Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Life is Weirder

#1
Zinjanthropos Offline
Is life a concept?

Stolen from an article: 
Quote:Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles.


The article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bra...lly-exist/
Reply
#2
Ostronomos Offline
Behind all matter is the concealed reality of mathematics (that which governs) and behind that is certain God. Our minds are logic manifest so logic is indeed reality, not merely empirical. Aside from the outward appearance of two sided material existence, where a thing assumes the binary logic form of complementary existence (as in matter) or non-existence (as in void), is supreme reality. Spirit exists at 90 degrees to matter, that is why prayer can become effective at influencing reality via the Global Syntactic Operator or G.O.D. in the event that our psyches form a transtemporal feedback loop with ultimate reality.

Further reading: https://answersingenesis.org/physics/rec...ognizance/
Reply
#3
Zinjanthropos Offline
(May 19, 2018 08:24 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Behind all matter is the concealed reality of mathematics (that which governs) and behind that is certain God. Our minds are logic manifest so logic is indeed reality, not merely empirical. Aside from the outward appearance of two sided material existence, where a thing assumes the binary logic form of complementary existence (as in matter) or non-existence (as in void), is supreme reality. Spirit exists at 90 degrees to matter, that is why prayer can become effective at influencing reality via the Global Syntactic Operator or G.O.D. in the event that our psyches form a transtemporal feedback loop with ultimate reality.

Further reading: https://answersingenesis.org/physics/rec...ognizance/

As I said, life is weirder. Ever see a dead guy pray to the Global Syntactic Operator? 

Not the weirdness I had in mind but hard to ignore nonetheless.
Reply
#4
C C Offline
(May 19, 2018 08:10 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Is life a concept? Stolen from an article: [...] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bra...lly-exist/

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.


Try telling that to the advocates of emergentism, when the latter is treated as more than just a descriptive approach or a practical "it's far easier / quicker to explain using the nomenclature and concepts of an upper level science".

What Are the Emergent Properties of Living Things in Biology?
http://education.seattlepi.com/emergent-...-6131.html

Emergence: Everyday examples
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/...er-nf.html

Consequences which would be abhorrent to some or many: There's yet another sub-faction of such which regards conscious experience to be a purely biological or neural property. So to assert that life itself is an illusory idea, cognitive discrimination, or an impotent epiphenomenon -- would be antithetical to that cause.

~
Reply
#5
Zinjanthropos Offline
Emergentism, evolution, adaptation or whatever you want to call it would be nice if there were guarantees the life form does not go extinct. Sad to think that over 3 billion years of life on Earth or just humanity itself could disappear in a geological heartbeat. 

Besides the universe is not going to last forever at this rate anyways. Kind of makes life and everything connected with it pointless.
Reply
#6
C C Offline
(May 19, 2018 08:10 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Stolen from an article: 
On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles.


At least a whiff of mereological nihilism there. Figuratively, sort of like comet and giraffe behavior being displayed on a television screen. Due to the biased understanding and conditioned integrative approaches of visual cognition, they seem to be entities of wholly distinct character; but both are illusions maintained by the changing states of electronic pixels at the stratum of origin. Choosing the latter as a bridge to get to this:

A perspective for either declaring that "intelligence is just a concept we invented" or that the non-specialized predecessor for it is actually ubiquitous across the universe. A kind of "process animism" that dissolves the differences of varying objects, places and creatures. Grounded in the standpoint of "we are information" or "everything is computation" (i.e., all the concepts of science disciplines could supposedly be replaced by either computational or information theory language).

Which at such a bottom POV level would reduce what's transpiring in a brain (intelligence) and what's transpiring in a rock as really not that much different apart from the long and complicated history of the former (Wolfram's MO below).

Stephen Wolfram: My children always give me a hard time for this particular quote: "The weather has a mind of its own." Well, that's an animistic type of statement, and it seems like it has no place in modern scientific thinking. But that statement is not as silly as it first seems. What that's representing is, if we think about a brain—what is a brain doing? A brain is taking certain input, it's computing things, it's causing certain actions to happen; it's effectively generating a certain output.

We can think about all sorts of systems as effectively doing computations, whether it's a brain, whether it's a cloud responding to the different thermal environment that it finds itself in. We can ask ourselves, are our brains doing vastly more sophisticated computations than happens in these fluids in the atmosphere?

I had first assumed that the answer to that was, yes, we are carefully evolved, we're doing much more sophisticated stuff than any of these systems in nature. But it turns out that's not the case. It turns out that there's this very broad equivalence between the kinds of computations that different kinds of systems do. That realization makes the question of the human condition a little bit more poignant, because where we might say, "There's one thing we've got—we're special, we've got all this intelligence and all these things which nothing else can have." But that's not true. There are all these different systems of nature that are pretty much equivalent in terms of their computational, or for that matter, intellectual, capabilities.

What makes us different from all these things? What makes us different is the particulars of our history, which gives us our notions of purpose and goals. That's a long way of saying when we have the box on the desk that thinks as well as any brain does, the thing it doesn't have, intrinsically, is the goals and purposes that we have. Those are defined by our particulars—our particular biology, our particular psychology, our particular cultural history.

The thing we have to think about as we think about the future of these things is the goals. That's what humans contribute, that's what our civilization contributes—execution of those goals; that's what we can increasingly automate. We've been automating it for thousands of years. We will succeed in having very good automation of those goals. I've spent some significant part of my life building technology to essentially go from a human concept of a goal to something that gets done in the world.

[...] Here's one of my scenarios that I'm curious about. Let's say there's a time when human consciousness is readily uploadable into digital form, virtualized and so on, and pretty soon we have a box of a trillion souls. There are a trillion souls in a box, all virtualized. We look at this box. In the box, there will be hopefully nice molecular computing, maybe it'll be derived from biology in some sense, but maybe not, but there will be all kinds of molecules doing things, electrons doing things. The box is doing all kinds of elaborate stuff.

Then we look at the rock sitting next to the box. Inside the rock, there's all kinds of elaborate stuff going on, all kinds of electrons doing all kinds of things. We say, "What's the difference between the rock and the box of a trillion souls?" The answer will be that the box of trillion souls has this long history. The details of what's happening there were derived from the history of civilization and people watching videos made in 2015 or whatever. Whereas the rock came from its geological history, but it's not the particular history of our civilization.

This question of realizing that there isn't this distinction between intelligence and mere computation leads you to imagine the future of civilization ends up being the box of trillion souls, and then what is the purpose of that? From our current point of view, for example, in that scenario, it's like every soul is playing video games basically forever. What's the endpoint of that?
--AI & The Future of Civilization


~
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)