Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Counter, Feb 4, 2017.
Death energy ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes, when something dies its energy merely transforms into another form of energy, sometimes its just fertilizer for another life to begin.
Life is a dynamic chemical process, IMO
Now the death of artificial intelligence .
Good question. But should we not first ask if intelligence itself is a form of energy or a result of dynamic electro/chemical activity.
I had a similar discussion once about the definition of Potential. Someone declared that a mountain lake is potential energy.
My response was that a mountain lake has potential energy, IOW, a lake is just a lake, unless we drain it and use the kinetic energy of the descending water to drive a generator which converts the kinetic energy into electrical energy.
But note, as we drain the lake it begins to shrink as a lake until it is empty and dies as a lake, along with its potential ability to deliver kinetic energy.
But intelligence also has the " mind " which culminates all regions of the the brain . Into a whole of thought .
And survives death
We may consider thinking as a form of energy. But I believe you are confusing the definition of the mind with something metaphysical instead of being a result of the various functions of the brain.
IOW an inherent potential.
I must disagree with that assumption.
When the brain dies, so does the mind (the empty lake).
However, during one's lifetime a person builds a legacy of expressed thoughts and actions which may endure even after death.
An example can be found in the legacy left by Jesus after his death, IOW, the products of his mind are remembered by Christians.
This memory can be found in the mirror neuron system of the believer. In that respect one could claim that his thoughts live on in the present. But those thoughts were expressed in the past and after his death, it was impossible for Jesus to express new thoughts.
After his death his brain ceased to function and his mind along with it. Only the legacy remains.
Metaphysical is beyond material constructs of the brain .
Yes, by definition. And you can also include mental constructs of the brain.
But the experience of vision is the pixilated reprensentation (translation) in our mirror neuron system of what our eyes observe or our mind (mirror neuron system) can imagine. And so it is with all our sensory experiences. They are not metaphysical, but mental experiences.
IMO, the closest approximation to a metaphysical state can be found in the definition of Potential (noun: that which may become physical reality)
In the end, when the brain dies, all it's sensory and experiential abilities die with it. The whole of the form and function of the individual's physical systems cease to function.
Consider that some 60% of the human body consists of water and the rest is a collection of some 500 chemicals, as per Robert Hazen.
When are cremated the residue is a few handfuls of ashes. If we are buried the process of decomposition just takes a longer time.
This why it is amazing that we can find any really old fossilized remains at all.
p.s. as to your previous question about AI dying, only a heap of the metal and plastic components survive, because those chemical systems degrade very slowly by oxidation (rust) or UV exposure (breaking down of long polymer strands which may take hundreds or even thousands of years) .
When ai dies all within it dies .
I agree, except for the physical structures, which just change form.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
FLOWER POWER This 3-D reconstruction reveals what the first flowers may have looked like. Female reproductive organs (green), male reproductive organs (yellow), and petallike structures (white) are shown.
The less complex plan being the Fibonacci Sequence? Seems to be a very efficient way to capture sunlight and cram a lot of seeds in a finite space. As Darwin preferred to say "descent with modification"
A mathematically efficient structure. Why else would this pattern occur so frequently in nature? Is it logical to deduce that it gives a survival advantage to those many species plants or even universal structures. We discovered this unfolded mathematical sequence by observation, not by theoretical mathematics.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is not necessary, only the fundamental structure of self replication is required. But it does not guarantee perfectly identical replication , as demonstrated already in the leaf size alone.
Yes, and those behaviors are mathematical in essence. They are not individual phenomena, that can be described by a single mathematical equation. They are all connected by the mathematical structure (essence) of spacetime itself.
I am not assigning any mystical property to universal mathematical functions. But physical interaction of values demands a regulatory system. Some physical things or events are mathematically permitted, some are not.
Human symbolic representation which we call mathematics is the recognition of these natural functions. Thus in human terms the Universe functions mathematically. The Universe does not need to know anything, it functions in accordance to what it naturally permits or forbids, which turns out to be a regulatory system which we have named Universal mathematics. i.e. predictable functions dependent on extant values..
So what your saying is this ; the Universe controls the mathematical ideas .
No, I am saying that a form of mathematical values and functions control the universe. It is the essence of the universe. In your terms, you might call it the "soul" of the universe.
David Bohm calls it "insight intelligence"
So the " soul " of the Universe controls the mathematical values and functions .
No the mathematics are the essence of the universe.. I merely used that term because I hoped you would take it in proper context, which obviously you haven't.
Mathematics is the consequence of material objects . Nothing more nothing less .
An odd way of defining it.
Mathematics is generally considered the embodiment of abstraction - no physical or materials elements have to be involved at all. A great deal (arguably, most) of mathematics works with things that have no physical component at all. There are mathematical constructs that cannot have a physical component yet work perfectly well.
What " things " work perfectly well with what ?
Separate names with a comma.