 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If it exists and it can be created and destroyed, that makes it distinct
> from energy, which cannot be created nor destroyed.
It can be distinct from energy and yet still be made from energy, just like
sound isn't air but it's made from air.
I'll grant you that "information" in the sense of "patterns of combinations
of something else" does "exist". I'm not sure you can say something is "made
out of" information, or that "information" would exist without the substrate
carrying it.
And I'm still not convinced you can actually destroy information. At the
quantum level, time is reversible, which means that information at that
level does *not* get destroyed. From lots of things I've read, figuring out
how you can have black holes and QM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bart wrote:
> > I think you can be conscious without being self-aware. I'm pretty sure
>> that, for example, chickens would be considered conscious, even tho
>> they're probably not self-aware.
> Yes, it is convenient to think so, but on the other hand they probably are.
No, they probably aren't. You can test such things, you know. Dolphins,
gorillas, a few others probably are, including some birds.
Chickens and fish probably aren't.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>You're trolling, right?
Not at all; the question is interesting and
I just don't get it why you limit it the the air?
We can easily make and hear sounds under water, can't we?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2010 04:59 PM, Darren New wrote:
> bart wrote:
>> > I think you can be conscious without being self-aware. I'm pretty sure
>>> that, for example, chickens would be considered conscious, even tho
>>> they're probably not self-aware.
>
>> Yes, it is convenient to think so, but on the other hand they probably
>> are.
>
> No, they probably aren't. You can test such things, you know. Dolphins,
> gorillas, a few others probably are, including some birds.
>
> Chickens and fish probably aren't.
>
You are right, it would be difficult to eat them otherwise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2010 03:20 PM, Warp wrote:
>I don't know what "pure consciousness" is.
>Can you explain it to me?
I'd like to, but the language is a very limiting tool for this purpose.
I think of pure consciousness as the very basic self-awareness,
nothing more. It is clearly a distinguishing feeling,
but normally we have it at a very low intensity,
only sometimes it could suddenly become very intense for a short time.
Some find that the easiest way to deal with it is to assume
that it is one of the fundamental feature of the universe in the first time.
>And how is it distinct from energy and information?
This is what I eager to know too. May be information
could be considered as a structured energy?
Or an ideal structure, that could be filled with energy?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bart wrote:
> >You're trolling, right?
> Not at all; the question is interesting and
> I just don't get it why you limit it the the air?
> We can easily make and hear sounds under water, can't we?
Of course, in which case the sound is made out of water molecules.
I'm not limiting sound to only be in air. I'm making an analogy.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> And I'm still not convinced you can actually destroy information. At the
> quantum level, time is reversible, which means that information at that
> level does *not* get destroyed.
I don't understand how time could be reversible, because that would imply
that an increase in entropy (of an isolated system) would also be reversible,
which is against the law.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bart wrote:
> On 11/04/2010 04:59 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> bart wrote:
>>> > I think you can be conscious without being self-aware. I'm pretty sure
>>>> that, for example, chickens would be considered conscious, even tho
>>>> they're probably not self-aware.
>>
>>> Yes, it is convenient to think so, but on the other hand they probably
>>> are.
>>
>> No, they probably aren't. You can test such things, you know. Dolphins,
>> gorillas, a few others probably are, including some birds.
>>
>> Chickens and fish probably aren't.
>>
> You are right, it would be difficult to eat them otherwise.
Yes, certainly, because it's all a big conspiracy to let you eat such
creatures with a clear conscience.
If you weren't trolling, you'd instead say "Gee, that's interesting, tell me
how you can possibly measure such a thing?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bart wrote:
> I'd like to, but the language is a very limiting tool for this purpose.
Not really.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/DIASPORA/01/Orphanogenesis.html
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Time must exist, or else it would be impossible to postulate essential
> > properties of physics such as the second law of thermodynamics.
> The second law is statistical.
It still states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
> > You can unambiguously distinguish if a closed system is going forward in
> > time by measuring its entropy.)
> No you can't, because time is reversible.
That would mean that entropy is also reversible, which would break the
second law.
> Note that QM has no arrow of time. Reactions going forward are identical
> (altho inverted) to reactions going backwards.
The sourced wikipedia text seems to disagree with that assessment.
"For isolated systems, entropy never decreases. This fact has several
important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual
motion" machines; and second, it suggests an arrow of time. Increases
in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, because
some energy must be expended as waste heat, limiting the amount of
work a system can do."
> > Space must exist, or else it would be impossible to postulate essential
> > properties of physics, such as the Pauli exclusion principle.
> The Pauli exclusion principle is not part of GR. It's part of QM. :-)
How does that change the claim "space must exist"?
If you accept the Pauli exclusion principle as one of the fundamental
laws of nature, then you have to accept space existing (or explain the
law in question in the case that space does not really exist).
> > Just because space and time are relative doesn't mean they don't exist.
> Maybe I'm misinterpreting stuff like this:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/background.html
> It seems to be saying that GR says that space and time exist because matter
> and energy exist. You can't have space or time without energy to be
> experiencing them, just like you can't have sound without air to carry it.
Even if spacetime couldn't exist without energy, does that mean that
spacetime *is* energy?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
