is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

[exchemist]

Did I invent the term half-life of an isotope?

No but you were the idiot who suggested that the term might imply something to do with consciousness.

 

[origin]

You wrote:

Roger Penrose believes sentience begins at quantum scale, which would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent.

It was pointed out to you that this is not a logical.
Instead of listening to the points that were made you doubled down with this:

Yes, a logical conclusion drawn if Penrose is correct.

Wrong! If Penrose was 100% correct it says NOTHING about the universe being sentient.

Look at this:
It is positively known that chemical process are a requirement of life, chemistry is essential for sentient beings.
According to your logic that would mean that all chemical processes are sentient.

If you cannot see your flawed logic then you should not post in the science section.

 

[Write4U]

No but you were the idiot who suggested that the term might imply something to do with consciousness.

No, I implied Roger Penrose suggested it has something to do with consciousness.
I don't feel qualified to call Penrose an idiot, but if anyone feels they are qualified , have at it.
It's no skin off my back.

My position is probative; if Penrose is correct, is it possible that a quantum event is "experienced" by the constituent particles? Is a brain an absolute requirement for "sensory" experiences?

Hameroff calls these events as "bings" in the microtubules of the brain, a chemical reaction. How does one chemical reaction translate into an experiential event and another does not?
Magic?

 

[Write4U]

You wrote:

W4U said,
Roger Penrose believes sentience begins at quantum scale, which would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent.

It was pointed out to you that this is not a logical conclusion. Instead of listening to the points that were made you doubled down with this:

Write4U said:
Yes, a logical conclusion drawn if Penrose is correct.

Wrong! If Penrose was 100% correct it says NOTHING about the universe being sentient.
Look at this: It is positively known that chemical process are a requirement of life, chemistry is essential for sentient beings.
According to your logic that would mean that all chemical processes are sentient.

No, that would mean that many chemical processes may result in a form of non-conscious physical sentience and pseudo intelligence. And in living organisms "conscious sentient intelligence".

If chemistry is essential for sentient beings, how do all these non-sentient chemical processes in the brain result in sentience? Magic?
Does sentience require consciousness!?

As Hameroff demonstrated, one can render a person unconscious (cease conscious brain functions), yet his subconscious internal chemical control system continues to function in monitoring the system's state of health. This function is independent from level 3 conscious experience. Could we say this is a subconscious sentience?

Let me once again state that I am a hard Atheist and in no way am I trying to introduce a God like scenario.

But I believe we can all agree that the universe is very efficient at processing information of all kinds. This does not make it sentient, but it could make it a pseudo-intelligent (non-emotional) mechanism, a form of AI if you will.

This does not assign any "motivation" and IMO that's the difference. Conscious sentience introduces "motivation", subconscious sentience introduces "function", in the quest for survival (movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction).

Is this so wildly off the mark that we must resort to name calling or threats of removal from a science forum? Yeah, let's dumb it down to what we don't know.

Unless someone, anyone, has the answer, he or she has no right to dismiss my probings out of hand. On this subject there is not yet a superior theory AFAIK, other than evolution.

Oh, of course, the answer to the OP question is "YES", life is about survival and acquired fitness for survival is an emergent ability. End of story, next question......?

Still wrong?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, a logical conclusion drawn if Penrose is correct.

No. It is NOT a logical conclusion.
The latter does NOT follow from the former.
You have made an error in your inductive logic.

'If A then B' does not imply 'If B then A'.

 

[DaveC426913]

I make it a habit of providing more informed supporting papers or examples by known scientists.

No, what you do is name-drop.

"Penrose used the word 'sentience', therefore I can use Penrose's name to make up a ridiculous supposition about the universe that has nothing to do with what he said".

No, I do not. I usually research every word that IMO has significant meaning to my argument. (I do make mistakes). But if I find a term with one or several definitions synonymous with what I want to express, I'll use that.

Yes, you will.

No matter how damaging your personal desire for expression is to the topic at-hand.

What you're essentially doing is riffing off key words to hijack these threads to talk about your own pet ideas. That's disrespectful.

If the term itself is obscure in every day application, that is not my fault.

Yes, it is.

As a thinking brain, it is your job to winnow the noise from the signal. If you can't or won't do that, your contribution is no better than that of a bot.

The signal is the thread-topic. The noise is anything that leads conversation away from thatc.

 

[Write4U]

No, what you do is name-drop.

C'mon Dave, everytime anyone cites "mainstream science" they name-drop. It is expressed in "they stand on the shoulders of giants".

I cite only that which I believe to be compatible with mainstream science, to my knowledge.
I cannot cite personal qualifications, so I use the names and proposals by "known and respected" scientists from which I form my personal perspectives on purely scientific questions.
.

 

[Write4U]

"Penrose used the word 'sentience', therefore I can use Penrose's name to make up a ridiculous supposition about the universe that has nothing to do with what he said".

Let's listen to Mr Penrose in person.

I believe he speaks about "understanding" (cognition) at very fundamental levels.

I believe that the subjective concept of gods pertains to "rules governing the universe".
I believe that the objective concept of mathematics pertains to"rules governing the universe".

 

[Write4U]

I believe that the objective concept of mathematics pertains to "rules governing the universe"

Natural mathematical values and functions. The constants dictate the probabilities of survival depending on variables such as quantum superposition, beneficial mutations, and natural selection.

 

[exchemist]

No, what you do is name-drop.

"Penrose used the word 'sentience', therefore I can use Penrose's name to make up a ridiculous supposition about the universe that has nothing to do with what he said".



Yes, you will.

No matter how damaging your personal desire for expression is to the topic at-hand.

What you're essentially doing is riffing off key words to hijack these threads to talk about your own pet ideas. That's disrespectful.


Yes, it is.

As a thinking brain, it is your job to winnow the noise from the signal. If you can't or won't do that, your contribution is no better than that of a bot.

The signal is the thread-topic. The noise is anything that leads conversation away from thatc.

You've nailed it. This is what is so annoying about Write4U. Any thread, on any subject, is wrenched round and hijacked so that he can bore us all, yet again, with this pseudo-mathematical religion of his. The fact that his sermons are also riddled with misconceptions and incorrect use of terminology is the icing on the cake.

 

[exchemist]

No, I implied Roger Penrose suggested it has something to do with consciousness.
I don't feel qualified to call Penrose an idiot, but if anyone feels they are qualified , have at it.
It's no skin off my back.

Bullshit. Penrose will never have suggested half-life suggests atomic nuclei are alive, unless he has gone completely senile. Either support it with a quotation from what he said or withdraw this ludicrous claim.

 

[Write4U]

Bullshit. Penrose will never have suggested half-life suggests atomic nuclei are alive, unless he has gone completely senile. Either support it with a quotation from what he said or withdraw this ludicrous claim.

Watch the clip and you can hear it from the horse's mouth.

 

[origin]

Still wrong?

Yes.

 

[origin]

Watch the clip and you can hear it from the horse's mouth.

Watch an hour and a half video to try and find a single quote that you think is important? Not going to happen. Give me a time stamp where he says this important line.

 

[Write4U]

You've nailed it. This is what is so annoying about Write4U. Any thread, on any subject, is wrenched round and hijacked so that he can bore us all, yet again, with this pseudo-mathematical religion of his. The fact that his sermons are also riddled with misconceptions and incorrect use of terminology is the icing on the cake.

Ok, delight us with your profound insights.

 

[origin]

Ok, delight us with your profound insights.

Here is my profound insight: Someone who thinks inanimate objects are conscious, does not have anything worthwhile to add to a discussion.

But I believe we can all agree that the universe is very efficient at processing information of all kinds.

I doubt that anyone would agree with this. OK, maybe river....

 

[Michael 345]

river

If Jan is still around?? Think he would?

UoY know - the Universe Is???

 

[Write4U]

W4U said,
No, I implied Roger Penrose suggested it has something to do with consciousness.

I will stipulate that on second thought I might have said "something to do with sensory experience", a step below consciousness.

Bullshit. Penrose will never have suggested half-life suggests atomic nuclei are alive, unless he has gone completely senile. Either support it with a quotation from what he said or withdraw this ludicrous claim.

Why don't you quote me verbatim instead of "putting words in my mouth". Where did I say "Penrose suggested that half-life suggests atomic nuclei are alive".
Why should I withdraw a claim I never made?
If you want to discuss degrees of sensory experience, then let's explore that in context of "survival of the fittest chemistry".

 

[Write4U]

Erm, you might want to do some more of that "research" into what color charge is, and realize it has nothing to do with color as the word was being used here. In fact, color is an EM phenomenon, and color charge is a strong interaction phenomenon: they are literally related to two different fundamental forces!

Exactly and that is what prompted Feinman's expression.

The "color charge" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to the everyday meaning of color. The term color and the labels red, green, and blue became popular simply because of the loose analogy to the primary colors. Richard Feynman referred to his colleagues as "idiot physicists" for choosing the confusing name...

Up quarks, Down quarks are not up or down. The terms are convenient for distinguishing differences between their states and we forgive the scientists who invented them.

 

[exchemist]

I will stipulate that on second thought I might have said "something to do with sensory experience", a step below consciousness.

Why don't you quote me verbatim instead of "putting words in my mouth". Where did I say "Penrose suggested that half-life suggests atomic nuclei are alive".
Why should I withdraw a claim I never made?

You said "No, I implied Roger Penrose suggested it has something to do with consciousness."

The "it" we were talking about was half-life.

OK, so you were saying Penrose suggested the term half-life has something to do with consciousness, not explicitly that nuclei are alive. But if it does not mean that, then what the hell does it mean?

Please quote what he actually said and then we'll both be on the same page, if only for a microsecond.