Genady

OK. Then I don't know what the point of the quote was, but evidently it is immaterial for the discussion. My understanding of consciousness is as loose as anybody's, but I think that discussing 'consciousness' of something that does not have a brain is rather metaphorical.

Why don't you think that "consciousness" is being used loosely there?

Why not all of them?

See and feel without a nervous system - a loose definition indeed.

Evidently, I've misunderstood.

I don't think this assumption is as simple as it appears. Do humans have consciousness when they are unconscious? Under deep anesthesia? One week old? Before they are born? Etc. Seems to me that consciousness is whatever one wants it to be in a context. Here is an example from science: Understanding Plants - Part I: What a Plant Knows | Coursera Perhaps, consciousness does not need a general definition because it is not one concept, but a vague word. Its definition depends on its use in a context.

I'd be glad to try to answer this question if I knew what it refers to. Could it be a complete question here rather than references to bits and pieces of a conversation that occurred 2 weeks ago?

That's why we take care that it's not us:

Any news?

Among two other "crucial theories":

We can't know most of the future, most of the present, and most of the past. What is philosophical about this fact?

Why can't we? Why do you emphasize "will be"? Don't you mean that we can't know what is unknowable?

I don't think so. I think it is a very poor test. We know very well how AI works. Nowhere in its processes a new feature, e.g., consciousness appears. It is all very straightforward. Given enough time and paper, one could "dry run" AI manually, just like any other computer program. We know very poorly how human brain works. Perhaps when we understand that better, we'll see how a new feature, e.g., consciousness appears. This will be the test.

Fair enough. I should've said instead something like, "In that answer I've assumed..."

This is right. So, why I thought the clarification is needed? Just consider the extreme case where the whole mass is near the planet center and the rest of the planet is massless. As the body goes from the surface toward the center it just gets closer to the same mass. The gravitational force increases. In the other extreme case where the whole mass is in the surface shell and the planet is empty inside, the body will become weightless as soon as it crosses the surface. Ergo, the answer depends on the density distribution with the depth. Also, take a case where the entire mass is in the shell halfway down. As the body gets closer to that depth the gravity increases, and when it crosses that shell the gravity drops to 0. Ergo, the answer depends on the depth.

Sorry, I need to clarify. This answer assumes that the density is the same throughout the planet depth. In reality it is not so, of course. The answer depends on how the density changes with depth and might be different at different depths.

It cannot. Here is from the ChatGPT: * LA is me on that site

If the planet is spherically symmetric then only the planet mass between the body and the planet center attracts the body. Outer part of the planet cancels. So, the short answer, less gravity. * "between the body and the planet center" means a sphere centered in the planet center

The known experiments and observations allow for a variety of models, which the mind produces and compares.

Each degree C is 1.8 degree F. Adding 80 degrees C is adding 144 degrees F (80*1.8).

Thank you. It's curious. Our corals, in the open water, spawn once a year all together during several days in September-October. It seems from the forum linked, that those corals don't have a spawning schedule.

Do they spawn in the aquariums?

The fact that there are many unknowables.

To me, it's factual rather than philosophical.

Yes, very long list of them.