What IS this thing, anyway?
I'll start by proposing we see it as an intersubjective network of Consciousness. Another thought is that it might be considered an interactive network of matter/energy.
Which is more interesting for dealing with what seems to be important to you?

Hmmm - occurs to me that some may think my post above is a joke or something - no, I'm serious - open to any recommendations or comments about the nature of my head, but that's not what I'm primarily interested in here - feel free to start another thread, possibly entitled 'alien's head', if you think anybody might be interested.

You're talking about the forum? I don't see the dichotomy. It is both.

But you're being too vague in your description to make any sense to me.

@A: Who, me? What I mean is, what's more important to you - conscious existence, or its explanation in materialists terms? I don't think materialist terms can deal with, say, laughter or reason, except in a reductionist manner in which all the stuff which counts disappears into numbers or something. Materialism is a philosophical approach that models 'reality', but it's a thought model, and thought only 'exists' in minds, and anyway all models are imperfect. And anyway, numbers only 'exist' in the mind - they're concepts, totally abstract.

I'm more interested in reverse engineering consciousness, recreating it and then improving upon it. Then bit by bit integrating that with my own consciousness, populating the universe, and working on a way to prevent the heat-death of the universe.

So I am more interested in things you can measure and manipulate.

OK with me - how do we do that?

Alien, if I understand you correctly, I think that you are asking which is better: an experiential approach to life, or a rational one. It is an excellent question.

It is a question which has been debated by great minds — both religious/philosophical and scientific — for ages.

My opinion wavers, to be honest. I can see the nobility of both. On one hand, an experiential approach to life is often a happier and kinder one, and seems to more directly approach the principles and purposes behind existence.

On the other hand, a more rational approach seems to offer a more powerful and active one, and can also be experiential in the emotions associated with discovery.

So, I am torn. What do you think?

"I'm more interested in reverse engineering consciousness, recreating it and then improving upon it. Then bit by bit integrating that with my own consciousness"

why would anyone want to integrate with YOUR consciousness?

and who died and made you God?

@Neddy: right now I'm more interested in a rational approach - I see rationality as a subset of experience - I can't handle the other stuff online (can you get me a beer here, please?)
I also don't think it's one or the other, but rationality has fairly tight rules and is not such a bad tool to use within experience. Needs to be isolated once in a while, though.
@Magnifico: because he's got something to say, which we can only pick apart by hearing him say it. Picking it apart might teach us both something. With God it might be different, but do you really want to bring That Guy in (somebody probably will, sooner or later)?

@Alien, work towards a stable society where scientists can do their work and donate to valuable research or work in relevant fields yourself. Or just do what you do and bring joy to yourself and to those around you confident in the knowledge that there are others working on this.

@Magnifico: it's the next step in the evolution of man, every being with a consciousness can become a god.