 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's funny, when you think about it at the very basic level of things,
we all started as a chemical reaction ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> It's funny, when you think about it at the very basic level of things,
> we all started as a chemical reaction ...
Funny? - or Profound?
In either case...
THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY CATALYST
stands ready to sanctify your Reactants
by accepting YOUR donation!
Operators are standing by at
1-555-ENTROPY
VISA and MASTERCARD honored!
(more like worshiped)
Make sure that on the Day of the Great Equilibrium
that YOU are part of the Salvation Solution and NOT
Perdition's Precipitate!
(),
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder wrote:
> THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY CATALYST
> stands ready to sanctify your Reactants
> by accepting YOUR donation!
>
> Operators are standing by at
> 1-555-ENTROPY
>
> VISA and MASTERCARD honored!
> (more like worshiped)
>
> Make sure that on the Day of the Great Equilibrium
> that YOU are part of the Salvation Solution and NOT
> Perdition's Precipitate!
....whaaaaat the hell have I just stumbled into?? 0_0
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> ....whaaaaat the hell have I just stumbled into?? 0_0
>
povray.religion
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> It's funny, when you think about it at the very basic level of things,
> we all started as a chemical reaction ...
This presumes facts not in evidence.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> ....whaaaaat the hell have I just stumbled into?? 0_0
>>
>
> povray.religion
povray.religion-donations
(passes the money basket)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> It's funny, when you think about it at the very basic level of things,
>> we all started as a chemical reaction ...
>
> This presumes facts not in evidence.
Subject being the ultimate dawning of man, perhaps. Speaking on a
personal level, the evidence is in every hospital, bedroom, twinkling eye...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's funny, when you think about it at the very basic level of things,
> we all started as a chemical reaction ...
We all still are just chemical reactions!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> We all still are just chemical reactions!
Thank you for pointing that out. It's easy to overlook. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> We all still are just chemical reactions!
That's like saying that literature is just paper and ink.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> We all still are just chemical reactions!
>
> That's like saying that literature is just paper and ink.
Pretty much.
That's the thing most people don't get, tho. The information content is
in the *arrangement*, not the *components*. People say things like
"there is no soul, because a dead person and a live person have all the
same chemicals." Even tho there's nothing *physical* there more than
the chemicals, their arrangement is what's important.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >> We all still are just chemical reactions!
> >
> > That's like saying that literature is just paper and ink.
> Pretty much.
> That's the thing most people don't get, tho. The information content is
> in the *arrangement*, not the *components*. People say things like
> "there is no soul, because a dead person and a live person have all the
> same chemicals." Even tho there's nothing *physical* there more than
> the chemicals, their arrangement is what's important.
Information (most prominently written information) is still something
which puzzles me at a conceptual, philosophical or whatever level I can't
really determine.
Paper and ink is just that, paper and ink. There's nothing else there
than paper and ink. Yet there can be: If there is, for example, some
written text, there is *something* else than just paper and ink there.
It's what is commonly called "information". I simply can't get a mental
grasp of what exactly that is, at the lowest conceptual level possible.
It's something that is and is not there, at the same time. It transfers
something from person to person, something which isn't physical. If it
isn't physical, how can it "exist" at all?
When I think about written information like that, it starts sounding
really, really whacky.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Paper and ink is just that, paper and ink. There's nothing else there
> than paper and ink. Yet there can be: If there is, for example, some
> written text, there is *something* else than just paper and ink there.
> It's what is commonly called "information". I simply can't get a mental
> grasp of what exactly that is, at the lowest conceptual level possible.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/what-is-evidenc.html
> It's something that is and is not there, at the same time. It transfers
> something from person to person, something which isn't physical. If it
> isn't physical, how can it "exist" at all?
It's patterns that make the result of interacting parts of the physical
system behave differently. That's the trick, tho. There isn't
"something" there other than paper and ink. It's the arrangement of
paper and ink that makes the difference, not the "thing". Once you
accept that the front of a rifle causes fear and the back of the rifle
causes confidence, even tho it's both "the rifle", then it's easier to
think about and figure out. It's not "the rifle" that causes it; it's
the relationship of the rifle to you. It's the patterns on the paper,
and their relationship with the patterns in your brain (and in
particular their relationships with the patterns representing your
memory of how to read and what you've read) that is the "something" there.
A computer program is nothing more than a collection of bits in memory
as it runs. There are an exponential number of states the computer can
be in after you turn it on, and the external stimuli can guide its
choices through the state space. Loading a program pushes the computer
into one subset of the state space in which consecutive memory locations
hold the bytes of the program. Moving into the state space where the
program counter includes a memory address inside that program's memory
causes the very fact that it's in a particular part of the state space
to route things around. In other words, the program being loaded is a
small part of the possible state space of the whole machine. But that
state space has many more links to other states including the program
being loaded than it does to state spaces in which the program is no
longer loaded.
"Transferring" literature involves changing the state space of the
person you're transferring it to into a part of the state space where
the literature exists, and self-references.
Think about it the next time someone asks "do you believe in life after
death?" My answer: "Sure. Know who Abraham Lincoln is?" How much of
Lincoln's state space still exists in other people nowadays? How much of
your parents' state spaces did they manage to guide you into? If you're
in a state space where you think X is good or Y is bad because that's
what your parents told you, aren't they living on in you in some sense,
even after they're gone?
I highly recommend a few Greg Egan novels for you. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Information (most prominently written information) is still something
> which puzzles me at a conceptual, philosophical or whatever level I can't
> really determine.
>
> Paper and ink is just that, paper and ink. There's nothing else there
> than paper and ink. Yet there can be: If there is, for example, some
> written text, there is *something* else than just paper and ink there.
> It's what is commonly called "information". I simply can't get a mental
> grasp of what exactly that is, at the lowest conceptual level possible.
> It's something that is and is not there, at the same time. It transfers
> something from person to person, something which isn't physical. If it
> isn't physical, how can it "exist" at all?
>
> When I think about written information like that, it starts sounding
> really, really whacky.
>
Here's an oversimplification. Entropy is an advanced state of matter and
energy within a closed system (the universe). Literature is the result
of human action, which is the result of entropy. Advanced states of
matter and energy can relate to other advanced states of energy and
matter. I believe conscious thought (human or not) to be *the* most
advanced state of energy and matter present in the universe.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>>>> We all still are just chemical reactions!
>>> That's like saying that literature is just paper and ink.
>
>> Pretty much.
>
>> That's the thing most people don't get, tho. The information content is
>> in the *arrangement*, not the *components*. People say things like
>> "there is no soul, because a dead person and a live person have all the
>> same chemicals." Even tho there's nothing *physical* there more than
>> the chemicals, their arrangement is what's important.
>
> Information (most prominently written information) is still something
> which puzzles me at a conceptual, philosophical or whatever level I can't
> really determine.
>
> Paper and ink is just that, paper and ink. There's nothing else there
> than paper and ink. Yet there can be: If there is, for example, some
> written text, there is *something* else than just paper and ink there.
> It's what is commonly called "information". I simply can't get a mental
> grasp of what exactly that is, at the lowest conceptual level possible.
> It's something that is and is not there, at the same time. It transfers
> something from person to person, something which isn't physical. If it
> isn't physical, how can it "exist" at all?
It is physical, in a sense. In every person that information has made a
physical change in the person, often to the effect that that person can
reproduce the information. In exceptional cases it may even influence
future behaviour. (Okay, that begs the question whether behaviour is
physical). It differs from a 'normal' physical object in that it does
not have a specific position in space and that it will differ from
person to person.
>
> When I think about written information like that, it starts sounding
> really, really whacky.
>
I don't think so. When you see a text in korean or thai, there is no way
for you to decode the information. It could have a very high information
content by being totally random or it could be a great work of
literature. That is different if the information is in a familiar
alphabet and a familiar language. Take the statement 'We all still are
just chemical reactions!'. As soon as you saw that, you recognized it as
english so your mind flips from the finnish into the english state. That
it a non localized (and ununderstood) physical change. Then your brain
starts processing the 'We'. First the retina sees a set of lines and
curves by adjusting the voltages over several cells. Then the brain
decodes the 'W' and the 'e' and various voltages of cells in the cortex
are adjusted. That goes to the next level where they are combined and
you become aware that a group is meant that includes at least the writer
and possibly yourself. Only after decoding the whole sentence you know
that with 'We' mankind is meant, possibly even the entire fauna (plus
flora). This is followed by a response of disapproval, resulting in the
release of stress hormones. That in turn is then followed by the
realisation that it is also partly true, that you know the writer and
that actually you like him, and the levels of various hormones are
readjusted. Then there is some time for reflection resulting again in
the adjustment of several voltages. After that some cells are physically
changed to record that you have seen this message, where and what it did
to you. So a lot of physical things going on. The only whacky thing is
that you can not point your finger to it. Then again that is not much
different from information in computers. Take that statement again. You
see it on your screen, but do you know exactly which bits in main memory
are involved? can you without opening your computer tell where these
are? and after opening?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> We all still are just chemical reactions!
>
> That's like saying that literature is just paper and ink.
Which was only invented because of chemical reactions in our eyes :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:45:07 +0100, Mike the Elder <nomail@nomail>
did spake, saying:
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> It's funny, when you think about it at the very basic level of things,
>> we all started as a chemical reaction ...
>
> Funny? - or Profound?
>
> In either case...
> THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY CATALYST
> stands ready to sanctify your Reactants
> by accepting YOUR donation!
Heed not these unbelievers and follow the Great Porcelain God Hruggh; from
waste did we arise and to waste will we return.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:52:25 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>Heed not these unbelievers and follow the Great Porcelain God Hruggh; from
>waste did we arise and to waste will we return.
>
He is called Hughie where I am from and we sacrifice to Him regularly
at the weekends ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:39:42 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:52:25 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>> Heed not these unbelievers and follow the Great Porcelain God Hruggh;
>> from waste did we arise and to waste will we return.
>>
> He is called Hughie where I am from and we sacrifice to Him regularly
> at the weekends ;)
Blessed art they for He goes by many names yet we kneel before him as one.
:-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Blessed art they for He goes by many names yet we kneel before him as
> one. :-)
...da HELL?!!?! O_o
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:13:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>And lo on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:39:42 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>did spake, saying:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:52:25 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Heed not these unbelievers and follow the Great Porcelain God Hruggh;
>>> from waste did we arise and to waste will we return.
>>>
>> He is called Hughie where I am from and we sacrifice to Him regularly
>> at the weekends ;)
>
>Blessed art they for He goes by many names yet we kneel before him as one.
>:-)
>
It is written, that on the first day of school, the young will be
baptised at the altar of Him. Kneeling with head bowed to be anointed
with his waters.
:-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:38:01 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:13:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:39:42 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:52:25 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Heed not these unbelievers and follow the Great Porcelain God Hruggh;
>>>> from waste did we arise and to waste will we return.
>>>>
>>> He is called Hughie where I am from and we sacrifice to Him regularly
>>> at the weekends ;)
>>
>> Blessed art they for He goes by many names yet we kneel before him as
>> one.
>> :-)
>>
> It is written, that on the first day of school, the young will be
> baptised at the altar of Him. Kneeling with head bowed to be anointed
> with his waters.
>
> :-)
'And lo as the raging waters doth caress thy head reflect that all things
are transient and that all things lead ultimately to Him [...] For this
thy Blessed and Most Holy Sacrament of the Swirlie shall show you the path.
Those encompassed by the blue are blessed of Fanglemork; those who hear
the music of the water shall dance before Tekneos; those who which they'd
brought cleansing products to the Great Bowl shall follow the path of
Scypian. But all exist under the gaze of Hruggh for they come to him as
waste and so shall they return'
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:58:23 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>'And lo ...
You're talking a load of ...
:-)
PS I've got an excuse, I'm in my dotage. What's yours? :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> 'And lo as the raging waters doth caress thy head reflect that all
> things are transient and that all things lead ultimately to Him [...]
> For this thy Blessed and Most Holy Sacrament of the Swirlie shall show
> you the path.
>
> Those encompassed by the blue are blessed of Fanglemork; those who hear
> the music of the water shall dance before Tekneos; those who which
> they'd brought cleansing products to the Great Bowl shall follow the
> path of Scypian. But all exist under the gaze of Hruggh for they come to
> him as waste and so shall they return'
Start a web comic already!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:05:57 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:58:23 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> 'And lo ...
>
> PS I've got an excuse, I'm in my dotage. What's yours? :)
Dropped too many times on my head as a child "I'm sure he'll bounce this
time"
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> It's funny, when you think about it at the very basic level of things,
>> we all started as a chemical reaction ...
>
> This presumes facts not in evidence.
Is the basis of biology not chemistry?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> We all still are just chemical reactions!
>
> Thank you for pointing that out. It's easy to overlook. ;-)
>
Yep. That, too. Eventually the conditions become unfavorable for one set
of reactions, and another set takes over, which ...
... So, really, life is just one on-going chemical reaction. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> it a non localized (and ununderstood) physical change. Then your brain
> starts processing the 'We'. First the retina sees a set of lines and
> curves by adjusting the voltages over several cells. Then the brain
> decodes the 'W' and the 'e' and various voltages of cells in the cortex
> are adjusted. That goes to the next level where they are combined and
> you become aware that a group is meant that includes at least the writer
> and possibly yourself. Only after decoding the whole sentence you know
> that with 'We' mankind is meant, possibly even the entire fauna (plus
> flora). This is followed by a response of disapproval, resulting in the
> release of stress hormones. That in turn is then followed by the
That reminds me of something I read recently, dealing with parallelism,
neural nets, and brains. They did scans of someone's brain as it was
working. What was interesting was when something new was perceived, it
would start as chaos, then eventually settle into a pattern of neurons
firing. All of the processing that happens is massively parallel. I wish
I could remember all of the details involved, but it was a fascinating
document.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Is the basis of biology not chemistry?
http://xkcd.com/435/
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Is the basis of biology not chemistry?
>
> http://xkcd.com/435/
The ALT-text seems kinda amusing given the context of this thread. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Is the basis of biology not chemistry?
>
> http://xkcd.com/435/
>
New question: Is there anything that hasn't been covered by xkcd? :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> New question: Is there anything that hasn't been covered by xkcd? :D
Yes. You may read those thing from Xkcd's that will be published in the
future ;).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
