boring discussion about life [locked]

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

BioSpark

Edit history:

BioSpark: 2010-07-12 08:34:47 pm

2009-05-31 12:35:08 pm

thats me

But the main issue was not even considered: What makes someone a master? Is this monkey a master or can only
the intellectual-elite in naiv human terms of understanding become a master? Here you have a challenge for your own mind.

Thread title:

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-05-31 12:58:54 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Quote from J-SNAKE:

Quote from Kejardon:

I think I would have liked to have met Socrates. :/ Descartes to a lesser extent.

Descartes made at least one big mistake contemplating animals just as complex machines.

Do you believe it's possible for a computer to be a person?

Quote from nate:

thinking it's impossible to not have these violently emotional reactions to people. but it probably is impossible, or at least unrealistic. the secret is that what you feel like doesn't exist if no one else is aware of it.

It's possible. And I'd disagree, it does exist even if you're the only one aware of it. If you ask me, the trick is to understand where the emotions come from mentally; once you understand it it's relatively easy to ignore one set of them.
If I start talking about this though there's a good chance it's going to just sound like me babbling though. <_<;

Quote from J-SNAKE:

... in naiv human terms of understanding ...

Is there another kind of understanding you know of?

[quote="J-SNAKE"]
[quote="Kejardon"]
I think I would have liked to have met Socrates. :/ Descartes to a lesser extent.
[/quote]
Descartes made at least one big mistake contemplating animals just as complex machines.
[/quote]
Do you believe it's possible for a computer to be a person?

[quote="nate"]
thinking it's impossible to not have these violently emotional reactions to people. but it probably is impossible, or at least unrealistic. the secret is that what you feel like doesn't exist if no one else is aware of it.
[/quote]
It's possible. And I'd disagree, it does exist even if you're the only one aware of it. If you ask me, the trick is to understand where the emotions come from mentally; once you understand it it's relatively easy to ignore one set of them.
If I start talking about this though there's a good chance it's going to just sound like me babbling though. <_<;

[quote="J-SNAKE"]
... in [b]naiv human terms of understanding[/b] ...
[/quote]
Is there another kind of understanding you know of?

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-05-31 02:04:59 pm

2009-05-31 01:39:45 pm

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

Quote from J-SNAKE:

Quote from Kejardon:

I think I would have liked to have met Socrates. :/ Descartes to a lesser extent.

Descartes made at least one big mistake contemplating animals just as complex machines.

Do you believe it's possible for a computer to be a person?

Quote from J-SNAKE:

... in naiv human terms of understanding ...

Is there another kind of understanding you know of?

Not even an animal as the reason is interesting but still clear enough. Contemplating a logical machine(and that is a typical way of understanding in computer engineering, and has here to be) is nothing but an abstraction to a mechanism and the way a computer is realised. We can ask ourselfs (only if someone has pleasure with it) where consciousness comes from. But it would be shallow and ignorant to think
that to every logical action a computer takes, a corresponding level of feeling or even consciousness is existing, since a logical action is implemented or realised indipendently, without a corresponding level of emotion or consciousness. Even theoretically by naivly assuming that all the pool of impuls-combinations in a time frame could cause something we call emotion or even consciousness, so that if you get the big luck that everything is setted according to the logical operation the computer is making, it would still be so unlikely, just like a tornado is coming and putting back all pieces of your destroyed house again.

In short: I am convinced an animal is feeling pain, but a computer doesnt.

I would be interested in your point of view.

If you feel free to I recommend you to watch the film Instinct (with Antoni Hopkins) for other layers of view than most people are used to.

[quote="Kejardon"]
[quote="J-SNAKE"]
[quote="Kejardon"]
I think I would have liked to have met Socrates. :/ Descartes to a lesser extent.
[/quote]
Descartes made at least one big mistake contemplating animals just as complex machines.
[/quote]
Do you believe it's possible for a computer to be a person?

[quote="J-SNAKE"]
... in [b]naiv human terms of understanding[/b] ...
[/quote]
Is there another kind of understanding you know of?
[/quote]

Not even an animal as the reason is interesting but still clear enough. Contemplating a logical machine(and that is a typical way of understanding in computer engineering, and has here to be) is nothing but an abstraction to a mechanism and the way a computer is realised. We can ask ourselfs (only if someone has pleasure with it) where consciousness comes from. But it would be shallow and ignorant to think 
that to every logical action a computer takes, a corresponding level of feeling or even consciousness is existing, since a logical action is implemented or realised indipendently, without a corresponding level of emotion or consciousness. Even theoretically by naivly assuming that all the pool of impuls-combinations in a time frame could cause something we call emotion or even consciousness, so that if you get the big luck that everything is setted according to the logical operation the computer is making, it would still be so unlikely, just like a tornado is coming and putting back all pieces of your destroyed house again.

In short: I am convinced an animal is feeling pain, but a computer doesnt.

I would be interested in your point of view.

If you feel free to I recommend you to watch the film Instinct (with Antoni Hopkins) for other layers of view than most people are used to.

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-01 12:43:09 am

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

I also don't believe a computer can be a person. And when you look at it, a brain is just a biological analog computer. It'd be silly to assume a brain can be a person if a computer can't.

I believe other humans are people because I'm a person (specifically, I have a point of view for lack of a better description; I choose to do things, I don't just act automatically with no awareness), and there's no reason to assume other humans are different in that way. In addition, I see signs in the way other humans act that suggests they're the same. I don't really see the same signs in animals.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

2009-06-01 04:24:10 am

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

And when you look at it, a brain is just a biological analog computer.

Brain is also about chemical reactions and hormon interactions, not "just" a type of computer. Thats the different layer a digital machine alone is never touching.
An animal feels pain, reason enough to be more than just a machine.

Izo:

registered on 2004-05-08 06:52:26 am.

Location: The End of the Rainbow

view all posts by Izo

Izo

2009-06-01 10:17:33 am

soaking through

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_computer

:/

Seeing an animal react to environmental stimuli does not automatically imply "pain", and there is very little you can do to show that the signal chain leading to the physical actions of an animal in "pain" are any different (on an esoteric level) to a causal reaction in a computer.

I love animals, but your argument seems based on an abritrary conceit.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-01 02:39:34 pm

2009-06-01 01:35:13 pm

thats me

Quote from Izo:

and there is very little you can do to show that the signal chain leading to the physical actions of an animal in "pain" are any different (on an esoteric level) to a causal reaction in a computer.

I advertised a digital machine the way you have it in home. Everything what goes into feeling and consciousness is not a machine anymore. Otherwise we need a wider definition for that. I still am convinced a dog is feeling pain, what ever is going on in it is not always "neutral". Arbitary conceit can take you everywhere, especially by naivly advertising chemical computers or cyborgs.

Also to share a clearer view: Even if you realise a computer the "chemical" way, be aware that still it has the function to compute and make logical operations. Every logical operation has to be realised to fit its purpose and independently, ignoring any possible level of feeling what can be involved. But if a purpose is feeling itself or to get consciousness according to your input data, then "hope for luck" if you think it is theoretically programmable since a logical machine can only compute the things based on its atomic LOGICAL operations. It implies you can only be sure to code something logical. Again in a MACHINE The feeling-layer is ignored and you have no clear access to how a level of feeling could correspond to your set of commands.

[quote="Izo"]
and there is very little you can do to show that the signal chain leading to the physical actions of an animal in "pain" are any different (on an esoteric level) to a causal reaction in a computer.
[/quote]
I advertised a digital machine the way you have it in home. Everything what goes into feeling and consciousness is not a machine anymore. Otherwise we need a wider definition for that. I still am convinced a dog is feeling pain, what ever is going on in it is not always "neutral". Arbitary conceit can take you everywhere, especially by naivly advertising chemical computers or cyborgs.

Also to share a clearer view: Even if you realise a computer the "chemical" way, be aware that still it has the function to compute and make logical operations. Every logical operation has to be realised to fit its purpose and independently, ignoring any possible level of feeling what can be involved. But if a purpose is feeling itself or to get consciousness according to your input data, then "hope for luck" if you think it is theoretically programmable since a logical machine can only compute the things based on its atomic LOGICAL operations. It implies you can only be sure to code something logical. Again in a MACHINE The feeling-layer is ignored and you have no clear access to how a level of feeling could correspond to your set of commands.

Izo:

registered on 2004-05-08 06:52:26 am.

Location: The End of the Rainbow

view all posts by Izo

Izo

2009-06-01 07:04:51 pm

soaking through

You haven't shown that pain is more than just a way to induce the sensible reaction to the cause of the pain (a "logical operation"), or that feeling is anything more than a state in which a computer can exist at a single time. :/

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

2009-06-02 03:54:02 am

thats me

Quote from Izo:

You haven't shown that pain is more than just a way to induce the sensible reaction to the cause of the pain

Figure out the mistake you are already making. Also keep in mind a computer is computing logical things based on its atomic operations. You cannot program feeling ITSELF but only tell him WHAT TO feel, EMULATION, it implies that to be sure to control and produce feeelings you will need an accessible "device" which can produce feeling states as your "feeling-layer" then. So if you call this device still computer then, then assume what you want, thats your decision.

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-02 08:27:46 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Quote from J-SNAKE:

Also keep in mind a computer is computing logical things based on its atomic operations.

This does not apply to animals and brains in general why?

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-03 04:13:52 am

2009-06-03 03:40:50 am

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

Quote from J-SNAKE:

Also keep in mind a computer is computing logical things based on its atomic operations.

This does not apply to animals and brains in general why?

A brain is just more than this. If you only want to regard the computational layer of the brain than it is really slow compared to common mikroprozessor. But the reason why it manages to do many things faster than a CPU is because everything works parallel. In a computer memory and CPU is separated, in a brain you cannot separate Software from Hardware, OK, that just aside. There are approaches to use neuronical clusters (like in brain) to compute and manage highly complex things which cannot even be described through an Algorithm on a turing machine. They can be designed to handle much things much more effectivly than a brain.

This neuronical clusters alone can adapt on every change in a structure. But there is still a big problem and you still cannot reduce a brain to that. No matter how complex they can only learn things being clearly definable. There is no "willing-force" to try to handle something. There is no impression/imagination how to approach a problem if not understood or clearly defined.
And if it comes to impressions and imagination you never can tell on what atomic operations it is based on. You cannot even tell what is atomic, responsible to get an imagination, its a different layer but somehow connected to the physical one. You can regard the same person over and over in seemingly same physical states and with seemingly same emotions but you still do not know what a conrete picture he has in mind/brain, it can differ seemingly independent, imagination ITSELF is NOT PHYSICAL, it is not like in computer where you always know what PHYSICAL result comes out after digital and clear atomic steps. A computer alone can only swim in the PHYSICAL layer.

It can be said, a brain can be used like a computer, but you will loose a lot of potential that a computer alone can never achieve.

[quote="Kejardon"]
[quote="J-SNAKE"]
Also keep in mind a computer is computing logical things based on its atomic operations.
[/quote]
This does not apply to animals and brains in general why?
[/quote]
A brain is just more than this. If you only want to regard the computational layer of the brain than it is really slow compared to common mikroprozessor. But the reason why it manages to do many things faster than a CPU is because everything works parallel. In a computer memory and CPU is separated, in a brain you cannot separate Software from Hardware, OK, that just aside. There are approaches to use neuronical clusters (like in brain) to compute and manage highly complex things which cannot even be described through an Algorithm on a turing machine. They can be designed to handle much things much more effectivly than a brain.

This neuronical clusters alone can adapt on every change in a structure. But there is still a big problem and you still cannot reduce a brain to that. No matter how complex they can only learn things being clearly definable. There is no "willing-force" to try to handle something. There is no impression/imagination how to approach a problem if not understood or clearly defined.
And if it comes to impressions and imagination you never can tell on what atomic operations it is based on. You cannot even tell what is atomic, responsible to get an imagination, its a different layer but somehow connected to the physical one. You can regard the same person over and over in seemingly same physical states and with seemingly same emotions but you still do not know what a conrete picture he has in mind/brain, it can differ seemingly independent, imagination ITSELF is NOT PHYSICAL, it is not like in computer where you always know what PHYSICAL result comes out after digital and clear atomic steps. A computer alone can only swim in the PHYSICAL layer.

It can be said, a brain can be used like a computer, but you will loose a lot of potential that a computer alone can never achieve.

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-03 11:33:58 am

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Ok, now you're getting somewhere.

Quote from J-SNAKE:

There is no "willing-force" to try to handle something. There is no impression/imagination how to approach a problem if not understood or clearly defined...
imagination ITSELF is NOT PHYSICAL, it is not like in computer where you always know what PHYSICAL result comes out after digital and clear atomic steps. A computer alone can only swim in the PHYSICAL layer.

I actually agree with you just fine on this point. The problem is, we can show that animals have physical brains, but how do we show that they have this "willing-force"? I *don't* believe having a brain necessarily means having that willing-force.

Quote from J-SNAKE:

It can be said, a brain can be used like a computer, but you will loose a lot of potential that a computer alone can never achieve.

I have to disagree heavily on this though. A brain can be used in many ways, you lose its potential when you limit it to working only one way.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-03 04:04:35 pm

2009-06-03 01:05:41 pm

thats me

Your brain is not different ground-based compared to an ape. Ape can feel. Feeling is a big word, feeling can involve a certain level of will and it does. If you feel pain you want to avoid it. I am convinced a dog is feeling pain.

to second concern: also a computer can be used in many different ways. Aside that not every way there is has to be grounded on a computational and clear level. Just like in math people have discovered not all digits or dependecies can concretely be known, even not THEORETICALLY, take P as example, not all is rational.

Consciousness, feeling and imagination is not physical. Many make the mistake to not distinguish between cause and result. Cause for pain is not pain. Energetic reaction in Uran can produce radiation. But Uran is not radiation, nor the reaction is.

Probably you want to know whether computer can be realised biologically somehow. Probably, even something like DNA concepts are in mind but that is the something I am not advertising. You asked can a computer be a person. The answer is no.

Your brain is not different ground-based compared to an ape. Ape can feel. Feeling is a big word, feeling can involve a certain level of will and it does. If you feel pain you want to avoid it. I am convinced a dog is feeling pain.

to second concern: also a computer can be used in many different ways. Aside that not every way there is has to be grounded on a computational and clear level. Just like in math people have discovered not all digits or dependecies can concretely be known, even not THEORETICALLY, take P as example, not all is rational.

Consciousness, feeling and imagination is not physical. Many make the mistake to not distinguish between cause and result. Cause for pain is not pain. Energetic reaction in Uran can produce radiation. But Uran is not radiation, nor the reaction is.

Probably you want to know whether computer can be realised biologically somehow. Probably, even something like DNA concepts are in mind but that is the something I am not advertising. You asked can a computer be a person. The answer is no.

BioSpark:

is in the group Global Moderator.

registered on 2005-08-07 09:14:49 pm.

Gender: male

Location: urbana, il, usa

view all posts by BioSpark

BioSpark

2009-06-03 03:19:08 pm

hʌŋ laɪk

ə hɔːrs

post here if you think you're right.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

2009-06-03 03:47:58 pm

thats me

Quote from BioSpark:

post here if you think you're right.

Thats what you did now, right?

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-04 04:10:37 am

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Ok you've failed to respond to any of my points in my last post, aside from 'I am convinced a dog is feeling pain', but that amounts to nothing more than 'I disagree with your view'.

Guess I'm done with that discussion. Now for silliness.

Quote from BioSpark:

post here if you think you're right.

I think I am right that you ought not to post here if you think you're right.
Wait.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-04 11:56:55 am

2009-06-04 06:34:20 am

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

Quote from J-SNAKE:

It can be said, a brain can be used like a computer, but you will loose a lot of potential that a computer alone can never achieve.

I have to disagree heavily on this though. A brain can be used in many ways, you lose its potential when you limit it to working only one way.

If I understand you right, you are saying a brain is more than just computer. Thats what I said.

Quote from Kejardon:

Ok you've failed to respond to any of my points in my last post

You wanted to consider a brain just to be for the computing purpose. It does not have to be anything different than a biological machine. I am no god an fail to explain you how it can work biologically (but there are approaches), thats right.
Probably the problem is to be carefull to assume consciousness is digital or even binary, there or not there. As you can see the experiment of your own its about the LEVEL. When you are very small you are not pretty aware of what can going on. You cannot even assume a fly has no consciousness. Its all about the level. Very tiny small still does NOT EQUAL zero.

It seems you want to know whether biological life can be based only on the computational level, without anything else.
As I said at least it cannot be applied to something like a dog. Ignoring the signs of real world and making free hypothetical assumptions can take you everywhere, but unlikely to the real world.

Anyway, not all I say is just to think about few hours. Take your time when you are interested. I think we shall now let others continue talk on topic. If you are interested to share your view, feel free to message me.

[quote="Kejardon"]

[quote="J-SNAKE"]
It can be said, a brain can be used like a computer, but you will loose a lot of potential that a computer alone can never achieve.
[/quote]
I have to disagree heavily on this though. A brain can be used in many ways, you lose its potential when you limit it to working only one way.
[/quote]
If I understand you right, you are saying a brain is more than just computer. Thats what I said.

[quote="Kejardon"]
Ok you've failed to respond to any of my points in my last post
[/quote]
You wanted to consider a brain just to be for the computing purpose. It does not have to be anything different than a biological machine. I am no god an fail to explain you how it can work biologically (but there are approaches), thats right.
Probably the problem is to be carefull to assume consciousness is digital or even binary, there or not there. As you can see the experiment of your own its about the LEVEL. When you are very small you are not pretty aware of what can going on. You cannot even assume a fly has no consciousness. Its all about the level. Very tiny small still does NOT EQUAL zero.

It seems you want to know whether biological life can be based only on the computational level, without anything else. 
As I said at least it cannot be applied to something like a dog. Ignoring the signs of real world and making free hypothetical assumptions can take you everywhere, but unlikely to the real world.

Anyway, not all I say is just to think about few hours. Take your time when you are interested. I think we shall now let others continue talk on topic. If you are interested to share your view, feel free to message me.

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-04 12:06:24 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

I have a few memories from when I was not self-aware. I can also remember my first self-aware thought. It is not at all unlike how I think today.
You shouldn't assume that I assume so much. :D

BioSpark:

is in the group Global Moderator.

registered on 2005-08-07 09:14:49 pm.

Gender: male

Location: urbana, il, usa

view all posts by BioSpark

BioSpark

2009-06-04 12:21:10 pm

hʌŋ laɪk

ə hɔːrs

i didn't know self-awareness comes in an instant. i thought it was gradual.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

2009-06-04 12:54:59 pm

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

It is not at all unlike how I think today.

Since I dont want to assume that much and it seems on topic:) , is there a typing error, can I assume aware or not aware?

Btw, just to give an interesting thought. If biological life can be based on a computational layer only, Do you think there can be one clearly known (only complex) algorithm making biological life and all its happening possible? (There is a mistake in assuming it, but I would like to know what you think about it first)

BioSpark:

is in the group Global Moderator.

registered on 2005-08-07 09:14:49 pm.

Gender: male

Location: urbana, il, usa

view all posts by BioSpark

BioSpark

2009-06-04 12:57:40 pm

hʌŋ laɪk

ə hɔːrs

not unlike = like

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

2009-06-04 01:09:02 pm

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

I can also remember my first self-aware thought.

When was that?

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-04 01:23:03 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

No typing error. I am plenty self-aware right now, and I was plenty self-aware when I was first self-aware.

Quote from J-SNAKE:

If biological life can be based on a computational layer only, Do you think there can be one clearly known (only complex) algorithm making biological life and all its happening possible?

Ok, you'll have to explain to me how this is not a tautology.

Quote from J-SNAKE:

Quote from Kejardon:

I can also remember my first self-aware thought.

When was that?

It was during a dream while I was asleep in a crib... That might be why I had a rather large number of lucid dreams when I was really young.

J-SNAKE:

is in the group Banned.

registered on 2008-07-14 05:47:08 pm.

view all posts by J-SNAKE

J-SNAKE

(user is banned)

J-SNAKE

Edit history:

J-SNAKE: 2009-06-04 04:11:53 pm

2009-06-04 01:29:28 pm

thats me

Quote from Kejardon:

No typing error. I am plenty self-aware right now, and I was plenty self-aware when I was first self-aware.

Quote from J-SNAKE:

If biological life can be based on a computational layer only, Do you think there can be one clearly known (only complex) algorithm making biological life and all its happening possible?

Ok, you'll have to explain to me how this is not a tautology.

I doubt you understood my question, it is only trivial on the first sight. Or are you still sure to answer this way?

Ok, probably it helps to take at least one relevant thing in biology and life into account. Look how different it works:
There cannot be one starting algorithm which leads to the results according to all the input data. An algorithm is computational. If you know all the input data you know what turns out. In life there have to happen not only new results(according to ever changing input data) but repeatedly new algorithms. Remember: software is not hardware-independent here. In biological life always mutation does happen. Whenever genes are passed on or a mutation in oneself occurs, the hardware is changing and so the corresponding algorithm itself does. A mutation happens RANDOMLY, NOT COMPUTATIONAL. You cannot forecast what new algorithms are created over and over since they have a not computational cause. It probably helps to see how wrong assumptions can be when someone is not taking the signs of real world into account.

result in short: not just input-parameters but ALGORITHMS THEMSELFES are changing RANDOMLY over and over in a biological creature.Biological life is not computational, even not according to all known input data. No matter how little or big something has changed, it is not the same as it was. One special algorithm or a digital set of them alone stay always the same. Share a clear thought about it how different biological life works.

Quote from Kejardon:

No typing error. I am plenty self-aware right now, and I was plenty self-aware when I was first self-aware.

It does not have to imply consciousness is binary. Consciousness can reach a level where your cup of tee is just full in that room. That level can be self-awareness. I think self-awareness does not lead to consciousness. Consciousness can lead to self-awareness. I am convinced consciousness is not binary. Otherwise we will have to agree to disagree on this.

[quote="Kejardon"]
No typing error. I am plenty self-aware right now, and I was plenty self-aware when I was first self-aware.

[quote="J-SNAKE"]
If biological life can be based on a computational layer only, Do you think there can be one clearly known (only complex) algorithm making biological life and all its happening possible?
[/quote]
Ok, you'll have to explain to me how this is not a tautology.
[/quote]
I doubt you understood my question, it is only trivial on the first sight. Or are you still sure to answer this way?

Ok, probably it helps to take at least one relevant thing in biology and life into account. Look how different it works:
There cannot be one starting algorithm which leads to the results according to all the input data. An algorithm is computational. If you know all the input data you know what turns out. In life there have to happen not only new results(according to ever changing input data) but repeatedly new algorithms. Remember: software is not hardware-independent here. In biological life always mutation does happen. Whenever genes are passed on or a mutation in oneself occurs, the hardware is changing and so the corresponding algorithm itself does. A mutation happens RANDOMLY, NOT COMPUTATIONAL. You cannot forecast what new algorithms are created over and over since they have a not computational cause. It probably helps to see how wrong assumptions can be when someone is not taking the signs of real world into account.

result in short: not just input-parameters but ALGORITHMS THEMSELFES are changing RANDOMLY over and over in a biological creature.Biological life is not computational, even not according to all known input data. No matter how little or big something has changed, it is not the same as it was. One special algorithm or a digital set of them alone stay always the same. Share a clear thought about it how different biological life works.

[quote="Kejardon"]
No typing error. I am plenty self-aware right now, and I was plenty self-aware when I was first self-aware.
[/quote]
It does not have to imply consciousness is binary. Consciousness can reach a level where your cup of tee is just full in that room. That level can be self-awareness. I think self-awareness does not lead to consciousness. Consciousness can lead to self-awareness. I am convinced consciousness is not binary. Otherwise we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Kejardon:

registered on 2004-12-07 07:21:36 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Kejardon

Kejardon

2009-06-04 05:37:14 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

I'm not sure where to start. Well. No, I know where to start, but I'm not quite sure what to explain next.

Quote from J-SNAKE:

If biological life can be based on a computational layer only, Do you think there can be one clearly known (only complex) algorithm making biological life and all its happening possible?

The first phrase here is a hypothetical that, from the way you stated it, you seemed to expect me to assume while considering the following question. However, the following question doesn't seem to be anything more than a rephrasing of the hypothetical. Thus, it seems to me to be a tautology. Your last post then went on to say that biological life was not based on computation, thus contradicting the hypothetical. It seems like you didn't mean to state the hypothetical at all and just wanted me to answer the question normally.

If you actually believe what you state following that about randomness, I'm not up for arguing with you. College gives me enough chances for banging my head against a wall.

Also not sure why you think I would view consciousness as binary - I don't. I am a bit inclined to think self-awareness is binary though. Neither consciousness nor self-awareness is required for the other, I'm pretty sure.

I'm not sure where to start. Well. No, I know where to start, but I'm not quite sure what to explain next.
[quote="J-SNAKE"]
If biological life can be based on a computational layer only, Do you think there can be one clearly known (only complex) algorithm making biological life and all its happening possible?
[/quote]
The first phrase here is a hypothetical that, from the way you stated it, you seemed to expect me to assume while considering the following question. However, the following question doesn't seem to be anything more than a rephrasing of the hypothetical. Thus, it seems to me to be a tautology. Your last post then went on to say that biological life was not based on computation, thus contradicting the hypothetical. It seems like you didn't mean to state the hypothetical at all and just wanted me to answer the question normally.

If you actually believe what you state following that about randomness, I'm not up for arguing with you. College gives me enough chances for banging my head against a wall.

Also not sure why you think I would view consciousness as binary - I don't. I am a bit inclined to think self-awareness is binary though. Neither consciousness nor self-awareness is required for the other, I'm pretty sure.