Well, maybe not. Nevertheless according to Deutsch’s principle:
QuoteEvery finitely realizable physical system can be simulated efficiently and to an arbitrary degree of approximation by a universal model (quantum) computing machine operating by finite means.
Read more in: The Physical Origin of Universal Computing (https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151027-the-physical-origin-of-universal-computing/)
All this time I thought I was heuristic.
Quote from: stromboli on October 28, 2015, 09:49:03 AM
All this time I thought I was heuristic.
You maybe heuristically correct, or is it algorithmically incorrect?!? :67:
I have no problem being an algorithm. I remain the same however others chose to categorise me, stardust, monkey, English Bastard, individual, or a bit of maths.
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/619023/rose-blooming-o.gif)
By any other name would smell as sweet
All I know is I'm dead sick of digital.
Quote from: stromboli on October 28, 2015, 09:59:57 AM
All I know is I'm dead sick of digital.
And you wrote this on your computer?!? You are guilty of cognitive dissonance. Put away that bottle of scotch, by now it should taste like piss.
Read a book by a "emergent" scientist ... and he showed that if every atom in the universe was a quantum computer component (Qubit) then there hasn't been enough elapsed time for it to have randomly gotten to the present situation, given that we can measure the age of the universe as well.
Typical Pythagorean twaddle ... but even if true, there will be endless warfare between people who are even numbers vs those who are odd numbers ;-)
Al Gore rhythm?
Al Gore got rhythm?
I think my algorithm has a few bugs...
Reminds me of a SMAC quote by the University of Planet faction:
"Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness."
Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "The Feedback Principle"
Quote from: Sal1981 on October 29, 2015, 10:09:36 PM
Reminds me of a SMAC quote by the University of Planet faction:
"Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness."
Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "The Feedback Principle"
Only dogs eat their own shit. Got dog?
Quote from: Sal1981 on October 29, 2015, 10:09:36 PM
Reminds me of a SMAC quote by the University of Planet faction:
"Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness."
Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "The Feedback Principle"
Ha, it depends if the original function converges or not... stupid Sid Meier character... :lol:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 30, 2015, 08:37:49 AM
Ha, it depends if the original function converges or not... stupid Sid Meier character... :lol:
Isn't converging to infinity, just another kind of convergence?
Quote from: Sal1981 on October 29, 2015, 10:09:36 PM
Reminds me of a SMAC quote by the University of Planet faction:
"Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness."
Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "The Feedback Principle"
Sounds familiar.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Mandel_zoom_08_satellite_antenna.jpg)
Quote from: gentle_dissident on October 31, 2015, 07:40:44 PM
Sounds familiar.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Mandel_zoom_08_satellite_antenna.jpg)
Mandelbrot
I'm reading through a similar discussion in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, an old one by Daniel Dennett. It explains why no designing mind is necessary for life to evolve.
http://www.amazon.com/DARWINS-DANGEROUS-IDEA-EVOLUTION-MEANINGS/dp/068482471X
Quote from: Atheon on October 28, 2015, 01:59:49 PM
Al Gore rhythm?
I'm afraid there's just no empirical evidence to support the existence of this.
Quote from: stromboli on October 28, 2015, 04:31:28 PM
Al Gore got rhythm?
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 02, 2015, 09:16:16 AM
I'm afraid there's just no empirical evidence to support the existence of this.
Here's evidence...
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/AlGore.jpg) (http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/AlGore.jpg.html)
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 02, 2015, 09:10:18 AM
I'm reading through a similar discussion in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, an old one by Daniel Dennett. It explains why no designing mind is necessary for life to evolve.
http://www.amazon.com/DARWINS-DANGEROUS-IDEA-EVOLUTION-MEANINGS/dp/068482471X
Apparently complexity can arise from very simple natural laws, as cellular automata seem to show. Minds are just another level of complexity, and so should be able to evolve without conscious direction from a divine mind, just a few simple rules endlessly iterated.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2015, 05:17:14 PM
Apparently complexity can arise from very simple natural laws, as cellular automata seem to show. Minds are just another level of complexity, and so should be able to evolve without conscious direction from a divine mind, just a few simple rules endlessly iterated.
Also why we keep iterating the same mistakes over and over ;-)
Yeah, I guess that's one definition of insanity, huh?
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2015, 05:17:14 PM
Apparently complexity can arise from very simple natural laws, as cellular automata seem to show. Minds are just another level of complexity, and so should be able to evolve without conscious direction from a divine mind, just a few simple rules endlessly iterated.
But you need a god to put a soul in that thingamajing...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 06, 2015, 10:10:03 AM
But you need a god to put a soul in that thingamajing...
Not really. You mean like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_of_the_Machine
Randian polemic. Paterson (author) was a deist. Rand was an atheist. Both were progenitors of the right-wing mess we have now, though the current direct descendants of Ron Paul and Rand Paul are flogging a dead horse.
Or just struggling with Descartes dualism? This is why Descartes made the term "mind" popular, to avoid words like "soul" and "spirit". He was trying to avoid the Inquisition. Reductionism causes one to look thru the wrong end of the telescope.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2015, 05:17:14 PM
Apparently complexity can arise from very simple natural laws, as cellular automata seem to show. Minds are just another level of complexity, and so should be able to evolve without conscious direction from a divine mind, just a few simple rules endlessly iterated.
What if those neural cellular automata can be replaced with silicone and graphene? Say they added them one at a a time to copy each existing neuron perfectly and then take them over, would you even notice? Would you be the same person?
Quote from: Jason78 on November 06, 2015, 01:51:01 PM
What if those neural cellular automata can be replaced with silicone and graphene? Say they added them one at a a time to copy each existing neuron perfectly and then take them over, would you even notice? Would you be the same person?
Same as the Star Trek transporter Gedanken experiment ... is the you on the Enterprise the same you before you were beamed aboard? These are very good questions. Can there even be a duplicate you at the same time, nearby? This has been explored in science fiction, but not in science. On the small scale, one electron is already the same as any other. They are all identical twins.
Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2015, 11:36:14 AM
Not really. You mean like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_of_the_Machine
Randian polemic. Paterson (author) was a deist. Rand was an atheist. Both were progenitors of the right-wing mess we have now, though the current direct descendants of Ron Paul and Rand Paul are flogging a dead horse.
Or just struggling with Descartes dualism? This is why Descartes made the term "mind" popular, to avoid words like "soul" and "spirit". He was trying to avoid the Inquisition. Reductionism causes one to look thru the wrong end of the telescope.
Yes, gotta love how the Tea Party libertarians love so much the ideas of a Social Darwinian atheist, of a philosophy which follows essentially the same as the Anton LeVay Satanists.
On reductionism - that is such a quaint old word which you tend to favor, but I have to ask just exactly what you have in mind by it? We all practice reductionism to some degree.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 05:26:56 PM
Yes, gotta love how the Tea Party libertarians love so much the ideas of a Social Darwinian atheist, of a philosophy which follows essentially the same as the Anton LeVay Satanists.
On reductionism - that is such a quaint old word which you tend to favor, but I have to ask just exactly what you have in mind by it? We all practice reductionism to some degree.
Yes, I walk on two legs to some degree ... but that isn't all I do.