Wow, REading through all of this is tiring amd giving me a headache.
[Papaver takes a deep cleansing breath]
But, Sarkus has been saying something that is essentially correct and has been accepted since the early 19th century. And it is this (paraphrased);
Matter and energy are the same
This is correct. and we can quantify their eqivalence using Eistien's famous equation ;
E = Mc^2
In other words, matter and energy can be thought of as equivalent. Quatitatively they are related by the speed of light squared (and that assumes perfect conversion efficiency, which is rarely the case.
One poster asked ;
I just think very few scientists would say there is more material in accelerating billiard ball.
Well, we would not say it that way, but it is true nonetheless. The extra kinetic energy in the accelerating billiard ball could be expressed as a mass equivalence using einsteins formula as ;
Extra mass = (extra energy of acceleration) / c^ 2
All physicists accept Eistien's e=mc^2 as true. I am unaware of any debate about this in Physdics today. It is perfectly correct and acceptable to say that mass and energy are equivalent.
Fields (that is, gravitational fields, electromagnetic fields) are an expression of POTENTIAL ENERGY distributed over a region of space. A field is not technically energy, but if something enters into a field, energy will be expended. Fields are really nothing more than mathematical constructs that we wouod use to predict potential forces and energy that would be expended if X were to occur.
[begin lecture on the philosophical abuse of QM]
We can talk about uncertainty and QM, but first let me say something here. Philosopher's often take great flights of fancy with QM. Feynman used to say that "if you think you understand it, you don't". Another quote often attributed to him when someone in the class would ask about QM was "shutup and calculate". While this quote orginally is from Heisenburg, Fynman did say it to his students when they would ask about understnading QM. On thing that I heard Feynaman say at a lecture was this, " The eonly people who abuse quantum theory more than the physics student is the philosopher who usually have no idea what it is or what it means". We all laughed about that one, but when I saw the movie WTFDWK, I remembered Feynman's words and just how true it was. The one thing to remember is this, QM is a mathematical model using wave theory. It doesn't necessarily mean that events are waves nor that matter are waves, only that we are using a wave model to calculate probable outcomes of an event. Just because the wave function "collapses" does NOT mean that the event does so. This usually means only that our probable set of events will faill to occur. That's all.
So, next time you want to talk about QM, just "shutup and calculate" the solutions to the diff equation for the event in question.
[end lecture on the philosophical abuse of QM]
Now, more about the topic, I ave to ask. Does anyone her believe that we will ever be able to cause a computer system, or nueral network, or set of computing devices to have some form of consciousness ?
And, do you believe that there are levels of consciousness, from simple to much more complex ?
For example a paramecium swims into a region of his little world that is just a bitt acidic for it, and it tries to swim away from it. Is this a consciousness decision on the part of our paramecium ?
Consdier, it sensed from sensory organ an environment that is not to its liking, and it responds by trying to swim away from it.
Or higher level.....
A slug senses a pirce of metal in its path and changes its direction of movement. Is this a form of consciousness ? some might sya that it is a reflix action. But allow me to ask, is a reflx action a low form of conscious activity ?
I think that it is.
A shark senses its prey in the water and does it then
make a decision to pursue it ? Would it also use input from its hunger sensors to make that decision ?
OK, let's consider a higher level of consciousness, the idea of self-awareness. I've a question. For a liviing thing to be self-aware, what must it first recognise ?
My answer is that it must first realize that there is a difference between itself and its surroundings. It needs to know what it controls, and what it does not. In other words, it must realize that it is itself, and that it is something entirely separate from its surroundings. Is not this the beginning of self-awareness ? That is, not tot tink of yourself as part of your environment, but to know that you are separate from it.
My belief is that consciousness, or self awareness, will arise when an organism develops that more complex set of reflex systems that can take input from other sensory organs, When these sensory reflexive systems begin to intercommunicate with other sensory systems when it can use those sensory systems to distinguish/discern itself from its environment.
What I've always found fascinating about this way of thinking about it is that, quite contrary to New Age and philosophical thinkers, it isn not when the organism thinks itself a part of and common with the unverse, but it is when it fianly realizes that it is
SEPARATE from it, an entity unto itself at the most primitvie level.
Just my $0.02.....
PS - And for the guy who things everything in the universe is a vibration at some frequency.....Do you have any evidence that is so, or is it something you just thought up and spout because it sounds cool ? If it that you have evidence, please present it, maybe I'll submit you for the Nobel prize. If it's that it just sound sso cool, please remember that many things sound really cool and harmoinc and what have you, but that doesn;t make them true.
Bye Bye......
Papaver
