Sure, but what is the immaterial aspect?commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:02 amI meant the immaterial aspect.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:13 pmWhat is the non-physical aspect of life that humans have?commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pm
Maybe no such thing as a soul, but anyway, there’s a non-physical aspect of life for humans that machines can’t have.
The “place” where thought exists.attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:05 amSure, but what is the immaterial aspect?commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:02 amI meant the immaterial aspect.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:13 pm
What is the non-physical aspect of life that humans have?
Bah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 amThe “place” where thought exists.
If the 'we' word here refers to human beings, then if 'you', human beings, had advanced to 'self-awareness', then, surely, 'you' would be able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, correct?Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:32 pm I don't think it improbable for an incipient type of intelligence forming in an entity complex enough to start developing on its own. Complexity can exist in many forms not merely the one we're accustomed to. Requiring aeons, we have advanced to self-awareness.
Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:32 pm Who's to say that only our substructures of existence are relevant to that happening! Must consciousness to whatever degree, as an 'effect', be quarantined solely within the organic? Perhaps, but I wouldn't depend on that being true. Entropy works in mysterious ways!
I KNOW that there is an 'aspect' to life that is non-visible, as that 'aspect' can NOT be seen with physical eyes, but I am YET to work out if 'it' is physical or non-physical.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pmMaybe no such thing as a soul, but anyway, there’s a non-physical aspect of life for humans that machines can’t have.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pmAs there is no such thing as a 'soul' (not in a literal, religious idiot sense anyway) then it's a moot point (i.e. irrelevant).attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:50 am
IT has the soul of a rock. (although some around here think rock has soul ..)
(silly Kates)
Well those last two adjectives represent expanding sets of qualities and anything considered real gets called material/physical regardless of its qualities or those it lacks: fields, particles in superposition, massless particles, dark matter, dark energy, phantom dark energy...heck, they all get called physical. The words have no meaning. They just mean, it exists, of that we are in consensus about. And anything found in the future by science will be called physical, until this metaphysical baggage from the old battle with dualist religious people gets set aside. Thales would roll over in his grave if he heard about neutrinos - by the billions coursing through his bones for years after his death - being considered physical, let alone the more exotic things and non-things that now share a category with chairs and stones and river water.attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 amBah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.
Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
Virtual particles
In quantum theory, the uncertainty principle allows the vacuum of space to be filled with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs which appear spontaneously and exist for only a short time before, typically, annihilating themselves again. Some of these virtual particles can have negative energy. Their behaviour plays a role in several important phenomena, as described below.
But who and/or what created that 'artificial intelligence', which you call God, and which you SAY and CLAIM here is the 'overarching ultimate controller'?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:12 pmWell, let's just say that if "God" is an AI, then it is the overarching ultimate controller of any inner shell system that man in his folly makes.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:57 pmI don’t understand what you are saying here. What do you mean by blocking?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:00 pm So not to worry about the new AI on the block...the old AI learnt about sentience and what pain is, and will block the new AI.
BUT WHY?
And as ANY child would wonder and ponder over, and ask, with 'child-hood logic', Who and/or what has 'eyes' on what the created 'artificial intelligence' you call 'God' here is doing, and which is permitting so-called 'time' on the so-called 'central processing unit' for the alleged and supposed 'execution of these programs', Itself?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:12 pm The OS has 'eyes' on what sub-programs are doing, it's permitting time on the CPU for execution of these programs.
But ANY and ALL 'artificial intelligence' HAS TO, OBVIOUSLY, be created from some OTHER 'thing'.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:12 pm If these programs are rogue, attempt to access memory blocks (or other resources) without permission, then the program can be terminated.
If God is divine - then this blocking is done from the sub-atomic control that it has - the ultimate control over everything we can perceive as reality.
Okay.
The ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON absolutely ANY and EVERY thing on their VERY OWN, is a non-visible aspect of life, which humans have. But I am NOT YET SURE about whether this 'aspect' is Truly non-physical.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:13 pmWhat is the non-physical aspect of life that humans have?commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pmMaybe no such thing as a soul, but anyway, there’s a non-physical aspect of life for humans that machines can’t have.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pm
As there is no such thing as a 'soul' (not in a literal, religious idiot sense anyway) then it's a moot point (i.e. irrelevant).
What does the word 'intellectually' mean or refer to, to 'you', "attofishpi"?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:36 pmThat's not very nice Veg.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:27 pmBecause only a fucked-up, drug-addled moron would believe it? If you can't see the difference then you are even more senile than I thought (and that's VERY senile). You need to stop drinking and taking drugs, then perhaps you might re-grow a few brain cells.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:14 pm
Why do you speak with such certainty about matters that you simply have no idea about?
(Intellectually I shit all over most people on this dumb arse forum, so I guess I understand why you get so frustrated when I point out YOUR dumb arse statements
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:36 pm Where are you getting this ridiculous idea that I do drugs? I was very naughty last night, drank a lot of Guinness and alcohol is a drug so I guess u got me, duh.
I think MOST KNEW that when 'you' wrote 'non-physical' that those words MEAN, or REFER TO, the 'immaterial'. But the question asked for, What is the non-physical, or immaterial, ASPECT of life that humans have?commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:02 amI meant the immaterial aspect.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:13 pmWhat is the non-physical aspect of life that humans have?commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pm
Maybe no such thing as a soul, but anyway, there’s a non-physical aspect of life for humans that machines can’t have.
Then it might be more appropriate to have said there’s a material physical substance that machines can’t have. Thanksattofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 amBah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.
Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
But, human 'thoughts' exist WITHIN physical AND material human bodies.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 amThe “place” where thought exists.
WHY would EITHER of 'you' AGREE that 'thoughts' ARE MATERIAL, let alone TWO or BOTH of 'you'.attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 amBah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.
And, this PREMISE and BELIEF is based on 'what', EXACTLY?attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 am Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
But, to 'me', "attofishpi", just said that 'thoughts' are made up of a 'material physical substance'. I did NOT SEE ANYWHERE where "attofishpi" SAID that these OTHER 'things' are material or immaterial.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:01 amWell those last two adjectives represent expanding sets of qualities and anything considered real gets called material/physical regardless of its qualities or those it lacks: fields, particles in superposition, massless particles, dark matter, dark energy, phantom dark energy...heck, they all get called physical.attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 amBah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.
Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:01 am
The words have no meaning. They just mean, it exists, of that we are in consensus about. And anything found in the future by science will be called physical, until this metaphysical baggage from the old battle with dualist religious people gets set aside. Thales would roll over in his grave if he heard about neutrinos - by the billions coursing through his bones for years after his death - being considered physical, let alone the more exotic things and non-things that now share a category with chairs and stones and river water.
Quantum foam is giggling as we speak.
Virtual particles
In quantum theory, the uncertainty principle allows the vacuum of space to be filled with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs which appear spontaneously and exist for only a short time before, typically, annihilating themselves again. Some of these virtual particles can have negative energy. Their behaviour plays a role in several important phenomena, as described below.
And I have just NOTICED another way that what "attofishpi" wrote and said here could be 'read' and understood.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:18 amThen it might be more appropriate to have said there’s a material physical substance that machines can’t have. Thanksattofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 amBah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.
Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.