God:the early answer to a problem?

[Jozen-Bo]

Crunchy Cat...you are very funny...in a good way!!

This hypethical Torsion feild that I haven't heard of either is very interesting.
If some of the information I came accross is correct...then the laws of reality are definetely mutating. If thats the case change is everywhere and we are not trapped by the boring laws that some scientist would provide us with...such as all the limits they state are absolutely impossible. There was a time when all the leading minds where teasing the wright brothers for building an Airplane...I bet the Wirght Brothers where the last ones to have the laugh, though. Tesla was never taking seriously by the scientific community publicly. Privately his work has build locked away and billions of dollars have been spent trying to figure out his inventions, by entities with a vast interest in becoming even more powerful then they already are.

I wouldn't bother to talk about the possibility if I didn't see it. And I do!!
I see directly that things are changing at the core level. Call it good eye sight! Torsion feild or not...thats what I see. I don't think you are capable of believing this though, becasue I wouldn't. Seeing is believing! What a fun Universe!!!

 

[Enmos]

Emnos

not sure why issues of being conscious or dead are inherently related to issues of reality, unless your head has seriously been done in by some philosophical discussion of late

It is related to reality, and you want to make the discussion objective. That thread deals with exactly that..
Since we are already some what of topic with this I don't want to continue in that direction.

just try 5 cabbages in a acre of parsley and see how many cabbage moths appreciate the value of cabbage as opposed to parsley

So would artificial life appreciate a virtual cabbage. DNA is programming.

 

[lightgigantic]

So would artificial life appreciate a virtual cabbage. DNA is programming.

perhaps
but programming is not DNA

Whatever choices it seems capable of making are actually pre-deliberated by
a conscious programmer. With superhuman speed a computer blindly follows
the schemata of those deliberations when so commanded by a conscious user.
The user inputs choices that the computer mechanically processes to logical
conclusions. But only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.

what would it mean for artificial life to make a "wrong move"?

 

[Enmos]

perhaps
but programming is not DNA

Whatever choices it seems capable of making are actually pre-deliberated by
a conscious programmer. With superhuman speed a computer blindly follows
the schemata of those deliberations when so commanded by a conscious user.
The user inputs choices that the computer mechanically processes to logical
conclusions. But only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.

what would it mean for artificial life to make a "wrong move"?

They have virtual DNA.

What would it mean for biological life to make a "wrong move" ?

 

[lightgigantic]

They have virtual DNA.

What would it mean for biological life to make a "wrong move" ?

sorry
I meant to say DNA is not life (or cosnciousness)
there is a big difference between life and the chemical pathways of information that life utilizes.
To make a wrong move requires consciousness, which is specifically what AI lacks, namely because it has no point of view.


To restate the argument, a person is aware of a menu of possible
movements, and has the willful independence to choose from that menu a
move he intuits to be best under the circumstances. Though it moves, a
cloud lacks awareness, independence and intuition. True, a computer does a
better job than a cloud of *appearing* to be aware--as seen in May 1997 in
New York, where IBM's Deep Blue 2 computer defeated grandmaster Gary
Kasparov in a chess competition. (Actually it was only a technical defeat,
as Kasparov won the first game and quit the match in the second.) As
*New Scientist* (p. 28) noted a month later, Deep Blue

cannot tell chess sense from nonsense, and it is blind
to what a chess position or chess game is all about. ...
Forget artificial intelligence. Deep Blue is a product
of human intelligence to modern computing technologies.

-transcendnetal personalism S.swami

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat...you are very funny...in a good way!!

This hypethical Torsion feild that I haven't heard of either is very interesting.

If some of the information I came accross is correct...then the laws of reality are definetely mutating.

The basic postulates of these torsion field speculations are full of contradictions and scientifically nonsensical statements. That in combination with the scientific observation that the laws of reality are not mutating invalidates the idea.

If thats the case change is everywhere and we are not trapped by the boring laws that some scientist would provide us with...such as all the limits they state are absolutely impossible.

Everyone wishes magic was real because it would be fun. It's just not the case and our desire for something to be true has zero bearing on if something is actually true.

There was a time when all the leading minds where teasing the wright brothers for building an Airplane...I bet the Wirght Brothers where the last ones to have the laugh, though. Tesla was never taking seriously by the scientific community publicly. Privately his work has build locked away and billions of dollars have been spent trying to figure out his inventions, by entities with a vast interest in becoming even more powerful then they already are.

I think the connection of the anaology is really a stretch.

I wouldn't bother to talk about the possibility if I didn't see it. And I do!!
I see directly that things are changing at the core level. Call it good eye sight! Torsion feild or not...thats what I see. I don't think you are capable of believing this though, becasue I wouldn't. Seeing is believing! What a fun Universe!!!

People like to talk about unbound possibilities and don't like it when existing knowledge makes those possibilities impossible. Knowledge of 'what is' often demolishes 'what I want it to be'. You can't beat truth no matter how creative and strong your desires are .

 

[SnakeLord]

will a dead body ever be alive again?

That depends on how you define life. If you define it I can answer your question.

 

[lightgigantic]

That depends on how you define life.

it also depends on how you define death too

 

[SnakeLord]

it also depends on how you define death too

O...k, that can be defined too. Now can you kindly define life? :shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

O...k, that can be defined too. Now can you kindly define life? :shrug:

consciousness

 

[Enmos]

sorry
I meant to say DNA is not life (or cosnciousness)
there is a big difference between life and the chemical pathways of information that life utilizes.

Says who ?

To make a wrong move requires consciousness, which is specifically what AI lacks, namely because it has no point of view.

Again, says who ? :shrug:

 

[Enmos]

consciousness

Is an aspect of life, not life itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is an aspect of life, not life itself.

can you indicate life without consciousness?

 

[lightgigantic]

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sorry
I meant to say DNA is not life (or cosnciousness)
there is a big difference between life and the chemical pathways of information that life utilizes.
”
Says who ?

DNA has not been shown to exhibit any scope for application or existence outside of the life forms that utilize it.
Kind of a car, despite being in full mechanical order, has no scope for moving unless fired up by a conscious operator

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
To make a wrong move requires consciousness, which is specifically what AI lacks, namely because it has no point of view.
”
Again, says who ?

says the author of the new scientist article for a start

The notion of AI having a point of view is perhaps something explored in sci-fi, but not science

 

[Enmos]

can you indicate life without consciousness?

Elaborate on consciousness please. Do bacteria have consciousness ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Elaborate on consciousness please. Do bacteria have consciousness ?

bacteria certainly fit the bill

 

[Enmos]

“

DNA has not been shown to exhibit any scope for application or existence outside of the life forms that utilize it.
Kind of a car, despite being in full mechanical order, has no scope for moving unless fired up by a conscious operator

Or a computer of course...
And I can say the same for consciousness..

says the author of the new scientist article for a start

The notion of AI having a point of view is perhaps something explored in sci-fi, but not science

Why do you need consciousness to make a wrong move ?
It may take consciousness to know you did..

 

[Enmos]

bacteria certainly fit the bill

Plants ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Plants ?

certainly

 

[lightgigantic]

Or a computer of course...

except of course that computer also requires an operator to make its calculations meaningful or even operational

And I can say the same for consciousness..

if you could indicate a functioning mechanistic model for consciousness, yes

Why do you need consciousness to make a wrong move ?
It may take consciousness to know you did..

without consciousness you could possibly talk of making a move (like a chess computer for example) but not a wrong move