Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FreeWill

  1. 1 hour ago, wtf said:

    People will say that consciousness is emergent, as if they've told me something.

    They try to say something what is actually true.

    Consciousness emegerd from inorganic matter through organic matter with a genetic information supported process, which have been lasting all together for 4.8 billion years in the solar system.

    How would you call this phenomenon if not emergence? 

  2. 16 hours ago, Gees said:

    Do you have problems accessing Wiki on your own? It is clear from your response that you have not had the opportunity to read the page that I recommended, as hormones do a great deal more.

    I do not have a problem to access wiki on my own. I even can pick up one of my many textbooks or rely on my 20+ years of experience from the field of medicine and check any questionable point related hormones. But thanks for the link. I have read it. I have asked for it to see where from you gained your understandig. Hormones impact a lot of things sure, like control (regulate) the internal environment of the body but that is different from controlling the entire body. 


    16 hours ago, Gees said:

    Remember that what we are looking for is evidence of survival instincts (self preservation) in life forms which indicates a subjective "self" that must be protected. This "self" is not dependent upon a brain as it is equally established in plants as it is in animals -- or all multicellular life. Bacteria (single cell) has some chemical(s) that do the same thing, but have a different name. It is also worth noting that pheromones do much of the same work outside of the body and between bodies, whether it be animal to animal, plant to animal, or plant to plant, creating a kind of homeostasis in ecosystems.

    Actually what we are looking to answer is about AI sentience, and you provide a lof to unrelated and inaccurate information. 

    I do not see that rainforest can protect themselves from deforestation with pheromones. I can not see the named homeostasis between Humanity and Nature. 

    16 hours ago, Gees said:
    15 hours ago, Gees said:

    Hormones have the following effects on the body: 
    stimulation or inhibition of growth
    wake-sleep cycle and other circadian rhythms
    mood swings
    induction or suppression of apoptosis (programmed cell death)
    activation or inhibition of the immune system
    regulation of metabolism
    preparation of the body for mating, fighting, fleeing, and other activity
    preparation of the body for a new phase of life, such as puberty, parenting, and menopause
    control of the reproductive cycle
    hunger cravings
    A hormone may also regulate the production and release of other hormones. Hormone signals control the internal environment of the body through homeostasis. 

     Please note that all of the above works unconsciously and that the underlined points all work through feeling or emotion, which causes the activity associated with the survival instinct. This indicates a high probability that "self" or subjectivity is a product of the unconscious analogue aspect of mind -- not of the digital conscious mind. There is a great deal in Psychology that confirms this, and there is the understanding that "self" or subjectivity is very difficult to comprehend. My personal thought is that it is difficult because it is analogue. 

    The above evidence and reasoning is why I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that AI, a representation of the digital aspect of mind could possibly possess a subjective understanding of "self". It appears to me that AI would have to have an unconscious aspect of mind.

    Well, I can be aware of that I am hungry, horny, fleeing or fighting and I can be absolutely aware of when and how the body is preparing and reacting in those scenarios. 

    I wonder when you said the hormones control the body,  haven't you thinking about, that for example in your underlined points the brain can easily overwrite what the hormones suggest? 

    I am horny but I would never force myself on anyone, a soldier even fear the fight would not leave the battlefield, I am hungry but I would not take your sandwich, because with the brain you can control and overwrite what the hormones suggest and how the body acts. (note that no court on the world would accept an excuse: my hormones control my body and forced me to do something improper) 

    You have difficulties to accept AI sentience because you have a false picture about the hormone system and the brain and because of that, you have a false picture about unconsciousness and consciousness as well. 

    16 hours ago, Gees said:

    The unconscious aspect of mind is much like that and analogue, so there is no way possible to completely digitalize it, no way to acquire all of the information, no way to completely know it.

     You can not possibly know what we can achieve in the future. We already know a great deal about the body and the unconscious part of its functions so I can not exclude that we will further understand it. 


    16 hours ago, Gees said:

    None of this is negated by stating that the conscious aspect of mind is digital. As long as the thought is within the mind where we can learn, grow, forget, etc., it will be digital (finite) but not necessarily static. To make it static, you would have to remove it from awareness, the mind/brain, and put it into a recording such as a book, memoir, CD, etc. 

    Can you elaborate what do you mean by that the conscious aspect of mind is digital? Do you mean that instead of pictures, senses, thoughts put together by different cells from different areas of my brain, the thought, memories, knowledge I have are just numbers? How and why? What 0 would mean,  and how would it work in this scenario and how would I be aware of that? Who made this recognition you claim? Can you share a link about that? I do not find any reference to it in my neurology book....


    And as Dimreepr well said: 

    16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    None of which negates the possibility of a sentient computer/machine.


  3. 19 minutes ago, Carl Fredrik Ahl said:

    they can really stay skinny when eating a lot of calories if they keep a very low calorie diet when they're not competing? 

    They do not eat a lot of calories during the preparation. They eat high volume (a cooked head of cabbage with ca 6l water) with low calories. That expands the stomach so they can take the one time high volume high calories during the competition. 

    This can not really be good for the pancreas as it produces the enzymes based on the nutrients one is eating, so after such a preparation the competition is a shock for it.

    I quess they have a solution for that as well.


  4. On 5/6/2019 at 11:58 AM, swansont said:

    I'm not sure what actual physics is involved in your little fantasy here, but any scenario that relies on violations of the laws of nature aren't viable.

    There is no mainstream physics in it, just a thought (logic based conclusion) that there should be a reason why energy is present in the system and a thought how would it eventually be possible. 

    The energy conservation would not be violated even my little fantasy suggests that energy can be created by expanding spacetime (i.e electrons could pop in existence but could not disappear without a trace). 

  5. 1 hour ago, CharonY said:

    This is because folks that have a significant calorie burn due to hypothyroidism are and feel really sick.

    The significant calorie burn is a due to hyperthyroidism. 

    In hypothyroidism the rate of metabolism drops because of the reduced amount of thyroid hormons produced.

    29 minutes ago, Eise said:

    I Am Always Very Suspicious When I See That People Write Certain Words With Capitals.

    It is very often a sign that these people think some concepts are sacrilegious, like Universe, Laws of Nature, Religion, Science, ... Whatever. Why are you doing it?

    I am always very suspicious when I see that people write Every word with capitals. 

    It is very often a sign that these people are irritated. 

    I am doing this to emphasize the words in the sentence I think is important to get the meaning. I do this because I see tendencies that members can overlook some otherwise relevant content. For this reason, I try to write as short as it is possible, so members do not face walls of words from me. I started to use underlying and highlighting combined with the capital letters when I feel it is needed.  

    37 minutes ago, Eise said:

    here are no 'governing laws'. There are regularities in nature, and the descriptions of these regularities are what we call 'laws of nature'. If laws of nature would govern what happens in the universe, the question arise how they do it. 

    Those regularities are signs of  Universal functions. They are the applied laws of nature. 

    How they do it? As information-based functions distributed and applied through spacetime. 

    44 minutes ago, Eise said:

    You are entering Dangerous Terrain... 

    The danger is part of life. What does not kill you, makes you stronger. 

    p.s: I like your capital letters. I see easier the point you stress. 

  7. 9 hours ago, swansont said:

    No, that claim is without basis. The limitation is not technology, it is the finite speed of light.

    How would you "observe" empty(energy and mass free) spacetime around the visible Universe, if such a scenario would be possible?

    An imagined hypothetic scenario and experiment: 

    Let's suppose that spacetime itself is responsible for the amount of energy a matter present in the Universe and that energy has a yet undetectably small amount of mass.  The evolution would look like: 

    1, Empty spacetime starts to evolve with a rate of 90 billion km/s to all directions. 

    2, When empty spacetime hit 90 billion km in diameter an electron appears exactly in the middle of this orb of empty spacetime with an extent of 300 000 km (to help to maintain the fabric of spacetime)

    3. The evolution of space continues by time and more and more electron appears, while their infinitely small mass keeps and pulls them together in the center until it reaches a critical amount collapses and matter appears.

    Hypothetically, with advanced technology, we would be able to create a 90 billion km big orb in the interstellar space (where the effect of the environment is the smallest), with a strong electromagnetic field around it to derail everthing what could step into our orb. We create an absolute vacuum in the orb and try to detect does something appears in it. 

    Let's assume that with technology developing, we are able to detect the infinitely small mass of an electron and create such an experiment.

    If the scenario would be possible and electron(s) would appear in our experiment because we know the mass of the Universe we could calculate the exact size and age of the system, so even empty spacetime could never be observable with a telescope we could calculate its extent. Or if nothing appears we could determine that spacetime has nothing to do with the evolution of energy and matter. 


    So even I can imagine such a technology supported experiment and physical scenario, (sadly) it is not possible....

  8. 1 hour ago, Strange said:
    1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

    There is no space beyond the observable Universe.

    Really? What do you base this claim on?

    On the link you shared saying:

    The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. 

    Since we observe some part of the Universe, even we can not observe all part of it, those areas will be part of the observed Entity.

    Note that our incapability to observe some parts of the Universe does not indicate that we could not do that if we would be technologically more advanced. 

    1 hour ago, Strange said:

    You cannot answer such problems with logic. That is why philosophers (and scientists) do not know the answer.

    Yet. But I can try. That's why the forum has a philosophy section.

    It is more likely that we answer these questions by logic, based on our scientific achievements, than we recognize the absolute true nature of the entire system just by observation without philosophy(like mathematics) and logic. 

    1 hour ago, Strange said:
    1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

    I can exclude based on logic the Absolute Infinite even I can imagine it. I am happy you agree. 

    I don't agree with your fantasies.

    You are confusing.

    Can you express what you do not agree with?

    Because If you say you do not agree with my thoughts (fantasies, imagination), you are saying you agree that the Universe is Absolute Infinite (which you already said is not possible). 

  9. 25 minutes ago, Strange said:

    ”Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the Universe in its totality is finite or infinite.[3][57][58]”


    The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. 

    There is no space beyond the observable Universe. Even it is  10 000 times bigger as we know it and you can not observe those regions today, it does not mean that those regions are not part of the Universe we can just partially observe. 

    We still can predict it with logic, that is it finite or infinite. That is why philosophy arose trying to answer such questions. 

    25 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Ah, I see. You are talking about a fantasy universe that only exists in your imagination. 

    Yes, since the OP is about: if I can imagine it is possible!

    I can exclude based on logic the Absolute Infinite even I can imagine it. I am happy you agree. 

    25 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Sorry, this is not science. 

    I know. That was Cantor´s recognition. He will never know. 

  10. 20 hours ago, Strange said:

    An infinite universe does not imply infinite density. (And Cantor doesn’t say anything about density)

    Citation or reasoning needed. 

    If we use the term Absolute Infinite on the Universe, it supposed to be applied to all components of the described entity, in this case: spacetime, energy, and matter(mass). 

    We can not call something absolute if we do not handle it absolute.

    Cantor described God as an Absolute Infinite. Is there anywhere written that his Absolute Infinite has absolutely no physically recognizable energy and matter(mass), so it is just about information?

    How an Absolute Infinite physical entity can degrade to transfinite or partially infinite, when basically nothing can impact It by definition?

    2 hours ago, MigL said:

    However the definition you use for 'absolute' infinity is certainly different from his, and even more so from later work by B Russel and J VonNeumann.

    True, but all of them worked in mathematics, while the term, by its nature, should be applicable in reality, if it could be true. 

  11. 8 hours ago, Strange said:

    Note: this is a science forum, so wild guesses are not acceptable.

    Agreed and absolutely accepted.

    10 hours ago, EthanKahn said:

    Absolute Infinity never ends and will always posit more


    "The transfinite is increasable in magnitude, while the absolute is unincreasable. For example, an ordinal α is transfinite because it can be increased to α + 1. On the other hand, the ordinals form an absolutely infinite sequence that cannot be increased in magnitude because there are no larger ordinals to add to it."


    If we imagine the Absolute Infinite density everywhere,  based on Cantor's description it could not be further increased, so It would be the same in every point of spacetime, so my assumption that there is of no density difference in Absolute Infinity would be correct.

    That is exactly why I dare to exclude its existence based on my simple but real observation on density differences in Nature. 

  12. 2 hours ago, MigL said:

    I don't recall G Cantor ever using the term 'Absolute Infinity'.



    Absolute infinite, well-ordering theorem, and paradoxes[edit]

    In 1883, Cantor divided the infinite into the transfinite and the absolute.[53]

    The transfinite is increasable in magnitude, while the absolute is unincreasable.


    The concept of the existence of an actual infinity was an important shared concern within the realms of mathematics, philosophy and religion. Preserving the orthodoxy of the relationship between God and mathematics, although not in the same form as held by his critics, was long a concern of Cantor's.[67] He directly addressed this intersection between these disciplines in the introduction to his Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre, where he stressed the connection between his view of the infinite and the philosophical one.[68] To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications – he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[69] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[5]

    3 hours ago, MigL said:

    If this is your own personal definition, maybe you should actually provide proof that it exists.
    ( as Georg did with his proofs of degrees of infinity )

    I have been thinking about it, imagine it, and come to the conclusion that Absolute Infinity is not possible, because of the lack of physical signs, the degree of Absolute Infinity would require. 

    Could you share Georg's proofs on the Absolute Infinite? 

  13. 23 minutes ago, Strange said:

    What is the evidence for that claim?

    What evidence do you have that matter can be infinitely dense?

    The op is: if I can imagine it, it is possible?

    It is a thought experiment, and of course, it can not be possible. The whole point is to prove that even we can imagine Absolute Infinity it is Absolutely Impossible because in reality there are no signs of such a scenario. 

    8 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Why would density difference vanish? 

    Because in every point of space-time we would have infinite mass. 

    11 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Why would the density differences here on Earth be affected by the universe beyond the observable universe which by definition can have no effect on it.

    I do not know, you tell me? I haven't said anything like this? 

    I do not think it is possible, that anything is outside the realm of spacetime we also exist in.  I can imagine it (or something like that) but that won't make it real. 

  15. 14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    There is no need for that and in fact, it is quite unlikely. Slightly elevated thryroid hormone levels do not increase baseline metabolism enough to make a significant difference. At levels where it does make a difference, you will experience rather nasty symptoms (elevated pulse, insomnia and so on) and doing anything competitive goes right out of the window. What those competitive eaters do is typically a combination of exercise and diet. After a competition they often resort to a extreme low calorie diet (water, protein, vitamins) in order to get back to a normal state. At the highest level there is a lot of similarity to bodybuilding (though stretching the stomach with fluid and fibers is an additional requirement).

    Yes, you might be right. It must be a kind of preparation program rather than a medical case.

    Although hyperthyroidism would be the perfect disease for competitive eaters as it comes with a polyphagia while burning away all extra energy consumed.

    I have been thinking about the medical condition because competitive eating is not a profession, and that stomach has to be extended all the time to be able to take in that huge amount of food which usually results in obesity, while in the OP it is a very skinny guy.  

    1 minute ago, Strange said:

    How exactly would you tell the difference between the universe being, say, 10 times bigger than the observable universe and being infinite? Given that nothing outside the observable universe can be measured or have any effect on you. 

    Local density differences would be exactly the same however large the universe is. 

    Please note that Absolute Infinity is not just about space, It supposed to includes energy and matter as well, where density differences would vanish.

    Is there density differences in the core of a black hole?  

  17. 21 minutes ago, Strange said:

    None of that tells you if the universe is finite or infinite. Obviously.


    I might have been misunderstanding something here,  but Absolute Infinity should mean that all components of reality (spacetime, energy, matter)  is infinite. 

    Could you help me what Absolute Infinity is meaning if not what I think it is? 

  18. 26 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Wow. Impressive superpower

    I know. It is the wonder of evolution to see and sense. Don't you?


    26 minutes ago, Strange said:

    possibly delusional) perceptions

    Don't you see and sense the difference between air, water, stone etc.

    Why do you think it is a delusion to recognize density differences?

    How can be density difference exist in Absolute Infinity? Isn't absolute infinity suppose to mean absolute infinite mass in every point of spacetime as well? 


  19. 9 minutes ago, Strange said:

    You don't know that.


    I can sense the differences in the fabric of the Universe. Somewhere it is denser and somewhere it is less dense. By observation, I can make the conclusion that the Universe is not Absolute Infinite.



  20. 10 minutes ago, EthanKahn said:

    You can never fully imagine Absolute Infinity because no matter how much of it you imagine, there will always be more. That's true of infinity, by definition. Absolute Infinity never ends and will always posit more. I never claimed to imagine all of Absolute Infinity. That's contradictory. You can never reach the end of an endless thing. Therefore, you can never encompass it, even in the mind.

    You can't imagine anything contradictory because it asks you to imagine something without imagining that thing.

    Of course, I can. Every point of space-time filled with infinite energy and mass. I even expressed It. 

    You have been thinking about Absolute Infinity in your brain, which is a kind of imagination. You also expressed its definition created by your imagination. 

    There is no such thing in physical reality as an absolute infinity. The closest you will come to Physical Infinity is the potential of time to tick.

  21. 9 minutes ago, EthanKahn said:

    You can't imagine a container of an uncontainable thing. If you imagine something being contained, then you haven't imagined something uncontained, by definition. It's impossible to imagine anything that contradicts itself, because it's asking you to imagine something without imagining it. 

    You kind of already imagined and even expessed the impossible (absolute infinity)

    Why could not he imagine something contradictory?

  22. 30 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    Trust requires evidence faith requires... wishful thinking

    It would be more correct to say that trust requires evidence and faith requires....evidence and wishful thinking (logic based deduction in better cases).

    Note the difference between faith and religion.

    Faith does not need a religion, but religions require faith. 


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.