Bender

Chimps have a better memory than humans, so clearly they are the super-primates.

Not only can DNA analysis track species through time, it can also show migration patterns. Link Please don't put too much weight into such apologetic nonsense.

That would be pretty simplistic indeed. Even bacteria can react to light (see), chemicals (taste/smell) and touch. Hearing is basically sensing vibrations, which plants can do. So all senses in some form are almost as old as life itself, and developed simultaneously as cells specialised in multicellular organisms.

What about alpha particles? They have zero spin. Are you suggesting they shouldn't cause a magnetic field when moving? With "quantum stuff", I refer to phenomena that can only be explained with QM, not ordinary stuff like the magnetic field of a moving charge.

You are either confusing or wrong. Moving charges and quantum stuff are two causes for magnetic fields. The former is eg the case for an electromagnet, the latter for a permanent magnet.

Visualisation in your head does take some mind gymnastics, but I was mostly referring to countless attempts to produce images and videos to clarify QM concepts. I rarely find them satisfying.

Sure. Intelligence is a vague concept.

It depends on the specifics, bit I guess solar prominences is a good image. All magnetic field lines coming out of the sphere would have to go back in at another point. It would remain stationary, but depending on the magnets used, wear out over time.

Give agents, such as individual ants, bees, or robots, a simple set of instructions. A proper set of simple instructions can result in complex, emergent behaviour, which can even seem intelligent. Classic example There is quite some research on swarm robots, which aim to take advantage of such emergent behaviour.

We have a lot of senses of touch: - four different pressure senses - sense of cold and heat - sense of pain - hair follicles - proprioception, the sense of position and force in our limbs, which is itself a collection of senses. I guess it must be almost as old as multicellular life, since they are required for coordinated motion. Some, such as temperature, perhaps older. I would expect smell/taste to be the oldest sense.

It is very counterintuitive, can only be described by complex mathematics, is nearly impossible to visualise properly, and can have flabberghasting philosophical consequences.

Your religious beliefs are not unique. I'm guessing you might be a deist. Perhaps you are confusing "religion" with "organised religion"? I agree that it is pretty naive to think any proof could be unifying humanity. Look at evolution theory: you can't prove anything with more certainty, but so far its unifying succes is rather limited...

Since your arms are springs, the force on your legs could be lower when you start going down, but higher when you near the lowest point.

For a mobile application such as flashlights, the much lighter aluminium seems the better choice. It has the additional benefit of being much cheaper. For the same heat resistance, its mass is about half that of copper.

There is no need to guess. Maxwell is an extremely successful theory. So successful, in fact, that it predicted a constant lightspeed which lead to another hugely successful theory (special relativity). There are theories that predict magnetic monopoles, but they require new, currently unknown, particles. Mundane magnets, in whatever configuration cannot break the very laws they are based on. That's like trying to break Newton's laws by throwing a rock.

Gravity not being a force depends on context and definition. In most situations considering gravity a force works great. Likewise, the weak interaction doesn't feel very force like in the conventional sense of a predictable mechanical force.

It is often simply labelled as "light energy".

Sounds like an example of communicating vessels. The water level in both containers will always have the same height (at equilibrium ).

Are you aware that you are getting pretty arrogant and ad hominem? Why would I view subjective experiences as flaws? I'm definitively not misanthropic, quite the contrary. I simply do not share your anthropocentric viewpoint. It is not because I don't consider humans to be superspecial that I hate humans. I wonder: can you accept that a reductionist like me can value love and life just as much as you do? About your arguments against machine consciousness; they boil down to a difference in complexity or communication protocol. The basic mechanism is the same: a way for the higher level programming to assess internal status and parameters like hormone levels or corrupt files. Eg: the love of the robot dog is much less complex than my love for my children, but that is pretty obvious , since its programming is much less complex than mine. Eg2: our body communicates with our consciousness through chemicals, while a machine uses parameters and routines encoded in electronic circuits. Two last points: - what you consider altruism is people making themselves feel good (or avoid feeling bad); which in no way diminishes the value of the act. Since self preservation isn't a thing for most machines, they are inherently more altruistic. - are you aware that several of your arguments exclude the average 3 year old from being conscious?

How does a human artist learn about art? Most human musicians build on an existing style and rythm. Are humans conscious if they fail to develop a truly original style? How do you define "emotion"? Typically, we don't program machines to exhibit emotional, erratic behaviour, but there is no reason why we can't. True love: a pet robot dog that is programmed to follow you around litterally wants to be with you all the time. Why is that not true love? Compassion : really easy to program. A few social conventions about how to react to suffering suffices. My car e.g. automatically calls emergency when I crash. Altruism: I have seen no evidence of true altruism in humans. My car , on the other hand, will sacrifice itself to save passengers and pedestrians. Joy: when the computer scores in a football game: the AI soccer players are cheering. Philosophical wonder: some of the best computers are pondering those questions. But once more, existential anxiety is typically not desired behaviour in a machine. It is also pretty easy for a typical computer to answer such questions, since it can track its serial number. Etc...

I don't really understand the question, but if you want to compare heating in direct sunshine, the wire will be colder, because of moving air around it.

Some magnetic field lines will curve back inside the coil or somewhere else you don't want and not contribute to the force. As air gaps increase (the coil itself is also an air gap), fringe effects become more important.

You seem to be the one who is out of date. Machines paint Machines compose music A heap of gears can evolve to a functioning clock You could argue that the last one was programmed with a purpose, but you would be wrong: it was programmed with an evolutionary pressure. I invite you to come up with an example of an activity or feature which is in principle impossible for a machine and does not only depend on the higher complexity of our physical brain.

Note that that calculator is only valid if the magnetic core is significantly larger than the distance. The volume of the coil also needs to be sufficiently small compared to the core to limit fringe effects inside the coil.

There may not have been evidence, but there was a mechanism.