FW: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

1. To be conscious does something have to have a brain?

2. To be conscious does it have to be capable of reproducing?

rosie

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>  .

Memory, learning ability - are just functions - that in many ways can be replicated - but love, hurt, hate, joy, desire, grief, etc - the emotions? Our soul experiences them.

And maybe by this simple statement I have defined what 'life' is and consciousness. It is the ability to be hurt and to love and be loved. To experience emotions. And I would hope that a convincing enough number of youtube videos show that animals do both - and that is why we are all 'animals' - we have applied this definition without even thinking about it.

And although I do not disagree with your idea of the immortal soul being dark energy, it is the immortal soul that counts as the ultimate test of whether one is conscious. A person can have a brain and die of grief or loneliness or fear. The brain alone does nothing. The emotion is by far the most important factor and all of it is metaphysical.

Self consciousness is, I think, something else. A child and a dog do not really experience self consciousness, although they are clearly conscious.

I think we need to start valuing the things that make us [and living things] 'human', without attempting to replicate them - be 'God'. I may be given a self driving car, but only David can point out the beauty of the cloud formations and talk about the clarity of the light. A machine does not know beauty.

It is the separation of the 'feminine' emotional, perceptive side from the symbolically unemotional, memory driven so called scientific side that has got us into the mess we are in - in Ukraine for example.

The 'masculine' has entirely taken over, where personal desires and objectives, avoidance of all unfiltered perceptions of reality, and an ability to devise a strategy that meets objectives, but loses all sense of humanity, produces carnage.

Note that I have named no names, as Mr Putin is probably not the actual one doing this. I suspect he is a puppet. I want to know 'who' or 'what' is pulling his strings.

best wishes to you

rosie

PS Sorry this is a bit long, but the writing is big

Definition from Encyclopaedia Britannica
An atom, is the smallest unit into which matter can be divided without the release of electrically charged particles. It is also the smallest unit of matter that has the characteristic properties of a chemical element. As such, the atom is the basic building block of chemistry.

Definition according to Wikipedia
An atom is the smallest unit of ordinary matter that forms a chemical element. Every solid, liquid, gas, and plasma is composed of neutral or ionized atoms. Atoms are extremely small, typically around 100 picometers across. They are so small that accurately predicting their behavior using classical physics—as if they were tennis balls, for example—is not possible due to quantum effects.

Overall, it appears that 'science' has multiple definitions for a thing, and a very long time ago it was established that it is impossible to determine laws or theses until all one's terms are defined - that you have a common language.

And I have just discovered three definitions, none of which agree, about one of the most important things in chemistry and physics. It is no wonder no women want to go into science as it is now, as the first thing a woman [or child] would ask is - yes but what is it? And the answer seems to be 'scientists' don't know.

Incidentally one could argue logically that if there are no definitions that can be agreed upon, no 'science' has taken place for quite a long time. It seems that your red and my red and wikipedia's red and britannica's red are all different.

I find it quite extraordinary that two respected sources [and a third if we count your good self] can't produce a common definition. Is your particle Britannica's particle? Where are particles in Wikipedia?

I am not trying to be obstructive here, but there are billions in schools and universities being taught this stuff - why on earth should they bother if the top brass can't even agree on fundamentals?

The only thing that seems common is that 'something' exhibits properties that tell you what it is. But how it does this is unknown, apparently because no one has bothered to ask - which let's face it is not very scientific.

Maybe some more fundamental thinking needs to be undertaken going back to some fundamental 'truths' that can be agreed upon.

best wishes

rosie

These particles must have a very fundamental set of functions in order to bond - the laws of attraction and repulsion for example - and form an atom. Do they literally spin or only figuratively spin?

Are they material or non material ? Atums [with a u, or 'objects' maybe ?]

rosie

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 3:15 PM
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

As I received no reply for my question on what you meant by physical, I had a search around for a very clear definition - and found this!! - I must admit I had no idea all you scientists - well chemists and theoretical physicists were actually grappling with the invisible . Madonna is apparently good at this too.

Big kiss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWz9VN40nCA

rosie

Madonna wasn't. She was a material girl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8wzQj3M-qY

Bring back the feminine [chuckle] - I bet she would attract a few undergraduates

rosie

But there again your reply was full of the word physical - with no definition as to what 'physical' was. As such I can choose whatever meaning I like

"“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

And indeed although you will have ignored the second link I gave you because you will have assumed it was flippant and beyond your dignity, it only demonstrated that without Serge's proposal - which was essentially a means of defining terms before you started - you will eventually hit a dead end.

And you all have.

And I am good friends with Serge because he is a darn sight brighter than you lot and understands the problem.

So it might be a good time to reconsider Serge's proposal and understand why he wrote it and what it means. You have a whole host of scientists from all over the world to discuss this issue with. Why not take the opportunity to involve them and do what Serge suggested. When defining anything, synonyms are allowed but homonyms aren't.

If you don't at least try to understand what he recommends [in English - so you don't even have to understand the other 6 languages he speaks], I will set Madonna and Olivia Newton John and Angelina Jolie on you - all together.

rosie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2f2yhzUxrw

Even if you are against women in anything but sock washing and nappy changing, remember that Serge - possibly the brightest of all of you - was quite happy to put his name to this video.

And believe me, Sege and I have discussed some findings for hours, whereas this one seemed obvious to both of us.... again

I am well aware that my audience for the videos is largely the already knowledgeable about these subjects. But now might be the time to stop viewing them as only for the simple at heart , and instead start to understand that unless concepts and symbols are simply explained no progress is made. Simplicity - being concise - is a sign of understanding and wisdom. It is not a weakness.

Incidentally, I will give you some house points for spotting that the programming language is 'the Word' , but I can guarantee you won't have spotted the link with the Elements or spin, or .....................

rosie

Supernatural is just parts of Nature 'unexplained'. It is all natural.

And when James Randi tried his best to weed out the deluded, I know from my own experience, they exist. But he also weeded out people who were genuine, people he regarded as dangerous, because they didn't realise what their powers really were, or how they worked and as a consequence were a potential risk. If I can bend metal from a distance I can down planes. I become a weapon.

But I was with Bill, our neighbour's border collie, the other night and though he looks at me directly eye for eye, with great soulful brown eyes , occasionally, he follows heaven knows what around the room.

There are numerous things hovering over me if his eyes are any indicator and, just like Muffin, he seems to take orders from entities unseen. It may be dark matter or dark energy, but things outside my perception system exist. And animals can 'see' [perceive] them - especially border collies.

This realm of other worlds - caused by the fact we seem to be 'interleaved' with many other things - each of which may be perceiving things differently, simply isn't being taken into account.

Dark matter is matter [let us leave it at that] that humans cannot perceive and other animals often can, and these animals offer us a far better opportunity to explore it [as long as they are treated with kindness of course] than shooting at atoms in very expensive colliders, for all they tell you is that if you shoot something valuable enough times, some of the pieces may appear similar, but you are simply destroying something precious, without actually realising the effects could be catastrophic.

I hope you can see the point I am making. All these Higgs bosoms [joke] and leptons and so on are simply the effects of matter we cannot perceive doing things. The effects aren't the matter, they are only effects, because we don't have the equipment or perception systems to ever realise they are there.

And we never will, unless we use other species to help us, and humans who, by some fluke of nature get glimpses of other realms and can report back.

Long again, sorry, but I am genuinely very worried by the approach many 'scientists' are taking. There is the potential in what you are all doing, to produce absolutely catastrophic results and don't seem to realise how dangerous what you are doing is.

rosie

Please would you clarify which Augustine and which Thomas is meant here please, for all those who are unfamilar with the people mentioned

Thank you

rosie

So 'resurrection' means the acquisition of a bodily form that is visible to those who have been blessed [like Bill] with the ability to 'see' 'dark matter', or more correctly perceive the twin of the apparent form most people can 'see'/ perceive

As this works to the laws of 'nested structured duality' every last inch of us has this shining but rather ghostly double, made of atums we can only perceive with 'second sight '- perception via the mind itself from [analogously] behind the screen. After all even software has to run on something.

Maybe even chess celebrates this duality rather than the commonly held belief that it is all about war games and strategy. Guessing now.

The Twelve apostles of the Zodiac [I'm rambling]

Have a lovely evening Philip x