shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
there is something called emergent properties too
If awareness only required chemical reactions, these chemical reactions would have to be able to be observed. The only way that matter can observe other matter is through chemical reactions.Chemical reactions have observable results. Why do you need
another?
The emergent property in this cases would then require knowledge of all behavior of every subsystem. Not possible to be a common emergent property, which for most programs are just bugs. Just the appearance of fee will would have no bearing on our evolution so it would be difficult to make the case that we could evolve this trait even if we knew what caused it.there is something called emergent properties too
Light can transmit information. For example optical fibers transmit sequences of light beams. But, as far as i know, the only way that matter can observe energy is to produce a chemical or nuclear reaction.Well, no. Light also can transmit observation. 'Observation' can be as simple as matter being heated up. In our case 'observation' is itself a complex set of chemical reactions.
I'm not sure what you mean. Emergent properties in software are interdependancies between two subsystems. Basically the whole is greater than the part. The problem is that our awareness requires knowledge of many subsystems. We see objects and react to them all while observing our reaction.No. Why would it? There are tons of emergent properties in physics. They were there even before we realized what caused them.
Yes we have more freewill than other living beings. Apple trees grow apples and slugs are confined to the ground. I have to ask what do you mean by intelligence? Is the perception of the lie known as free will more intelligent than a plant? For a plant at least reflects the reality that it has.You are making a claim that we have more free will then other living beings. This is unfounded. We are simply more intelligent.
I'm using this definition but if you want to give another one...also i dont think you properly undersntad what emergent properties really means
Babies are human and alive on their own right. Fetuses are neither.Originally posted by okinrus
Your philosophy does not tell us why we should not kill babies any more than killing unborn babies. If it cannot tell us this much, it's irresponsible for abortionist to apply it to unborn children.
A fetus is alive and is human. The fetus is supported by the mother just as the baby will be.Babies are human and alive on their own right. Fetuses are neither.
Fetus' in latter stages can certainly interact. This is not conclusive proof either because there are plenty of people in comas who act even less than the fetus. And guess what, we can afford to spend millions of dollars on them to have surgery and live.Babies can observe/interact. Fetuses can not.
Our arm and legs are developed solely by our genetic code. Because a new-born baby has the same genetic code as when a fetus, it's plausible to consider the fetus having all it's body parts.Babies have all (or most) of the features/body parts that all other humans do. Fetuses do not.
I don't think this matters.Babies are social. Fetuses are not.
As I said before, animals have different souls. But look at it this way. You've already admitted that you do not understand how the brain works. It's only fitting that other humans would submit to destroying what they do not understand. The brain has a memory capacity many times larger than the largest computers. It's simply not understandable. I have my own theory and it is simply less risky than yours.Very simply, your philosophy does not tell us why we should not kill fetuses and more then we kill ants/cows/trees/etc. It it cannot tell us this much, it's irresponsible for religious zealots to take away the rights of another.
No, but if the universe died and there was no observance of it, we can treat it logically as never happening. Life is the obervance of life.okinrus i dont understnad why you think observing is so crucial. are you going to tell me taht if every human died that the universe would just stop existing because you werent here to observe it
I'm not really talking about people brain dead in a coma.think that the argument of comparing an aborted fetus to a person in a coma is ridiculous. way back earlier in this thread i discussed how my mom was in a coma. she was virtually brain dead. she was in a coma for 3 months with no signs of ever coming out. we pulled the plug without hesitance. dont see a problem with a pulling the plug. it is selfish of the family to maintain the person in that state for prolonged periods.
Oftentimes the person out of a coma is almost another person. My friend as well was in a coma, and after the coma he had to learn how to do basic schoolwork again. That's pretty sad though.think that the argument of comparing an aborted fetus to a person in a coma is ridiculous. way back earlier in this thread i discussed how my mom was in a coma. she was virtually brain dead. she was in a coma for 3 months with no signs of ever coming out. we pulled the plug without hesitance. dont see a problem with a pulling the plug. it is selfish of the family to maintain the person in that state for prolonged periods.
You misunderstand what I mean by observer. What I'm basically saying is without observance of something, we can treat that something as something that does not exist. Everything that we know exists has been observed.to say that the universe doesnt exist without an observer is so absurd i cant even comprehend the thought. okinrus your logic is flawed if you say existence depends on observation.
Parallel processing has pretty long tradition. The article is, however, talking about memory capacity and this should not effect any speed gained by parallel processing. The brain's memory capacity is 10^8,432 while the computer's is 10^12.lmao. He completely ignores new technologies such as parrallel processing which will make this much easier and 'brain like'.
I was treating an observer has matter itself. Of course we do see the baby, the photos were shown in the beginning of this thread.Using your logic (or lack thereof)... if a fetus is aborted and we never see a baby, we can treat it as logically never exisiting.
Originally posted by okinrus
memory capacity is 10^8,432 while the computer's is 10^12
Bytes but I'm not a medical doctor so I don't know how accurate the calculation of the brain's memory is. Physical computer memory is of course finite and computer learning systems would probably take it to it's limit.what units are you measuring in? where does this figure come from? A computer can have for all intents and purposes infinite memmory capacity and i find the margin by which your figure finds the human brain to be superior in memmory to be dubious at best.
These have been observed sort of. I don't think they have an existance apart from their observation unless if your a religious physicist.okinrus every thing we know exists has not been observed. how about dark matter? or dark energy? or electrons?
Besides the universe...there are no closed systems in this universe.
I think your misunderstanding my usage of observer is not necessarly a human being. There's nothing really special about us as we are predetermined and made up of ordinary matter. Bascially every event that is recieved is an event observed. Because the speed of information travels at the speed of light, we could treat parts of the universe closed because they are not aware of the existance of events really far away.every event that happens has a cascading efect on all other events.