Otherworldly view on “our” nature. Users

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.

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

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

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;



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.



“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