syntaxes. Now, global consciousness is based on a complete cognitive syntax in which our own incomplete syntax can be embedded, and this makes human consciousness transparent to it; in contrast, our ability to access the global level is restricted due to our syntactic limitations.
while we are transparent to the global syntax of the global
conscious agency "God", we cannot see everything that God
can see. Whereas God perceives one total act of creation in a
parallel distributed fashion, with everything in perfect
superposition, we are localized in spacetime and perceive reality
only in a succession of locally creative moments. This
parallelism has powerful implications. When a human being dies, his
entire history remains embedded in the timeless level of
consciousness...the Deic level. In that sense, he or she is
preserved by virtue of his or her "soul". And since the
universe is a self-refining entity, that which is teleologically
valid in the informational construct called "you" may be
locally re-injected or redistributed in spacetime. In
principle, this could be a recombinative process, with the essences
of many people combining in a set of local injections or
"reincarnations" (this could lead to strange
effects...e.g., a single person remembering simultaneous "past
If I have
interpreted you correctly, you maintain that the universe created
itself. How did this come about? What existed before the Universe
and when did the Universe create itself or come into being?
- Celia Joslyn
You're asking three distinct but related questions about cosmology:
how, when and as what did the universe self-create?
universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom
and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as
structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define
the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound
or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since
there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no
extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be
located, and this invalidates phrases like
"before reality existed" and "when reality
created itself". So
rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what
existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead
ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining
the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time
would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question
entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the
answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless
potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other
words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of
logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and
time simply do not apply.
let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of
unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges,
everything is possible, and this implies that "everything
exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are
self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they
extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality.
But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially
self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That
is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own
internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own
"hows". These possibilities, which are completely
self-contained not only with respect to how, what, and when, but
why, have a common structure called SCSPL (Self-Configuring
Self-Processing Language). An SCSPL answers its own "why?"
question with something called teleology; where SCSPL is
"God" to whatever exists within it, teleology amounts to
the "Will of God".
there a reason
for reality to exist?
Specifically, some mathematical proof that would prove that a
reality must exist? This
would of course lead in to the more common type of questions, like
"Does *this* reality exist?" Perhaps there's a
mathematical or logical proof somewhere that shows that *something*
must exist (reality by default), or that total-non-existence can't
exist by it's very definition.
If Watts said these things, then he anticipated the CTMU (loosely
speaking, of course). But whereas Watts used conditional (if...then)
formulations, similar statements are unconditionally supported by
certain elements of mathematical structure that he omitted.
my own self-awareness and inability to separate from reality, *I*
have no doubt that this reality *does* exist (the proof is in the
pudding). So while I do
not need "proof" that there is a reality, that I am part
of that reality, and that my awareness is reality's awareness of
itself - I do not know WHY all of this stuff exists (myself
there *is* a reason that reality MUST exist, then that would also be
the reason that *I* exist. Which is probably what I am really
wondering. Is the
answer that giving myself a reason to exist is the reason for my
existence? - Bill
The first part of your "why" question is answered at the
end of the above response to Celia.
Since the meaning of life is a topic that has often been
claimed by religion, we'll attempt to answer the second part with a
bit of CTMU-style "logical theology".
each SCSPL system, subsystems sharing critical aspects of global
structure will also manifest the self-configuration imperative of
their inclusive SCSPL; that is, they exist for the purpose of
self-actualization or self-configuration, and in self-configuring,
contribute to the Self-configuration of the SCSPL as a whole. Human
beings are such subsystems. The "purpose" of their lives,
and the "meaning" of their existences, is therefore to
self-actualize in a way consistent with global Self-actualization or
teleology...i.e., in a way that maximizes global utility, including
the utility of their fellow subsystems. Their existential
justification is to help the universe, AKA God, express its nature
in a positive and Self-beneficial way.
they do so, then their "souls", or relationships to the
overall System ("God"), attain a state of grace and
partake of Systemic timelessness ("life eternal"). If, on
the other hand, they do not - if they give themselves over to
habitual selfishness at the expense of others and the future of
their species - then they are teleologically devalued and must
repair their connections with the System in order to remain a viable
part of it. And if they do even worse, intentionally scarring the
teleological ledger with a massive net loss of global utility, then
unless they pursue redemption with such sincerety that their intense
desire for forgiveness literally purges their souls, they face
spiritual interdiction for the sake of teleological integrity.
is the economy of human existence. Much of what we have been taught
by organized religions is based on the illogical literalization of
metaphorical aspects of their respective doctrines. But this much of
it is true: we can attain a state of grace; we can draw near to God
and partake of His eternal nature; we can fall from God's grace; we
can lose our souls for doing evil. In all cases, we are
unequivocally answerable to the System that grants and sustains our
existence, and doing right by that System and its contents,
including other subsystems like ourselves, is why we exist.
Sometimes, "doing right" simply means making the best of a
bad situation without needlessly propagating one's own misfortune to
others; the necessary sufferance and nonpropagation of personal
misfortune is also a source of grace. Further deontological insight
requires an analysis of teleology and the extraction of its ethical
for a couple of qualifiers. Because we are free, the teleologically
consistent meaning of our lives is to some extent ours to choose,
and is thus partially invested in the search for meaning itself. So
the answer to the last part of your question is "yes,
determining the details of your specific teleologically-consistent
reason to exist is part of the reason for your existence".
Secondly, because God is the cosmos and the human mind is a
microcosm, we are to some extent our own judges. But this doesn't
mean that we can summarily pardon ourselves for all of our sins; it
simply means that we help to determine the system according to whose
intrinsic criteria our value is ultimately determined. It is
important for each of us to accept both of these ethical
Eleanor Mondale, Southampton, NY
It only takes about a minute.......Work this out as you read. Be sure you don't read the bottom until you've worked it out! This is not one of those waste of time things, it's fun.
1. First of all, pick the number of times a week that you would like to have chocolate. (try for more than once but less than 10)
2. Multiply this number by 2 (Just to be bold)
3. Add 5. (for Sunday)
4. Multiply it by 50 (being a bit stupid) I'll wait while you get the calculator................
5. If you have already had your birthday this year add 1751.... If you haven't, add 1750 ..........
6. Now subtract the four digit year that you were born. (if you remember)
You should have a three digit number .....
The first digit of this was your original number (i.e., how many times you want to have chocolate each week). The next two numbers are your age.
THIS IS THE ONLY YEAR (2001) IT WILL EVER WORK, SO SPREAD IT AROUND WHILE IT LASTS. IMPRESSIVE ISN'T IT?
A: One reason people find this amazing is that it seems to reveal a mysterious mathematical connection between your age and your appetite for chocolate. Otherwise, why would it yield your age even though all you're feeding in is the number of times per week you want to eat chocolate? Shouldn't the randomness of your appetite for chocolate mess up your age? How does your age get in there in the first place? It must happen when you subtract your year of birth. But shouldn't subtracting your year of birth destroy any information regarding your appetite for chocolate?
No. The procedure is structured in such a way that the number you choose simply gets bumped up a couple of place values, where it can't cross wires with the basic age and birth-year arithmetic. To see this, assume that you don't like chocolate and want to eat chocolate 0 times per week...i.e., that your chocoholic index is 0. Then what you start with is:
(0 x 2 + 5) x 50 = 5 x 50 = 250.
Now subtract 250 from 2001. What do you get? Presto!
2001 - 250 = 1751
That is, because
250 + 1751 = 2001,
you're simply calculating the current year by adding 1751.
So now we've got the current year, 2001. But what happens when you subtract your year of birth from the current year, provided you've already had your birthday? You get your age! That's how the age and birth-year arithmetic was reverse-engineered.
Now what happens if you start upping your chocoholic index one binge at a time? If you up it from 0 to 1, you get
(1 x 2 + 5)50 = 350
instead of 250, which means you're adding 350 - 250 = 100 to your age. If you up it to 2, you get
(2 x 2 + 5)50 = 450
which means you're adding 450 - 250 = 200 to your age. And so on and so forth. Multiplying your chocoholic index by 2 x 50 = 100 simply moves it up to the 102 (hundreds) place, where it can't affect the 101 and 100 (tens and ones) places containing your age. It's a red herring!
The author of this trick states that it can only be used this year (2001). Is that true? Well, yes and no. It's true as long as we insist on adding the "magic number" 1751. But it's false in the sense that we can update or backdate the trick to any year we like by instead adding a number equal to that year minus 250. For example, next year we'd add 1752, while in the year 2101, we'd add 1851.
What if you want to eat chocolate ten or more times per week? No problem. But in that case, you end up with a number of more than three digits. The 101 and 100 places still contain your two-digit age, while the higher places contain your 2, 3 or n-digit chocoholic index.
Can we change this trick into a new one? Sure! Choose the number of fast-food burgers you want to eat per day - your "Wimpy index" - multiply it by 4, add 12, multiply the result by 25, add 1701 (1700 if you haven't had your birthday yet), subtract your year of birth, and marvel at the results. This is sufficiently close to the old trick that you should be able to see how to cook up as many such tricks as you like. [Note that the product of the first and third numbers equals 100 - that's the multiplier that bumps your Wimpy index up two places - while the fourth number equals the current year minus the product of the second and third numbers.]
Why would someone do something like this? It's just a bit of mathematical legerdemain that probably has the person who cooked it up laughing himself (or herself) silly over how gullible, innumerate and greedy for chocolate most of us are!
Christopher Michael Langan said in his introduction following: "Thus, if D(S) contains supraphysical components, they are embedded in S right along with their physical counterparts (indeed, this convention is already in restricted use in string theory and M-theory, where unseen higher dimensions get "rolled up" to sub-Planck diameter)."
If I understood it right, the supraphysical component in string- and M-theory is called supraphysical, because the model does not assume it to be part of the physical universe. Taking on that thought and considering the definition of the REAL UNIVERSE in the CTMU I have to doubt that the supraphysical component is even part of the REAL universe. Does anyone know where my mistake in thought lies?
A: As noted by Berkeley, we can know reality only through perception. So our theories of reality necessarily have a perceptual or observational basis. But as noted by Kant, the process of observation has substantial internal complexity; it is a relationship of subject and object with sensory (phenomenal) and cognitive (categorical) components. So reality is at once monic, because uniformly perceptual, and dualistic, because perception has two complementary aspects. Thus, the "dual aspect monism" of the CTMU. Now consider physics. Because physics is governed by the scientific method, it deals exclusively with phenomena. Thus, it effectively diverts attention away from the cognitive, categorical aspect of perceptual reality, without which neither phenomena nor scientific theories could exist. Because physics is irreducibly dualistic and takes the fundamental separation of mind and matter as axiomatic, it cannot provide us with a complete picture of reality. It can tell us only what lies outside the subjective observer, not within.
By definition, reality must contain all that it needs to exist; equivalently, anything on which the existence of reality depends is real by definition (if it were not, then reality would be based on nonreality and would itself be unreal, a semantic contradiction). So attempts to explain reality entirely in terms of physics are paradoxical; reality contains not only the physical, but the abstract machinery of perception and cognition through which "the physical" is perceived and explained. Where this abstract machinery is what we mean by "the supraphysical", reality has physical and supraphysical aspects. Physical and supraphysical reality are respectively "concrete" and "abstract", i.e. material and mental in nature.
The question is, do we continue to try to objectivize the supraphysical component of reality as do the theories of physics, strings and membranes, thus regenerating the paradox? Or do we take the CTMU approach and resolve the paradox, admitting that the supraphysical aspect of reality is "mental" in a generalized sense and describing all components of reality in terms of SCSPL syntactic operators with subjective and objective aspects?
My advice: we take the CTMU approach, relegating the scientific method to the phenomenal side of reality theory - after all, M-theory is beyond the empirical scope of the scientific method already - and recognizing that the universe is everywhere both subjective and objective, rational and empirical, mental and material. Anything else would lead to reductio ad absurdum.
Cannarsa, Glen Head, NY
By definition, there is
nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality.
So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide
that which is necessary to its own existence. So if energy is
necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that
energy within itself. Because matter consists of energy according to
Einstein’s famous equation e=mc2,
this applies to matter as well.
That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own
matter. How could it do
this? By configuring
itself in such a way that the matter it made would be
“recognized” as such by other matter.
to popular belief, this age-old dilemma actually has a very
straightforward solution. First,
you must specify what kind of egg you mean. If you mean “any kind
of egg”, then the egg came first (because chickens were preceded
on the evolutionary timeline by, for example, egg-laying fish,
insects and dinosaurs). If, on the other hand, you mean “a chicken
egg”, then you must specify whether this means (a) “an egg laid
by a chicken”, (b) “an egg containing a chicken”, or (c) “an
egg laid by and containing a chicken”. In cases (a) and (c), the
answer is by definition “the chicken” (if the answer were “the
egg”, then the egg could not have been laid by a chicken).
case (b), the usual and most interesting interpretation, the answer
is “the egg”. This is because interspecies mutations separating
a new species from its parent species occur in reproductive rather
than somatic DNA, i.e. in germ cells rather than body cells.
(Germ cells include the sperm and egg cells produced in the
reproductive tracts of male and female animals respectively.)
Since germ cells are merely produced, but
not somatically expressed, by the parents of the organism(s) whose
biological information they encode, their expression begins in the
egg containing the offspring. So
the egg contains a chicken, but was not laid by a chicken.
(See how easy that was?)
Q: My question
is this: If you could answer the question what is the
mathematical difference between visible light and invisible light,
i.e. ultraviolet rays, wouldn't this answer the question concerning
the importance of further study into what is defined as physical.
After all how do you perceive ultraviolet rays-- as a sunburn or
plant growth. Therefore, although not visible there indeed may
be other energy forms that coexist right where we are, having an
impact on us, without our knowing its source. It is not
visibly physical yet its effect on us is very physical.
A: Visible and UV light differ in frequency, or number of waves transmitted or received per second. Because light always travels at the same speed (c = ~300K km/sec), higher frequency means shorter waves:
lambda = c/frequency (where lambda = wavelength)
I.e., more energetic, higher-frequency light has a smaller wavelength than less energetic, lower-frequency light. Unfortunately, the tiny light sensors in our retinas, called rods and cones, cannot detect short-wavelength UV light.
Your question seems to be this: how can we call UV light “physical” when we cannot directly detect it? The answer is twofold but simple: we can call it “physical” because of (1) its perceptible physical effects on animals, plants, minerals and detection devices, and (2) our need to acknowledge the full definitions and logical implications of our perceptions and concepts.
Answer (2) is why reality is not merely “physical” in the concrete or material sense. In order to exist as a self-consistent perceptible entity, reality must ultimately make logical sense; our perceptions of it must conform to a coherent cognitive syntax containing the rules of perception and cognition and incorporating logic. This syntax tells us that if light exists below the maximum visible frequency, then in the absence of any extra constraints, it can exist above it as well.
having identified the physical cause of light to be photon emission
by subatomic oscillators called electrons, we are compelled
to recognize the existence of "light" at whatever
frequencies such oscillators may exhibit, right up through X and
gamma radiation. The logical component of our cognitive syntax
ultimately forces us to define and cross-relate all of the concepts
in terms of which we apprehend reality, including light, in a
logically consistent way.
Chris. I saw you on TV and heard what you had to say about
God. I have also read your description of the CTMU. I
have had the same thoughts as to our existence in the mind of GOD.
I think that the evidence of evolution that exists in the universe
has to be linked with creation as a tool. I have only 11.75
years of School and not very high IQ so please excuse the grammar,
A: Hi! You don’t need to apologize for the 11.75 years of
school – I don’t have much more myself! Regarding
evolution and creationism, the linkage is simple: since Biblical
accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but
metaphorical, our task is to correctly decipher the metaphor in
light of scientific evidence also given to us by God.
Hence, the CTMU.
Q: God said he would reveal his existence (reality) with numbers.
Do you see yourself as part of this end time promise?
A: If God made such a promise, then one could say that the CTMU is at least a part of its fulfillment. This is because the number concept is actually far more general than most people think it is.
one time, a "number" was a positive integer. As the
years passed, new kinds of number were discovered: 0, negative
numbers, rational numbers or fractions, irrational numbers that
cannot be expressed as fractions, complex numbers, and even
transcendental and transfinite or "infinite" numbers.
Noting that each kind of number is associated with an algebraic
system like a number field, we finally realized that a “number”
is any element of an algebraic system. Because the CTMU
embodies an algebraic system called SCSPL, it too is “numeric”.
And since this system is the basis of a proof of God’s existence,
the CTMU might be said to “reveal the existence of God with
Q: I have read your CTMU and some of the Q & A on the Ubiquity website regarding the CTMU and find it extremely fascinating. Much of the information resonated with many of the things I have been contemplating for the last year (or so). I wanted to know if you had any further writings on the topic especially related to the following areas. (1) The nature of the interaction(s) of the multiple levels of consciousness. (2) The nature of the connection with God via our "souls". Or just in general, the nature of the soul. Is it a more complex syntax in which we are embedded that facilitates this communication with God? Are we all embedded in it? (3) The nature of morality. Do "moral laws" have a basis in reality (loosely speaking). That is, if moral laws are mental constructs, how do the mental constructs of higher levels of consciousness affect the lower levels? That is, how does what "God thinks is right" affect us (lower forms of consciousness)? I realize that, to a degree, the above questions are really all the same, but if you have any essays or thoughts on these matters I would love to hear them.
have more questions and thoughts but I can save those for later...
due to the fact that God’s Self-creative freedom is distributed
over the universe, i.e. His “Mind”, human volition arising
within the universe is free to be locally out of sync with
teleology. This requires a set of compensation mechanisms
which ensure that teleology remains globally valid despite the
localized failure of any individual or species to behave
consistently with it. In part, these mechanisms determine the
state of your relationship to God, i.e. your soul. If
you are in harmony with teleology – with the self-realization and
self-expression of God – then your soul is in a state of grace.
If you are not, then your soul is in danger of interdiction by
teleological mechanisms built into the structure of the universe.
Q: What does cognition have to do with physics or math? The laws
of nature (physics) are not related with perception of those, I
think. Animals use those laws better than human without having
a single idea what gravity or electricity is. Math is
abstract. The laws of nature are discovered, not invented (I
study psychology which from my point of view is not science for many
reasons, maybe it will be some day). If theories are mental
constructs does that mean that gravity (not as a term) exists only
as an abstract concept?
A: Abstract laws are more general than the concrete, physical matter-and-field systems that obey them. If we divide reality into the concrete, and the abstract but non-concrete, math falls under the latter heading due to its generality. That is, concrete physical reality exemplifies mathematics, but mathematics is not confined to any particular physical model; equivalently, the laws of physics are a mere subset of the laws of mathematics. So mathematics inhabits a higher (or alternatively, more basic) level of reality than the material world.
the human mind can reason both inductively (from the specific to the
general) and deductively (from the general to the specific), it
spans both levels. Therefore, mathematics is mental as
opposed to merely physical in nature. Because, as we
have just noted, the laws of physics are a mere subset of the laws
of mathematics, and because (as you write) the laws of nature are
discovered, not invented, physical reality is ultimately mental in
character as well. However, although this applies even to
gravity, we are corporeally locked into a physical compartment of
abstract mental reality within which we are not free to treat
gravity as a mere “concept”. This helps explain why we
can’t fly by the power of thought alone.
the book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" Ray Kurzweil
believes by 2029 humans will live among machines that convincingly claim they
are self-aware. How does the CTMU deal with non-biologic
A: Kurzweil’s prediction implies that within three decades from now, AI machines will be able to pass something called the Turing Test, a hypothetical scenario devised by the mathematician and seminal computer scientist Alan Turing. To pass this test, a machine located behind a partition must convince a human interlocutor that it too is "human", i.e. that is possesses "human consciousness".
the CTMU shows that a generalized form of self-awareness or consciousness
distributes over every part of reality, any machine that exhibits
self-awareness or explicitly claims to be "conscious" will
to some extent be telling the truth (indeed, if your toaster could
make such a claim right now, it too would be “telling the
truth”, although not in a fully human sense). On the other
hand, it is not yet clear whether Kurzweil’s AI-style machine
consciousness, though ostensibly of a higher nature than that of
your toaster, will be entirely human in character.
2000 by Christopher Michael Langan (All