is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

The only word that comes to mind is nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, let me try to clarify;

https://resonance.is/spacetime-as-information-an-ordering-principle-for-living-systems/

As simple as physical touch.

As simple as processing the information

IMO, does not belong in that list> [/quote]

As simple as a self-organizing chemical reaction

I agree with your list, except for one quality which is not essential in the process of action<-->reaction. IMO.

Processing of information does not necessarily require conscious decision making. Computers are very good at it.

Again, I agree with the way you stated it, but I disagree with the implied conclusion. Any action <-->reaction will still result in a probabilistic mathematical action. Consciousness is not a required property in the quantum decision making process. But sentience? Proto-sentience? Physical mathematical consistency?

IMO, sentience is the ability to react to external stimuli, by any means. Implementation can be of a strict mathematical nature. A billiard ball will follow purely mathematical paths when it bumps against the bumpers. It needs no conscious awareness of the bumping itself, but the event forces the transfer of energetic values ( the "bing") in accordance with the laws of mathematics.

OTOH, decision making requires not only sentience but also consciousness, the ability to analyze and exercise intentional choices. However, regardless of the presence of intent, the choice will be made anyway, it will be probabilistic, but still deterministic in nature. It is in accordance with natural law, just not intentionally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what does that mean? Does it need "consciousness"? Yes, no?
Does it need "sensory abilities"? Yes, no?

https://resonance.is/spacetime-as-information-an-ordering-principle-for-living-systems/

What is the absolute minimum it would take for the universe to be able to locally evolve coherent variable Mathematical patterns -> Self-ordering -> Proto-consciousness -> Sentience -> Pseudo (quasi)-Intelligence -> Consciousness -> Understanding -> Abstract Thought -> Art
.
We know it took a long, long time, and at a universally exponential rate in all directions of complexity in expression, including the emergence of complex neural and neural brain patterns in humans, animals, and in most all other living things we are aware of. Yet we are part of the universe and actually made from the stuff of stars. It's remarkable.

And I believe that Bohmian Mechanics would tend to support Penrose. IMO, an important consideration. I particularly like Bohm's concept of an Implicate Order. A preview of what is to become reality. It's not real yet , but it may any time now, ...the potential is already there!

And pray tell, what is an "Implicate", a probabilistic preview of what is to become reality? Quantum super-positions? This question has bugged me for ages. ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh , I'M HIJACKING THE THREAD. SORRY.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you were really sorry you would delete the post since it is nonsense.

 

Read through the article

Did not make clear sorry. I could read all the words but the statements made really, for me, did not lay out any sort of case for whatever point, and I'm not even sure what the point is.

I don't think there is such a animal

Sort of Humpty Dumpty agree. I would contend the conscious decision making has been built into the computer by a conscious decision making builder

Again a Humpty Dumpty agreement

Consciousness is not a required property in the quantum decision making process

Except, again, no such animal as quantum decisions

Consciousness or sentience is not required for mechanistic action and follow on actions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is? Why? I've already answered the OP question with the obvious answer.
Life is a result of survival of the fittest, the best adapted patterns plus a few lucky mutations.

 

According to Penrose a quantum event is a threshold event, a limitation has been exceeded and an energetic phenomeon takes place where a small quanta of energy is transferred from A to B (another pattern). He calls it a "bing", a moment of non-conscious physical experience.
I drew the analogy of a doorbell earlier, but consider; does a doorbell know it's ringing ?
It vibrates for one, if it vibrates in harmony or disharmony determines its longevity.

This may seem trivial, but it seems to me that even inanimate objects are subject to experiential disasters. A certain pitch of a sound wave can break a wine glass. To the wine-glass this is a terminal experience. Organic stuff may well be able to repair itself, a wineglass can't.

 

The decision lies in the choice (wave collapse) between superposed quantum states.

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

That's a lot of potentials, which may or may not all become reality. It's probabilistic. During the wave collapse the event becomes mathematically deterministic.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? Choice? Decision? Who or what do you think is making a decision?

You make some of the bat shit craziest statements...

 

Origin, when we say "natural selection" what the hell are we talking about?
Who in hell is doing the selecting? We all make up some batshit craziest statements as long as we are familiar with them and we get the joke, no?

Do you have any problem with using the abstract term "natural selection"? If not, why are you on my case for the abstract use of "probabilistic choices and decisions" as being similar metaphors to "natural selection".

 

And I disagree

Write4U

quantum decision making process.

Michael 345

I don't think there is such a animal

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. To people that understand evolution it simply means that animals that are well suited to an environment will survive to reproduce passing on their genes.

No one is doing the selecting. Who do you think is?

Are you saying all this crazy shit you are saying is a joke. Are you just wasting our time and trolling?

It is not an abstract term and of course I have no problem with it.

Because there are no DECISIONS or CHOICES being made! A wave does not decide to collapse!

I know English is not your first language, so why don't listen to what native English speakers are trying to tell you about your misuse of words. I hope this is just a language issue and you do not think inanimate objects make decisions.

 

Ah but I think he does think that. That's part of his religion.

He thinks mathematics makes choices and decides, because he has elevated mathematics to the position of God in his worldview.

Or that is how it seems to me.

 

No one. It is the outcome of a natural process.

Surely you are not claiming that the word "selection" implies that a person or other conscious entity makes a decision, are you? That would be pretty silly.

 

Yes sir, it would be pretty silly. And at no time did I intimate that the choosing and decision making is performed by a motivated sentient being. I am a hard atheist. Please consider my posts in that context.

But I submit the term "selection" is a similar verb that implies intent, just as does "choice" and "decision" but can justifiably be used for stochastic processes as well.

Or as saying that an object can act as an observer in SR. Physics and other sciences are rife with such semantic shortcuts. Witness Feynman's definitive declaration, blasting scientists on the subject.

Yet, when reading "natural selection" no one asks "who is doing the selecting?". We know it is a stochastic process and not some motivated choice and decision by a "supernatural" chooser, selector, decision maker . Well, most of us know.

In context of universal probabilistic functions, the abstract use of the terms choice and decision making, should not create such consternation as we are witnessing. IMO, using the terms "natural choice", "natural decision" as natural universal probabilistic functions is not in any way controversial. The same as "natural selection".

If I modified my posit to "natural choice" or "natural decision" I would be no more wrong than saying "natural selection". But they won't let me......on penalty of ridicule.

And, insult on injury, no one offers semantically (scientifically) acceptable substitutes, only scorn, ....what am I to do?

Just to make it clear, in context of the mathematical processing of universal values and functions, I do not use the terms natural selection, choice, decision as being performed by some external sentient being. I use them in context of stochastic processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

 

Not even wrong......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

True, the (non-sentient) "stressor" does. In the double slit experiment the wall is causal to the the wave collapse. Penrose calls it a "threshold event".
It is work, just not work performed by sentient beings. We can see the result....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nope.

The 74LS151 is a data selector/multiplexer. It is a digital IC that selects one of eight inputs and passes it on to the output. It is useful for some sorts of logic circuits. There is no intent, just a function, carried out by transistors.
An audio/video selector is a box that allows you to switch between audio and video inputs. Again, no intent, just switches.

Also note that none of the above use stochastic processes; they are quite deterministic.

 

Look at post 85. Where I am directly refuting your assertion:

You did't get it, so I followed up - directly refuting your assertion - in posts 105 and 106.
You still didn't get it.

 

These two statements are directly contradictory.

Pick one.