God?

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

Thank you. Albums are available....

I must admit I haven't searched yet, but where?

Latin American

I'm sold... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm a sucker for Latin American influences.

Roel

 

[trollface]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

Well, you'll have to mail my fellow bandmember Al. I'm 99% sure the address is [email protected]

I also have to say that the Latin American one isn't on the album, that's on our new EP. Which had a problem during the duplication process, so we're taking the time to do a few nips and tucks here and there while we find a new duplicator. I'll be happy to let you know when it's done, though, if you like.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

Anything less and I could simply call the foundations of your beliefs in the non-existence of God "totally illogical and not at all based in science." Got it?

First of all, I know my weaknesses. Exact science is not one of my strong points, so I'm very cautious about using science to prove my points. However, I understand scientific principles well enough to see that the way you are applying science is doubtful to say the least. Oh and don't say I didn't indicate where I think your application of science is doubtful. I've indicated where and why, all you have to do is refute my statements.

Second, you're the one providing "scientific" evidence, not me. I've stated numerous times that I can't prove the non-existence of god. So, what do you want ME to provide scientific proof of? If it's numbers you want, I can only give you one: There are exactly ZERO gods in this universe.

Now all you have to do is claim that 0 = 1 and you got me

And yet they have a MUCH more solid foundation of science than anything you have offered on the opposing view.

Unfortunately I do not have anyone to help me disprove your statements, so I'm pretty much on my own. Still, I'm convinced that I have sufficiently refuted at least some of your statements.

On the basis of entropy, energy, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, when applied to complex systems.

Okay, I admit that I am less knowledgeable in these fields. So please tell me how you came to your conclusions. Where do the percentages come from? All you are doing is telling me that you're more knowledgeable in these fields. I already knew that, now I would like to see something I didn't already know.

And so are you telling me we should apply two DIFFERENT forms of statistical analysis and probability theory to them, just because they are different? That would not be scientific, now would it?

You're claiming that I'm attributing inconistent levels of probability. I still need to see the evidence of that.

You can extract more knowledge from non-linear phenomenon than you can from "normative" phenomenon.

And I was merely stating that I was not excluding any form of perception. We could have a discussion whether non-linear logic produces, by definition, more knowledge than any other form of logic. However, I think I'll agree with you.

2) I explained it to you. See above.

Yes, but please provide how exactly you came to these numbers? Or should I just accept them?

Now I am beginning to get insulted

Insulted, you? I thought that was impossible. It's a very thin line between spirituality and religion. I'll try to be more careful with my words next time. Obviously, you do not worship god. Please accept my apologies.

It would be a bit more than a theory if one were actually created, wouldn't it?

Yes. Your point being? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

If I cannot use science and engineering to show the evidence for a Creator, how, precisely, am I supposed to go about it?

I never said you couldn't use science and engineering, I just don't think you're applying them right.

Again, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when applied to complex systems.

You'll be pleased to see that I'm trying to get educated a bit more about the laws of thermodynamics (other than the basic schoolstuff I already know). I've been visiting several websites already and I must say I'm getting there. I'll get back to you on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and those closed loop systems being selfaware. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The reason being is that, since it is self-aware, if it knows who/what we are, it WILL seek us out...rather than perform its mission to gather data and report back to us via broadcast communication.

So, without giving this robot any knowledge of who we are, he's going to send information back to the earth without us asking him first? Wow. I'm amazed by some of the technological advances we humans have made in the past few millenia. I wonder if he'll start praying the minute he becomes selfaware? I wonder if my hometemperature regulator is indeed selfaware /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif You could argue, that to my hometemperature, I am the higher level system (ie. god). BUT, you could also argue that the higher level system in this case is the room the device is in.

The earth is a closed-loop system,

So your whole theory about the earth being selfaware falls or stands with your statement that closed-loop systems are, by definition, selfaware? Mmmmh, I guess there's some room for discussion here.

Well, you've left a helluva lot out...

Okay, but I see most of it concerns the 2nd law of thermodynamics and closed loop systems. Like I said earlier in this post, I promise to get back to you on these subjects after I've done my reading.

So far as you are aware.

Yes. But I'm not getting the impression that you have any proof that an entity or object other than humans or animals have the same "structure". Some things can contain information and perhaps even process it to perform a task, but I can't think of an example where this behaviour exhibits selfawareness. For instance, a battery charger. When you put a battery in the charger, it will start charging. Does this mean that the charger is selfaware, or does this mean that the charger is able to perform a task when given a battery.

For instance, electrical impulses within a chemically-based substrate are the mechanism for information exchange within our own central nervous system.

First of all you state correctly that it is "a mechanism". Second, you talk about chemically-based substrates within ournervous system, so it would be only logical to find such a similar mechanism there. Although I stress that it's not said that a single one of these mechanisms can function (and thus be selfaware) outside our nervous system.

As long as we are both in agreement that I am using science to describe the evidence for my beliefs, and you are not.

I'm not claiming I have evidence. You are the one who claims to have evidence. And again, in my view the linear and non-linear logic you apply seems to fall or stand by some of your statements that I think are debatable, to say the least. I've given my view on some and I will adress the others.

Furthermore, you can only ask me to provide evidence for my statement that the universe came about by accident. Again, I have to admit that I do not have this evidence. I can only say that, from what I've learned so far, the second law of thermodynamics allows order to arise from disorder. Right now, that's my only defense. But don't worry, I'm still learning /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It puts me in the league of great scientists who knew that the only way we could advance our knowledge is by taking broader and broader views of how things integrate in our universe.

Agreed, thinking "outside" the box is essential in order to evolve. However, you will also agree that there is no scientist that will claim his theory is 100% true. This is only the case with scientific laws. Having said the above, I will gladly look into your theory, as long as you acknowledge it's indeed nothing more than a theory and not THE truth. Otherwise I must fear that a prolongued stay in this league of great scientists is not very likely.

Also, mind that you are the one who said I did not have a broad view. I beg to differ. Just because your scope doesn't overlap mine, doesn't mean that your view is broader than mine.

Did you not read the website I offered?

Yes, but I guess it depends on the perception of the reader what conclusions one may draw.

It "proves" that you are content living in the 2% universe...

There's that 98% / 2% again. That's theory, not fact. Although I do acknowledge that we are not able to perceive the whole universe.

I'm not content with not knowing "what is out there", I'm just not basing my entire believe on something I cannot see. Dreams are a distorted view of our reality and not the other way around. We pretty much know how dreams come about. Also, dreams are obviously not part of the universe we can't perceive. Afterall when you're dreaming, you ARE perceiving them. The fact that you can define your own reality in a dream means that it's not a reliable source of information. It's good fun though

Okay, I'm off to bed.... bye

Roel

 

[Azkaban]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

"Yes, but does the cell divide, or is it an external source that induces the division?"

Do you wish to change the subject? Do you admit that, per the definition provided, a cell does create when it divides? Or do you wish to change the definition of "create"? One or the other.

"I already said I should have made the distinction earlier in the discussion. I admit my mistake."

And what distinction is that? The distinction that you wish to re-define what it means to create? We are talking about whether a cell creates when it divides, given the definition of what it means to create.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Do you admit that, per the definition provided, a cell does create when it divides?

No. In my opinion this is not creation. Mitosis is a process which causes the cell to divide. A single cell is, in my opinion, not selfaware. To my knowledge an isolated cell will not divide unless mitosis is artificially induced.

The distinction that you wish to re-define what it means to create?

I think I have made myself clear in my first reply to you.


Roel

 

[Azkaban]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

"No. In my opinion this is not creation."

Very well. Then it is quite clear your opinion does not wish to work within the definition of creation and you are, in fact, wishing to redefine the word to suit your beliefs about what does create and what does not create. Therefore, with regard to a previous accusation you have made toward another: It is actually you who is trying to define a new form of creation.

"I think I have made myself clear in my first reply to you."

Thank you. I suggest, in the future, you not take such a firm stance on definitions of words if you are not willing to live by this stance in your views. It would leave you less vulnerable to situations like this.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

It is actually you who is trying to define a new form of creation.

I do NOT wish to define a new form of creation, THAT's why I already admitted that I should have made a distinction earlier on in the discussion. I've also stated exactly WHAT distinction I should have made and why I think this is important. What more do you want me to do, besides admit that I was wrong.

I suggest, in the future, you not take such a firm stance on definitions of words if you are not willing to live by this stance in your views.

At least I've admitted my mistake.


Roel

 

[Azkaban]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

"I do NOT wish to define a new form of creation, THAT's why I already admitted that I should have made a distinction earlier on in the discussion."

But that is what you are doing in that the dictionary definition does not respect your distinction.

"What more do you want me to do, besides admit that I was wrong."

I would like you to admit that cells create, as per the strict interpretation of the definition of "create". Anything less, and you are re-defining the word. The process of mitosis (or meiosis) "gives rise to" another new cell. Therefore, it is creation. Therefore, the cell creates.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

So, what do you want ME to provide scientific proof of?

I've asked you to provide evidence to back your belief that it is more reasonable (readrobable) to believe the universe is an accident, rather than purposefully designed. I have provided scientific evidence in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as applied to all complex systems and their tolerances.

If it's numbers you want, I can only give you one: There are exactly ZERO gods in this universe.

Now can you provide evidence to back that number? In fact, I know there is a minimum of ONE God in your own universe. Who/what is the primary source of creation in your life?

Now all you have to do is claim that 0 = 1 and you got me

I just did....but in a different way. So...since you have previously admitted that you can accept that there MIGHT be a God, if this hypothetical turned out to be true, would you not believe that you are an intricate "piece" of that God? You are a creative force, are you not?

Where do the percentages come from? All you are doing is telling me that you're more knowledgeable in these fields. I already knew that, now I would like to see something I didn't already know.

The percentages come directly from probability and statistics of the Gaussian distribution Bell-shaped curve). By definition of how one computes 1-Sigma (one standard deviation), it covers 67% of the total area under the distribution curve. Same for 2-Sigma and 95%. If you have ever heard of "Six Sigma Statistical Process Control" protocols for achieving high levels of product quality, these seek to address as much of the probability distribution as possible. In other words, "Design for Six Sigma" addresses design aspects related to even those events that have a VERY low probability of occurrence. By definition a "chance accident" possibility that the universe came together on its own would lie extremely far out in the probability distribution. Just as, as I am sure you would agree, it would also be a VERY low probability for matter to "accidentally" configure itself as a personal computer. Such probabilities are clearly well beyond 2 Sigma, and I would say well beyond 3 Sigma as well. Just as with highly complex systems that mankind produces, one can look at all such complex systems in the same manner and see it is eminently more probable (i.e. within 1-Sigma) that such complex systems were purposefully designed.

You might want to read-up on some of the physicists that are making these same claims: Dr. Fred Hoyle and Dr. Paul Davies, for a start. There are some quotes in THIS article that stress the importance of probabilities in evaluating this question. And this is why I continue to press you on it. You keep asking me for "evidence, evidence, evidence", and I have given it. The fact you do not understand probability well enough to see it as evidence (as agreed-to by scientists more astute than myself) does not, in fact, make it non-evidence as you seem to state.

You're claiming that I'm attributing inconistent levels of probability. I still need to see the evidence of that.

See again how all you do is ask me for evidence to support my views, and you provide none to support your views? And yet, I have described to you the evidence. You say you put your faith in your "normative" waking senses to tell you what is "reality". That means you will only tend to believe those events that fall close to the "norm" in the bell-shaped curve. This is a fair way to apply probability to support your beliefs. But now, when you say you also find it more reasonable to believe the universe came about "by accident", we have established that the tolerances in the universe are so unbelievably tight, that such an accident would have VERY low probability indeed. Certainly less than if we assumed the universe was intelligently designed to meet those tolerances. This is evidence that you are not applying your probability in a consistent manner. Deny it all you want, but this IS the evidence you are asking for. Either use the "normative" argument, or use the "highly unlikely" argument. But using both, where required, to support your views is contradictory.

Yes, but please provide how exactly you came to these numbers?

I told you: The numbers (percentages) are defined by how Standard Deviation (Sigma) is computed for a Gaussian distribution. We classify probabilities of events according to which "Sigma band" they fall in with respect to the norm (center) of the distribution.

Yes. Your point being?

It's been done....and I know you are going to immediately ask for evidence, but don't bother. You do know, I am sure, that there are a LOT of things that governments of the world do not let the general public in on. And I don't expect you to take my word for it. Only remember when the knowledge of this IS made public, that I told you there WAS evidence of this having been done.

I never said you couldn't use science and engineering, I just don't think you're applying them right.

And you, by your own admission, being a non-scientifically trained person, purport to be a better judge of how I apply science than...... say..... other scientists, engineers, and respected physicists? Now before you go saying I am claiming all scientists believe in God, go read that link I gave you above. In this article is explains that many scientists do NOT believe in a "traditional" God, and yet they will accept the premise of "intelligent design".

So, without giving this robot any knowledge of who we are, he's going to send information back to the earth without us asking him first? Wow. I'm amazed by some of the technological advances we humans have made in the past few millenia.

Poke fun if you wish. However, this is the precise reason why you subconscious is only barely "available" for you to know about, and your spirit is completely hidden from your conscious mind. Whether you know it or are aware of it or not, you are a "human machine" that is collecting experiential information (recurring theme), and it is being filtered and compiled by your subconscious, and it is being transmitted to the Creator as His means of being self-aware.

You could argue, that to my hometemperature, I am the higher level system (ie. god). BUT, you could also argue that the higher level system in this case is the room the device is in.

Again, you are poking fun, but you are getting closer to the heart of the issue. To answer your quandary, you only need to answer the question "who/what does the hometemperature regulator serve? Who enjoys the benefits of its level of self-awareness?" The answer is you, because you control the setpoint (the input command). The room is what, in controls, we call "the physical plant" that is the thing being controlled. You are the ultimate controller, and so you are its god. Interesting that it performs its function flawlessly and it does not have to know anything about you, other than what temperature you want it to be.

So your whole theory about the earth being selfaware falls or stands with your statement that closed-loop systems are, by definition, selfaware?

More than just the earth. Did you read my last post in the "Non-Linear Phenomenon" thread? The very elements that comprise the Massive SpaceTime Matrix are closed-loops. Unless you wish to refute the fact that mass is continuously being "re-cycled" as is Space? The realization that Time is also closed-loop is why I have, since coming to this forum, continued to help people understand that the linear Time we perceive is not "the whole truth".

But I'm not getting the impression that you have any proof that an entity or object other than humans or animals have the same "structure".

Look at the higher-order, complex systems that mankind creates to increase our standard of living. From low tech roads & railways that form NETWORK structures that connects cities, to medium tech phone NETWORKS that connects humans, to the high tech NASA Deep Space NETWORK which connects our space probes back to us here on earth. These structures give rise to self-awareness. You do know that one of the foremost (and useful) methods of Artificial Intelligence is the Neural Network, right?

Some things can contain information and perhaps even process it to perform a task, but I can't think of an example where this behaviour exhibits selfawareness.

I can think of one VERY important one. You are a "thing", you contain information, and you process it to perform tasks. You are self-aware. The problem you are having stems from nothing other than using your own perception of what is self-aware (the human measuring stick) as being how ALL forms of self-awareness "should" exhibit themselves to be considered self-aware. This is my reason for pointing out that universal phenomenon express themselves as continuums, and that self-awareness is a broad continuum, where Time is the basis for how we assess any entity's self-awareness level.

Although I stress that it's not said that a single one of these mechanisms can function (and thus be selfaware) outside our nervous system.

Correct. Different systems will utilize different technologies, depending upon the environments they must work in, and the means used to encode their information. Our human body is nothing more than an engineered technology that happens to use a biochemical basis (DNA) in a substrate that thrives on sunlight, food, and water. What I am saying is that, once the entire DNA information set is codified and sequenced, there would be nothing that would prohibit us from reproducing the INFORMATION it contains in a different technology (such as electromagnetic, rather than biochemical). Under these conditions, self-awareness can and will manifest outside out body.

I can only say that, from what I've learned so far, the second law of thermodynamics allows order to arise from disorder.

And do you understand the conditions that must be true for this to take place? Did you read about the difference between an "open" and a "closed" system? Would you like some references to study? I have more, if you wish. Some of which also discuss the 2nd Law with respect to Intelligent Design!

Just make sure you understand that energy must be added to a system in order for it to counter the effects of increasing entropy. And so there must be something (or someone) contributing energy to that system in order for it to prevent the natural entropy decrease.

There's that 98% / 2% again. That's theory, not fact.

And once again I will do my "routine" of asking you to quantify what level of evidence permits something to go from a "theory" to an "accepted fact"? It may have been pure theory prior to scientific data coming in to not only support it, but actually permit these percentages to be calculated. In fact, the majority of the world's physicists seem to be quite abuzz with this EVIDENCE that supports this belief. So again I ask: At what specific level of evidence will your skeptical mind give up "theory" and accept it as "factual evidence"? Here are some very scientific references that all seem to be accepting this as fact (even if there are small levels of differences between the quoted percentages...the foundations come from the same NASA WMAP data):

http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~webiaef/outreach/posters/darkenergy/
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darknrg_020115-1.html
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/17/5/7

Note how these articles discuss the EVIDENCE that lead them to these numbers. Now you can continue to call me silly, and say I am being non-scientific, or that what I am talking about is "only theory". However, I am continuing to evaluate these pieces of evidence, and I think I might have an extended theory that places us, and our 2% of normal baryonic matter, on the "event horizon" of an expanding light bubble...and this would also coincide with the "light bubble surface" effect in how I describe the implications of E = mc^2.

The fact that you can define your own reality in a dream means that it's not a reliable source of information.

Or, you must concede the alternate possibility, that it could mean that the "normative" phenomenon you seem to think describes reality is just a terribly small, linear subset of a much bigger picture that humanity is now starting to "see". As long as you continue to insist that reality is always constrained to what your senses perceive, you will forever be veiled from the larger nature of our universe.

RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

But that is what you are doing in that the dictionary definition does not respect your distinction.

Either you have not read my first reply to you, or you are just a producer trying out a concept for Groundhog Day 2, starring Roel van Houten.

I would like you to admit that cells create, as per the strict interpretation of the definition of "create". Anything less, and you are re-defining the word. The process of mitosis (or meiosis) "gives rise to" another new cell. Therefore, it is creation. Therefore, the cell creates.

Just some random quotes from several (online) dictionaries:

Creation is the process of making something new.

Astronomers, cosmologists and others have advanced scientific theories about the creation of the universe a finite time ago, where however the terms "creation" and "universe" may have different meanings than they do in other contexts.

Creation ex nihilo is quite at odds with our everyday experience, in that nothing spontaneously comes into (or vanishes from) existence but instead matter and energy merely change form. Indeed, we know of no such process by which matter or energy can be destroyed or created.

cre·a·tion (kr-shn)
n.

1
a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.

2
The act of investing with a new office or title.

3
a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.

4
Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.

5
An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.

creation

n 1: the human act of creating [syn: creative activity] 2: an artifact that has been brought into existence by someone 3: the event that occurred at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure" [syn: conception] 4: the act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new; "she looked forward to her initiation as an adult"; "the foundation of a new scientific society"; "he regards the fork as a modern introduction" [syn: initiation, founding, foundation, institution, origination, innovation, introduction, instauration] 5: (theology) God's act of bringing the universe into existence [syn: Creation] 6: everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence" [syn: universe, existence, world, cosmos, macrocosm]

I can go on for hours. So again, I admit that I should have made the distinction earlier in the discussion. That's all I can do for you.

Also, I claimed that "I personally believe that there is only one type of creation" and that Ray was "introducing a new type of creation". This is obviously wrong and I will gladly admit that. I replied unthinkingly to Ray who said: "I did not know that science distinguished different forms of creation that were not related to energy".

I stand by my original statement, which was the cause of my disagreement with Ray:

If indeed all scientist agree to the statement that energy is the force of creation, then I can only conclude that they mean another type of creation.


I must say you have excellent debunking skills. It's good to have you around. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

I've asked you to provide evidence to back your belief that it is more reasonable (readrobable) to believe the universe is an accident, rather than purposefully designed.

I'm still studying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which - as I've learned - could just as well justify my theory as it does yours. There are two problems with using this as proof.

1) Since I've not accepted your proof, my proof would not be valid either.

2) My primary goal was to have you realize that your belief is just as much a theory as mine.

But since gathering evidence proves to be very instructive and fun, I'll
give it a try. Please allow me some time to get more educated in this field.

Now can you provide evidence to back that number?

Actually I was wrong. There are numerous gods, all created in the minds of human beings.

Oh and I think, if at all, my parents are the primary source of creation. They've created me, or as they prefer to say: "we've created a monster" /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

So...since you have previously admitted that you can accept that there MIGHT be a God, if this hypothetical turned out to be true, would you not believe that you are an intricate "piece" of that God? You are a creative force, are you not?

Now THIS is the basis on which I am more inclined to discuss god with you. I have no problem with hypothetical scenarios and I'll be glad to treat my believes as one.

To answer your question: if it turned out that there indeed is a god, I would believe that I am part of that god. In fact, I'd even believe that a rock or a tree is part of that god. I'd pretty much share your believes. However, I would still maintain that (in my opinion) the creative power of organisms with a central nervous system is unique and not found anywhere else in the universe.

To further elaborate on that statement. The existence of god would seem a bit more plausible if you were able to indicate a system, process or construct that would resemble a central nervous system.

In other words, "Design for Six Sigma" addresses design aspects related to even those events that have a VERY low probability of occurrence.

So let me get this straight:

1) the "Design for Six Sigma" is a roadmap for the development of products, which you apply to determine the probability of certain statements.

2) you are the one who decides which probability is assigned to a sigma value

If my assumptions are correct I don't think I would attach much value to this system, as it would only take little effort to use the same "Design for Six Sigma" against you. Of course, since I'm not familiar with this method, I could be wrong.

I told you: The numbers (percentages) are defined by how Standard Deviation (Sigma) is computed for a Gaussian distribution. We classify probabilities of events according to which "Sigma band" they fall in with respect to the norm (center) of the distribution.

Yes, I know that by now. So far you've only described your method. Now would you show me a graph, table or calculation on which you base these percentages. Or perhaps just a website describing the method, so that I can try and understand how you came to these numbers.

It's been done....and I know you are going to immediately ask for evidence, but don't bother.

Oh no, on the contrary. I actually believe you. Just like many people have no idea when color televisions were actually invented.

And you, by your own admission, being a non-scientifically trained person, purport to be a better judge of how I apply science than...... say..... other scientists, engineers, and respected physicists? Now before you go saying I am claiming all scientists believe in God, go read that link I gave you above.

I can only draw from my own knowledge and logic. I'm having this discussion with you, not only to try to make you realize that your believes are just as good as mine, but also to expand my knowledge. I've stated before that you have more knowledge in certain fields than I do. Does that mean that I have to accept your statements as THE truth, even when I have a strong presumption that you're basing these statements on wrong assumptions.

I know for a fact that not all scientist believe in (a form) of god. And there are those that do believe in a god. Also, some of the scientist who do believe in (a form) of god do not yet have a way to connect science to their believes, but have devoted their work to do so.

See again how all you do is ask me for evidence to support my views, and you provide none to support your views?

Now that's not entirely true. I admit that I do ask for evidence a lot, but that obviously seems to cause you to loose focus on some of my other arguments and questions.

But now, when you say you also find it more reasonable to believe the universe came about "by accident", we have established that the tolerances in the universe are so unbelievably tight, that such an accident would have VERY low probability indeed.

The reason I think it's more probable for the universe to have come about by accident is based on a lot of things I've learned and seen over the years.

For one thing, I see a lot of things around me that arise as a result of random events and are clearly not the result of creation. I already gave you the example of a flower, to which I don't think you have responded. There are numerous similar examples.

Also, I used to be quite good at biology, but since I do not apply this knowledge on a daily, monthly or even yearly basis, I have to dig deep to come up with certain facts that I believe could be used as evidence. The same applies to thermodynamics, which I'm only now looking into. Again, I will try to provide more evidence for my believes. Please bare with me, unless, ofcourse, you want me to just blindly accept your statements.

Poke fun if you wish.

I was dead serious.

Whether you know it or are aware of it or not, you are a "human machine" that is collecting experiential information (recurring theme), and it is being filtered and compiled by your subconscious, and it is being transmitted to the Creator as His means of being self-aware.

You haven't answered my question. So, without giving this robot any knowledge of who we are, he's going to send information back to the earth without us asking him first?

Also, you said that god is already aware of all possibilities, so what's the use of us sending him experiential information?

Again, you are poking fun, but you are getting closer to the heart of the issue.

Again, I was dead serious. A hometemperature regulator is a closed-loop system. I don't see the fun in that.

"who/what does the hometemperature regulator serve? Who enjoys the benefits of its level of self-awareness?"

The hometemperature regulator serves only one purpose: to keep the room at a desireable temperature. Therefore it contains a device that measures the room temperature and another device that will activate the heater. There are more objects and/or people that enjoy the benefits of this device. It is not selfaware, since it does not show any intelligence or need to create something other than heat. God does not have any control over me, contrary to the control I have over the hometemperature regulator. In fact, by your definition it's impossible for him to have control over me, since he supposedly has given us free will.

Interesting that it performs its function flawlessly and it does not have to know anything about you, other than what temperature you want it to be.

As opposed to humans, who constantly ask themselves who, why and where god is. To me, the hometemperature regulator has very little resemblance to intelligent beings.

The realization that Time is also closed-loop is why I have, since coming to this forum, continued to help people understand that the linear Time we perceive is not "the whole truth".

And I agree to that, I just don't think that closed-loop systems have to be self-aware.

You do know that one of the foremost (and useful) methods of Artificial Intelligence is the Neural Network, right?

Yes, I never denied that it's possible to create artificial selfawareness. But I was hoping you could give me an example that was not mandmade... I know mankind has the ability to create almost anything imaginable. So you have again left me under the impression that you don't have examples of entities or objects that have the same "structure".

The problem you are having stems from nothing other than using your own perception of what is self-aware (the human measuring stick) as being how ALL forms of self-awareness "should" exhibit themselves to be considered self-aware.

I do not have a problem. I use what I think are the most reliable tools to verify things: my senses. You however, seem to think that your spiritual resources are more reliable than your physical senses. Yet, you depend on your physical senses every day. Now I'm not trying to discourage you from tapping from those spiritual resources, I'm just saying that your physical senses are at least equally important in this life. Therefore it is logical (linear or non-linear) for me to at least doubt something when I can't sense it with my phyisical senses.

If selfawareness is indeed a continuum, how do you think it is contained within entities? I'm aware of myself and I am aware of you. But the fact that I'm aware of you is not selfawareness, it's perception. In other words, how do you think this continuum makes it possible for me to be an individual?

Under these conditions, self-awareness can and will manifest outside out body.

Interesting theory. I can relate to this explanation.

And do you understand the conditions that must be true for this to take place? Did you read about the difference between an "open" and a "closed" system? ... And so there must be something (or someone) contributing energy to that system in order for it to prevent the natural entropy decrease.

Yes. I also read that certain closed systems can exchange energy (but not matter). I'm now reading about thermodynamic equilibriums.

I'm still trying to understand the concept as a whole and how it applies on macro- and microlevel, but I figured that if it's possible for particles to collide randomly and by accident, the same could apply to closed systems. I know it's a somewhat strange comparison, but I do think it sounds logical.

And once again I will do my "routine" of asking you to quantify what level of evidence permits something to go from a "theory" to an "accepted fact"?

I was under the assumptions that these numbers were estimates? Just like scientists have calculated how old earth, or even the universe is. I am not disputing your statement, I'm merely saying that I thought these were not exact numbers, which follows from your remark that there are small levels of differences between the quoted percentages. Also, I could not find the quoted percentages in any of the three links you provided, but I'll take your word for it.

More important, I never really said that this theory is invalid. In fact, I even agreed to it. But I do want to stress that scientists still know relatively little about dark matter and dark energy, so we can only theorize about what's out there. It actually says so in the NASA article.

Perhaps with the help of LOFAR scientists can make even more progress in this field.

Or, you must concede the alternate possibility, that it could mean that the "normative" phenomenon you seem to think describes reality is just a terribly small, linear subset of a much bigger picture that humanity is now starting to "see".

Now that's another interesting theory! I do acknowledge that from a multiverse point of view, this is a possible scenario.

Phew.. it's hot, I'm tired and I have to work tomorrow. Time to get some sleep. Looking forward to your reply.

Cheers!

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

which - as I've learned - could just as well justify my theory as it does yours.

I hope you have some good evidence, and I hope it addresses entropy. Because so far, no one has been able to prove a perpetual motion machine.

And let's not forget that we are not talking about localized entropy increases/decreases, as these ARE permitted by the 2nd Law provided that the overall system's entropy increases. What we are talking about is the entire universe here, not just local phenomenon within it. So I know where you think you might be going, but don't bother. The evidence that the overall entropy of the universe continues to increase is provided by the continual (and now we know accelerated) expansion of the universe. This is also supported by the cosmological theory of symmetry breaks that occurred from the Big Bang onward in Time.

1) the "Design for Six Sigma" is a roadmap for the development of products, which you apply to determine the probability of certain statements.

2) you are the one who decides which probability is assigned to a sigma value

1) Not quite. You apply it to reduce the probability of certain events (ones which cause product failure or low quality). It is a method of control.

2) Almost. It is not, as you imply, someone just "deciding" what the probabilities are. It is a data-driven process, and the probabilities are determined by frequency of the events' occurrence. Six Sigma applies frequentism probability because the probabilities cannot just be based on "degree of belief". The alternate is Bayesian probability, which permits you to assign probability based on your own personal degree of belief.... and I know you don't go for that!

I see a lot of things around me that arise as a result of random events and are clearly not the result of creation. I already gave you the example of a flower, to which I don't think you have responded.

Perhaps it is because I thought you were using creative definitions (which has come up elsewhere, as I have seen). "Clearly not the result of creation?" Sound pretty sure of yourself. How sure are you that a flower results from random events? Is a flower's emergence not based on a prior process of fertilization of pistil via stamen? And then it also depends on fertile ground, and then it also requires water and sunlight. So, there is clearly a pattern behind the emergence of a flower. Whereas "random" refers to something without a specific pattern, I'd say that a flower growing is hardly random. Are you now going to try the classical "snowflake" argument? That's not very random either, although the shape it takes on can be random. That is only sensitivity to the initial conditions at which crystallization occurs. Besides, even if you give me a valid random increase in organization, it would only be a localized effect which is permitted by the 2nd Law, as I have mentioned. The point is that energy has to flow into that localized "closed system" in order for that decrease in entropy to take place.

You haven't answered my question. So, without giving this robot any knowledge of who we are, he's going to send information back to the earth without us asking him first?

That is not exactly what I said, now is it? You say "any knowledge" whereas I said "detailed knowledge". Furthermore, you injected the "without asking us first". Since neither are my claims, why should I answer your obviously baited question? My statement stands on its own to refute your opinion that robots would "be able to see and touch us." I could explain away the issues you have injected, but why should I if I have already made my point, and you have not refuted it?

Also, you said that god is already aware of all possibilities, so what's the use of us sending him experiential information?

Answer in the form of another question: You are already fully aware of what you look like, but you still need a mirror to perceive it directly, don't you? The mirror reflects who you are back to you and provides that experience. Apply that same concept to God and you have your answer (and another reason for why we are all fully integrated with our Creator...symbiotic).

I admit that I do ask for evidence a lot

And yet you provide so little. Tell me, why should I continue in such a lop-sided conversation as this? I'm not losing my focus.... my focus is to get you to back-up your beliefs, just as that seems to be your focus.

I just don't think that closed-loop systems have to be self-aware.

Yes, and this is given by where you draw the line for defining "self-aware". Did you see THIS article about one of Koko's self-aware moments?

But I was hoping you could give me an example that was not mandmade... I know mankind has the ability to create almost anything imaginable. So you have again left me under the impression that you don't have examples of entities or objects that have the same "structure".

Now here is a good example of where you deny evidence that IS evidence. Why is it reasonable, or even necessary, to exclude man-made objects? I mean, you asked for:

proof that an entity or object other than humans or animals have the same "structure".

I gave you such proof, in several man-made systems. Now you wish to add more qualifiers? See, this is what I dislike about debate & its attendant tactics: When someone meets your challenges and proves their point, people who rely on debate tactics just keep changing their requisite burden of proof. Not this time. I gave you evidence, and now you just want to change the conditions.

It is not selfaware, since it does not show any intelligence or need to create something other than heat.

Ah, so you admit it does CREATE heat. By your own definition this would make it self-aware. Now I know you are going to try to qualify your words here, but I can see that you pretty much lost that battle with Azkaban. Nice attempt to wiggle out, though. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If selfawareness is indeed a continuum, how do you think it is contained within entities? I'm aware of myself and I am aware of you. But the fact that I'm aware of you is not selfawareness, it's perception. In other words, how do you think this continuum makes it possible for me to be an individual?

We're back to the closed-loop process. The continuum is that of the closed-loop, self-referent system. Your individuality comes from your ability to sense (feedback), think (process), and act (command)...continuously. Yes, we are back to this recurring theme! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I might also point out that this very concept of the "closed-loop, self-aware universe" is the same thing being presented by physicists like John Wheeler and Jack Sarfatti. Interestingly enough, they use the ancient mystical symbol of the Oroborous (the snake eating its own tail) to describe these "strange loops of self-awareness". As OvrLrdLegion continually points out, it could very well be that there is "hidden" scientific knowledge behind this ancient symbol. Perhaps they knew much more about closed-loops than we give them credit for?

but I figured that if it's possible for particles to collide randomly and by accident, the same could apply to closed systems.

Well, I guess I need to again point out that "random" is merely a default position assigned to something that we cannot PERCEIVE a pattern in. Calling something "random" is the same type of cop-out that you accuse people who believe in God for taking.... you cannot perceive a pattern, so you just assume there isn't one. Don't you find it interesting that, if there was so much randomness available in the universe, that we would find it extremely easy to mathematically create a TRUE random number generator for computers? The difficulties and problems with many random number generators would seem to be a clue to us that things are not as random as we think they are. Certainly, the advent of Chaos Theory reshaped what we think of as random in a very large way.

I was under the assumptions that these numbers were estimates?

Yes, estimates based on measurements. The point is that none of the scientists who have reviewed the data argue about the relative magnitudes of the 3 forms of Energy, especially the fact that normal baryonic matter is by far the smallest of the three. To me, this is pretty solid evidence that what we perceive with our senses is a very small portion of "reality". And therefore, common linear logic, which is based on these perceptions, could very well be grossly in error in the larger scheme of things. In fact, as I have said before, it is my belief that "logical paradoxes" are nothing more than a wrong conclusion that stems from inadquate quantity of information (i.e. something you do not know). It is quite possible indeed that we will gather new information that will solve old paradoxes. I think non-linear thought is a major avenue to this very goal.

RMT

 

[Azkaban]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

"Either you have not read my first reply to you, or you are just a producer trying out a concept for Groundhog Day 2, starring Roel van Houten."

Funny. I read it. It is irrelevant to my point, which you have made for me each time you reply with your distinctions. You, like all humans, are willing to twist a word's definition to suit your beliefs.

"I can go on for hours."

I note that you have chosen "creation" rather than the base verb "create". If you'd like to play the evidence game, paste the following line into your browser and you will see an index to a great many dictionaries for the general meaning of "create". Your distinction is nothing more than an attempt to re-define the word to "prove" your belief.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=create&ls=a

"I must say you have excellent debunking skills."

I do not debunk. I merely point out to people how they are and the games they play. My job is done, and I have no further reason to discuss this point I have made.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

I hope you have some good evidence, and I hope it addresses entropy. Because so far, no one has been able to prove a perpetual motion machine.

I'm working on it. I don't want to rush into things and risk ending up in yet another discussion with your friend Azkaban

As for the perpetual motion machine; you are right. But, as of yet, nobody has been able to prove the existence of a deity or the selfawareness of energy either.

It is a method of control.

Yes, I understand, but it was originally designed for production purposes. Or was I misinformed?

Sound pretty sure of yourself.

Well, that's the way I perceive it. I'm afraid that in the end all the "evidence" that we provide will not prove either theory, but instead boils down to one final question that we started with in the first place. We're in a "closed loop" and I think you are right when you say that we need to think outside the box to solve this problem. I can continue telling you why I think the emergence of a flower is not an act of creation, but I don't think you will accept this as evidence and I couldn't even blame you for that. Just like I won't accept your evidence. It's all a matter of interpretation.

Is a flower's emergence not based on a prior process of fertilization of pistil via stamen?

Yes. Often the pollen grain is carried by wind, insects or even water. At best you could say that the flower "uses" bright colors to attract insects, which will facilitate the creation of another flower. Of course the way flowers are fertilized is defined in certain patterns, but the execution of these patterns rely on too many random events. In my opinion the emergence of a flower can therefore not be called an act of creation. The flower does not have the ability to influence the course of action. It just "happens". Actually, I think the same concept applies to many things.

But again, we need to take another approach like you've suggested. The evidence you are giving does not seem convincing to me and, vice versa, the evidence I am giving you does not seem to please you. Let the non-linear debate begin

You say "any knowledge" whereas I said "detailed knowledge". Furthermore, you injected the "without asking us first".

Well, you were comparing an artificially created robot to human beings. I phrased the question in such a way that it would make the comparison complete. If we were to play god and create a self aware robot, which we plant on another planet without giving it knowledge of who and where we are. I'm quite sure it wouldn't be sending us information all by itself.

My statement stands on its own to refute your opinion that robots would "be able to see and touch us."

If you are going to compare robots to humans and us to gods, you'd better make it a fair comparison. You claim that god has created us, yet we can't see him with our physical senses.

Apply that same concept to God and you have your answer (and another reason for why we are all fully integrated with our Creator...symbiotic).

Well, if that's true he must not think much of himself right now. I think I'd have a nervous breakdown if my creation had messed things up like that. If he's really looking into a mirror, he will have to admit that he's just as perfect as any human being. And since nobody is perfect...

But this is only hypothetical, since I do not believe in a god.

Tell me, why should I continue in such a lop-sided conversation as this?

Nobody is forcing you. But as you are the one who claims to know THE truth and I'm the one saying both our believes are based on theory, I guess you will have to provide a little more evidence than me. It's in my nature to try and simplify things. In my opinion "less is more". So when we talk about how the universe came to being you could argue that the universe couldn't exist without someone creating it. The way I see it, that's just introducing another problem: "Where did this creator come from". When you try solve that problem by claiming "the creator was always there", we're back from where we started, afterall, I could apply that same argument to justify my believes.

I try to come up with as much evidence as possible, but it's obvious that I do not have the same knowledge of physics as you do. That leaves me two options. I could take your word for it and believe everything you say, or I could try to review my own believes and look how they measure up against your believes. Although I do lack some scientific knowledge, I'm certainly not stupid and as of yet you haven't been able to convince me.

So, my question to you: If we do have a creator, how did he arise?

Yes, and this is given by where you draw the line for defining "self-aware". Did you see THIS article about one of Koko's self-aware moments?

I haven't seen this article before, but I have now /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Well, Koko has a central nervous system, now, doesn't she? Where is the central nervous system in a stone, a flower, a tree, a planet, a star or even in our universe? Furthermore, the image you sketch of energy is intelligent and creative, besides selfaware. All these features pretty much rely on a central nervous system.

I gave you such proof, in several man-made systems. Now you wish to add more qualifiers? See, this is what I dislike about debate & its attendant tactics: When someone meets your challenges and proves their point, people who rely on debate tactics just keep changing their requisite burden of proof.

Ray, I'm getting tired of this mumbo-jumbo about debate tactics. This is not a tactic, just a matter of me making a mistake while phrasing my questions. If I don't get the chance to rephrase my questions, how am I ever going to get the answer I was looking for? Also, in this case you could have guessed I didn't mean manmade structures, since I had already said that I think it's possible (now or in the future) to create selfaware robots. You could have used the energy, that was lost by complaining about debate tactics, to answer my question.

Ah, so you admit it does CREATE heat. By your own definition this would make it self-aware. Now I know you are going to try to qualify your words here, but I can see that you pretty much lost that battle with Azkaban. Nice attempt to wiggle out, though.

Just like Azkaban you obviously have not read what I wrote in my first reply to him. I have admitted that I was wrong and I've provided an explanation for why I should have made a distinction earlier on in the discussion. Also, I have provided some examples from dictionaries that further clarify my point. I guess all this has to do with a bit of a grudge you and Azkaban hold against me ever since our discussion about the word "divine". I do not feel that I have "lost" my "battle" with Azkaban.

Also, I will not be qualifying my words, instead I'm going to rely on your intelligence and assume that you can figure out what I meant.

Well, I guess I need to again point out that "random" is merely a default position assigned to something that we cannot PERCEIVE a pattern in.

But imagine two particles, not "aware" of eachothers existence, moving with a certain velocity in a certain direction. When these two particles collide, I'd say it was an "accident". Same applies to a car accident. Two drivers who were previously not aware of eachother, bump into eachother. Now, in most cases I assume that neither of the drivers were planning to bump into eachother, yet it happened.

Quantum science does shed another light on this. I can imagine that if an infinite amount of possibilities exist, there's bound to be a pattern. However, you could also argue that the one possibility which we eventually perceive is a random "pick" out of all the other possibilities.

This "pick" is, in my opinion, not defined by a selfaware entity, but by a a series of circumstances.

It is quite possible indeed that we will gather new information that will solve old paradoxes. I think non-linear thought is a major avenue to this very goal.

Yes, but do you agree that although we can theorize about what the 98% consists of, we can not be 100% certain?




Okay, I might have been a bit edgy in my replies here and there, but please bare in mind that I am writing these posts while I should have been sleeping instead /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Which is what I'm going to do right now. Please do not take my comments too tight, as they might come accross somewhat offensive. :D

For now, goodnight and see y'all tomorrow.

Cheers!

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I do not debunk. I merely point out to people how they are and the games they play. My job is done, and I have no further reason to discuss this point I have made.

Humans make mistake. I do not play games. If I wanted to play games, I could think of much better ways to spend my time.

Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this discussion.

Kind regards,

Roel


P.S. I followed your advice:

cre·ate (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates
To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
To invest with an office or title; appoint.
To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

create

v 1: make or cause to be or to become; "make a mess in one's office"; "create a furor" [syn: make] 2: bring into existence; "The company was created 25 years ago"; "He created a new movement in painting" 3: pursue a creative activity; be engaged in a creative activity; "Don't disturb him--he is creating" 4: invest with a new title, office, or rank; "Create one a peer" 5: create by artistic means; "create a poem"; "Schoenberg created twelve-tone music"; "Picasso created Cubism"; "Auden made verses" [syn: make] 6: create or manufacture a man-made product; "We produce more cars than we can sell"; "The company has been making toys for two centuries" [syn: produce, make]

 

[Gimble]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Excellent! I may have found a new home for my discussions. I have a decent comprehension of science and a fairly decent range of knowledge compared to the average guy. I also understand psychology as to why people are persuaded by biases unconsciously or are easily manipulated by fear.

In any case, you'll see a lot more of me here. First, I've got some reading to do to read up on what you guys have already discussed.

I have my own forums that I've used as a means for intelligent conversations and a place to learn from others. It's used for everything, but the subjects you have here are my biggest interests in life and you've already established the people to chat/argue about it.

I'll be looking forward to reading here, discussing, and asking questions.

Gimble
Untelligent.com

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

The existence of god would seem a bit more plausible if you were able to indicate a system, process or construct that would resemble a central nervous system.

Roel, That is depending on exactly what your perception of a central nervous system is.
Other creations may still function in a similar way, but in a way that you are not aware of. It would have been interesting to have this same discussion with you regarding radiowaves when it was merely in its argumentative stages.
Using your methods of inquiry regarding the existence of radiowaves...
You cant see them, cant touch them, cant smell them,cant taste them, cant hear them, so by your reasoning, radiowaves would not exist.
To those who "knew" by their methods of inquiry, intuition, and faith that radiowaves did indeed exist and now you reap the benefits of their success.

You are saying that energy is not self-aware, at what point does self-awareness stop for you?
Humans? Animals? Plants? Bacteria? etc...

Is a plant self-aware? It does not have a central nervous system in human anatomy terms! So by your reasoning then a plant would not be self-aware..correct?

 

[RainmanTime]

Functional Vs. Physical

Roel, That is depending on exactly what your perception of a central nervous system is.

There are two important words in this thought that relate to non-linear thought: "perception" and "is" (and I don't mean "is" like Clinton means "is")

When we perceive things in the universe, we do not only perceive what someting "is", we also perceive what it DOES. This is the distinction between Functional (state of doing) and Physical (state of being). Another recurring theme.

Linear thinking would focus only on what something is...like the central nervous system. To engage non-linear thinking we need to extend our thoughts to what the central nervous system does, or its functional aspects. When we consider both of these aspects of a system, we avoid getting stuck in the rut of thinking ONLY things that look the same (physically) as the central nervous system are capable of doing the same sorts of things that a central nervous system does.

So what is the functional aspect of a central nervous system? What does it do? How about transmitting information? (Another recurring theme!). If the theory of the holographic universe is correct (and I think it may very well be), then energy and information are tightly linked... and NOTHING would exist without the ability for one thing to exchange information with another thing. Energy makes that possible, and there would be no information flow without energy. (Try pulling the plug on your computer and see how well you can surf the net to understand that what I say is true!)

Gravity is a form of information exchange. And it may not be too surprising to consider the structure of gravity: Network. The interaction of any two bodies via gravity is called the "2 body problem" and is described by Newton's universal law of gravitation F = G*m1*m2/R^2. It describes a single network link between two network nodes. The more general "N-body problem" describes how gravity works as a network of multiple 2-body links.

Now, Roel, you could claim that this is "overapplying" the science, but in fact, it is not. I have described gravity as a network structure of information exchange. And that is precisely what our central nervous system is. They both perform self-similar functions, but they do it with two different physical substrates.

Therefore, if the main feature of our central nervous system that gives rise to self-awareness is its network structure, a viable argument can be made that the universe is self-aware because it is driven and described by an intricate gravity network. Just as no one has been able to quantify the totality of the human central nervous system, so has no one been able to quantify the totality of the gravitational "N-body" problem.

Understanding both of these structures involves network mathematics, and that points to non-linear math, and that points to things like neural networks, chaos theory, and fractals.

RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

(Try pulling the plug on your computer and see how well you can surf the net to understand that what I say is true!)

Hmmm, interesting sidenote. Isn't it funny that if we don't "connect" the energy source to the computer, it doesn't do anything? I agree that in the end, everything is energy. We require energy to be selfaware. However, I don't think selfawareness is contained in all energy. Energy will only cause selfawareness to people, animals and perhaps even objects that are constructed in a way that allows them to be selfaware. Of course we could assume that, lets say, a rock does have this capability and we just don't see it. But in my opinion that's just a wild guess.

Therefore, if the main feature of our central nervous system that gives rise to self-awareness is its network structure, a viable argument can be made that the universe is self-aware because it is driven and described by an intricate gravity network.

I will not accuse you of overapplying science again, but personally I do think it's quite a stretch, depending on several "if's".

For one thing, I don't believe that all systems that have a networkstructure of somekind are, by definition, selfaware.


Roel

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

For one thing, I don't believe that all systems that have a networkstructure of somekind are, by definition, selfaware.

Roel, I am still curious as to where you believe that self-awareness begins and where it ends. We have agreed that humans have self-awareness, and I think you agree animals have self-awareness, however, once we point to plant life...do you believe that this type of life form is self-aware?