Centralised Machine Consciousness

In TA, the Core had a centralised consciousness located on Core Prime, which was a gigantic computer that stored all the memories of every single individual who has lived in the former Core empire. The result is that the Core could transfer consciousness to machines, who can in turn die, and be replaced by having the same consciousness reincarnated into machines, given that these machines upload and update their consciousness every once in a while.

Now the question is on PA: is there really a centralised consciousness that stores the memories of each commander and robot upon death? Seeing that there are huge metal worlds, it can probably be surmised that these metal worlds are gigantic brains that store memories.

Perhaps, another hypothesis is that PA uses Gamma Ray Burst Progenitors to store memories. Gamma Ray Progenitors are one of the first sentient beings in the universe, and examples of them are the Crab Nebula and the Pillars of Creation, which are plasma-based sentient lifeforms which far more computational capacities than metal worlds. By virtue of them being 'progenitors', they are also living beings that create new life throughout the universe.


Above: The Crab Nebula, a super-sentient collection of memories and intelligence.

As a side note, it is possible that Neutron stars may contain high-density Neutronium that grant them the capacity to store more information that plasma clouds. It has long been suggested that Neutron Stars are not naturally occurring phenomenon, and that they are relicts of very ancient extra-terrestrial civilizations.


Above: The reason why Neutron Stars are believed to be artificial constructs is because of the presence of a solid crust over a liquid core, instead of the other way round. Standard gravitotronics expect that this should be reversed due to the higher pressures of the core, which causes all molecules to be so compressed, that it ceases to become liquids. The only possible explanation for this is that the "crust" of a Neutron star is a cranium, while the "liquid" instead is a kind of Neutronium Brain which houses the consciousness of thousands of machines.

The above might be the nearest we can get to a "Metal Planet" in PA.

cool.

Poe's Law in full effect right here.
I can't tell if you sincerely believe something so insane, or if you're just trolling.
For the record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst_progenitors

Despite the... less than factual description of gamma-ray burst progenitors and nebulae, the part about TA's lore is pretty cool.
As for PA's commanders, I think it's been said in the lore that they are sentient machines themselves, so I'm assuming the AI is housed in the commanders, instead of them being controlled remotely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#Dust_and_plasma-based

But I don't think there's enough research out there to make it a believable part of the lore.

I'm certainly not saying it's impossible for simple life-like entities to develop in that kind of an environment. I don't have the expertise to comment on something like that at all.

But I can say that someone who claims gamma ray burst progenitors (which is anything that can emit a gamma ray burst, such as the collapse of a massive star) are sentient beings, or who claims that the crab nebula itself (which is the remnant of a supernova) or the 'pillars of creation' (which is actually just the name of a photograph of elephant trunks in the eagle nebula) are "super-sentient collections of memories and intelligence", is without a doubt wrong. These claims are as baseless as claiming that there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the earth's orbit and that of mars.
No, the remnants of a giant exploded star aren't going to have a collective sentience. Neither is an interstellar cloud of plasma, gas and dust that is 70 lightyears across.

Hmmm, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Until counter-evidence is provided that the Crab Nebula is not conscious, we cannot dispute unfalsifiable datam. So for the time being, I will stick with the Popperian ethos of assuming that all crows are black until proven otherwise.

Sentience requires intelligence, which requires organization. Evolutionary pressures on self-replicating structures has lead to this on earth after an incredible number of iterations.
There is no pressure on a gas cloud to develop intelligence; the gas clouds are formed chaotically, evolutionary pressures on the gas cloud itself can be ruled out because it isn't self-replicating (and for a host of other reasons), and there is therefore no reason their structure would converge this way. You can argue that it's possible there are intelligent entities inside it, since evolutionary pressures can exist on structures in the cloud, but I actually have reason to believe the cloud itself cannot be. I can make a counter claim against what you've said.

But never mind all that. I think it's best to follow your own advice here:

Until you can develop a line of reasoning or evidence to support your ridiculous claims, they are baseless and you cannot argue for them in the first place.
If you have seen 100 crows and they have all been black, you can make this claim with a certain level of certainty. That's because you have evidence for your claim.
...of course, that claim is also falsifiable.

Nononononono. Other way round. Without proof that the nebula is sentient, we cannot dispute the presumption it isn't. The burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim.

Burden of proof arguments are based on the null hypothesis.
And that is not how the null hypothesis works.

EDIT: better tl;dr, it's 2AM, kinda tired and messed up the first one.
tl;dr: We assume the null hypothesis until it is disproven. The burden of proof is not on the null hypothesis (which, in this case, is that the entity is non-sentient, since this has so far proven true of all tested objects that don't demonstrate certain specific properties which the cloud does not).

Opps typo. I meant this:

"Hmmm, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Until counter-evidence is provided that the Crab Nebula is not conscious, we cannot dispute unfalsifiable datam. So for the time being, I will stick with the Popperian ethos of assuming that all crows are not necessarily not black until proven otherwise."

So for the time being, White Holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole) are possibly portals that connect our universe to another universe, and are artificial constructs by the Draco-reptilian Empire to restore order to the universe by bringing in new mass necessary for the formation of Stars, in an attempt to rule the universe for all eternity by making sure that this universe exists indefinitely.


Above: A sentient White Hole spewing new mass into the universe from another dimension. White holes are possibly sentient beings, and are counter-parts to Black holes. Both are telepathically linked using an unknown psychic process which allows them to communicate telepathically with each other, which means that the Draco-Reptilian empire risks information falling into enemy hands, if another civilization builds an artificial Black Hole computer.

If that was a typo, I have no idea why you would have even written it. It can't be 'proven otherwise' anymore; the idea that all crows are black has been disproved. "not all crows are black" is a necessarily true statement, it's been proven conclusively.
The point no longer has anything to do with what you've said whatsoever.

Oh I see, I think I know where the ambiguity lies.

Originally, I did not mean that the original research hypothesis was that some crows are Black, while its negating null hypothesis is that not all crows are Black. My original thought was that the original hypothesis was that some crows are Black, while its opposing, but not negatory hypothesis was that some crows are White, which meant that they are technically not logical negations of each other.

So "Not necessarily not Black" is not the same as "all crows are Black" because some crows can be of other colors like blue or Sapphire, but not simply not White.

Didn't catch that edit.
Sure, you could argue that the lack of evidence isn't enough to disprove the hypothesis.
But the amazing thing is, your hypothesis is worthless without proof. The null hypothesis (that there is no relationship between... whatever you just wrote about) needs to be disproved, which you haven't done.

What annoys me about your posts is that you make statements against a null hypothesis as though they were fact, when there is absolutely no logic or proof behind what you've said, and you do this knowingly. This is called 'lying'.

...Yes, they are mutually exclusive . All crows are black implies that no crows are white. Some crows are white implies that not all crows are black.

Ah, I must have misread it as 'not neccesarily black' the first time.
'not neccesarily not black'... let's write this out logically.
¬black ǀǀ ¬¬black
which is equivalent to
black ǀǀ ¬black
which is equivalent to 'true'.
So I'm sorry for mistaking your point as something that could be considered even marginally related, turns out you actually said something that has even less to do with your argument.

Hmm... *slow clap* Phlogistinator... You've found a exploitable weakness in the forums, there is no rule against spreading esoteric ideas in the Guidelines. And people react rather strongly to spreading misinformation. Its the "somebody is wrong on the internet" thing all over. It also takes all my willpower to write this, instead of adding to what aevs already said. Misappropriating all those pretty pictures makes you post so much more outraging to me, but still I tip my hat to your ingenious trolling and will block you from now on.

That seems petty.

Ah whatever, it just means that Black Holes and White Holes are sentient.

Considering the last 10 threads posted by Phologistinator (Link), I do not find guz's thoughts to be particularly petty. That he posted as such in this thread is something that I would agree with calling petty.

Another bullshit thread? i can't believe this

White holes are highly hypothetical and probably will be disproved, thats because of string theory slowly fading into existence

And let me say that again, THATS NOT HOW QUANTUM CONCIOUSNESS WORKS

Now get your time wimey woobly boobly interdimensional swirly energy thingy theories of this forum or i will bring in paradimensional fortress!

Anyway, all these talk about logic and philosophy is a distraction from the real purpose of the thread isn't it? The whole purpose of the thread was about the lore on consciousness being copied and pasted from a centralised network of machine intelligence.

Let's not get side-tracked then!

Finally someone who thinks like me!

I always felt that all forms of logic should be abandoned in the name of imagination. Logic only constricts imagination, and empiricism discards it further.

One of the greatest mystics of our time, Henri Poincare, who did studies of parapsychology on Quantum consciousness, has suggested that all of us could actually be inter-dimensional beings who are simulated consciousness on a White Hole. If that is true, we only need to believe in ourselves in order to turn our imaginations into reality.