ALine

questioning for a friend...

On 3/22/2025 at 1:17 AM, iNow said:

But from whence then does the singularity come?

 

The singularity would just exist as being a singularity.

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Please explain this process. How is the geometry "projected"?

The geometry would act as the projection medium. Like a holograms projection medium.

What if time is the progression of a singularity projecting space onto the event horizon which behaviors following string theory, finally projects space out of a blackhole?

21 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I agree; there's no understanding of consciousness without a foundation for reaching that understanding. Definitions based on faith, philosophies, and conjecture aren't a proper foundation because, imo, they reference notions and ideas that are either untestable or unobservable.  Our spectulations about the nature of consciousness in other organisms invariably relate to the manifest nature of that quality in humans.  Therefore, our definitions and basis for understanding consciousness should arise from our understanding of how that quality arises in humans.  That understanding enables our ability to identify consciousness equivalency in other species. 

so true.

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Alternatively, as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes, consciousness could be a fundamental property that emerges when a system processes information in a highly integrated manner. It would not be a force, but a property.

Eh, i think it's more of a thing that a brain generates vs a property of the universe.

On 2/23/2025 at 10:08 AM, Luc Turpin said:

To deepen our understanding of consciousness, it is essential to move beyond traditional definitions and investigate the relationships among consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence

no...no, we need to define consciousness to understand it better.

On 2/25/2025 at 8:20 AM, dimreepr said:

If you want to refine your definition, think about it from the other end; what can't be conscious???

that is a good question.

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

I think there is an awful lot of hype and hot air around the whole subject. One day maybe but at present, whilst machine learning focused on specific applications clearly has vast potential,  a lot of generative AI seems to be crap. So much so that any self-developing AI would produce a sort of village idiot.

very very true.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yes, but you're not going to like it... 

explain.

I believe that generative AI could eventually lead to fully self-developing agi, any thoughts?

my new definition of consciousness: a being that can act according to the rules it sets and can behave in accordance to the awareness it devolves for itself.

With bees, hmmmmm. Let's say both—the hive AND individually and the interaction between them for consciousness.

I think interesting research could be formed by looking at their interaction.

Also, bees are awesome. They are modern wonders of science. Also, they make hexagons. Hexagons are the bestagons.

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's that moment for many when "the light bulb comes on", when "things just click", and the human brain suddenly has enough "smarts" to keep it curious and thriving

I love this part you said.

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

No definition of consciousness that includes bees is going to be useful to humans, imo. Stretching it to fit is a mistake.

I would argue that a similar definition can be discovered due to both us and bees having neurons, just different structures.

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

I cannot join you in that conclusion

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3956087/

yes, but what is awareness then?

Just now, iNow said:

Ask 10 different people what it means and you'll get 12 different answers. 

there has to be one that satisfies all of them. 

What is one you can think of?

A definition for consciousness could also be a debate in itself I kind of want to start.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

How are you defining consciousness?

the ability to have a behavior recognizable as being able to use tools and resources to achieve intended consequences.

I wanted to start a debate on whether a thing that is that small can be considered conscious.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

You posted this in classical physics. If it were in speculations, I’d ask you for some evidence or a model. 

Absent that, it’s a WAG and we don’t j\have a WAG forum.

Apologies did not mean to post it here then.

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

If one thing pushes on another, that other thing pushes back. Momentum changes. You’d have things slowing down because of spacetime pushing on it. That throws Newton’s first law out the window. 

Did not realize that, thank you.

I am not sure, what if the matter was space-time somehow curling into specific geometries?

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

And pushing has implications for e.g. momentum which we don’t observe

if you don't mind me asking what are some of the implications?

On 12/31/2024 at 2:54 PM, geordief said:

Do you want to  give an example  of 2 identical patterns that can be designated  as one object (if that is what you were saying?)

Do they  have to be patterns of the same objects? (Like  identical waves perhaps?)

Yeah sure, patterns would be considered objects so that each pattern would be a separate indistinguishable pattern. I wouldn't say waves, per se. 

could matter be the pushing against space-time?

thank you, apologies.

1 minute ago, geordief said:

So 2 crows and a pigmy can be the same object as 2 pop divas and a  meringue tart?(did I understand "patterns" correctly?)

Well no, each is an independent pattern.

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is it your understanding that no two  such objects or systems can be identical?

They can be, these are patterns.

This is an idea I have been mulling around in my head for a while.