Ben Banana

Nothing solely constitutes the interior of my skull.

Let's just take a big shit on semantics and call it a day.

Oooops, sorry. My bad. I may have not trolled these forums hard enough.

Lee Smollin. He belongs in a house of philosophy-done-wrong. This is getting so absurd.

*bump*

Shall I repost this in a different community? This place...

Hey, the first thing you need to start working on is understanding how the registers correspond to the C program. Here are some resources:

http://www.swansontec.com/sregisters.html

http://cs.smith.edu/~thiebaut/ArtOfAssembly/CH03/CH03-3.html#HEADING3-4

Good luck.

I'm interested in establishing a framework to dynamically reduce explicit/classical representations into various orders of abstraction with intent to simplify computation necessary for the simulation of systems. If you prefer that I specify how I imagine these systems might be, consider a very large set of points which may exhert various forces upon each other (classically, like particles) within the system e.g. exhibits contact dynamics and supports modelling external forces and fields from outside the system of points. Consider a large number of these points behave like a fluid, and they're contained in a way that can be approximated using a planar-surface fluid approximation method. I haven't researched these enough yet (planar fluid approximations; something to do with wavelets), but I think it's an interesting idea to explore means to adaptively approximate systems using poweful mathematical generalizations. Of course, this particular type of fluid approximation I just gave for example is very limited (planar), but that's why I'm interested in adaptiveness; specifically a broad framework of malleate abstraction devices that can effectively perform these adaptations.

I like to think of this strategy like the theme of the book "A Wrinkle In Time"; virtually traversing spacetime by welding two points together into one. Rather than brute forcing the simulation, congruences may be identified (transitive actions, linear dependence, fractal phenomena etc.) to yield shortcuts and inherently simplify computation. You may call this an adaptive model or approximation.

I'm thinking of some kind of "tensor automaton, " if you can imagine what I mean by that (think of an intelligent lego sculpture). Are you aware of any ideas or do you know of information that is relevant and maybe interesting to this topic? Please discuss your thoughts.

I'm not a 100/100 troll. Sorry.

Define what you mean when you say alive then we can debate...

I think my response enveloped why there really is no need for such a debate... yes? Isn't this topic just like a "how much can we reconstrue and defer from the common notion of this word" game?

Beside uninspired chaps, rather more successful trolls seem to exhibit a spontaneous and curious sociological phenomenon with roots in sociological interest.

Wikipedia tells a story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#I_had_no_need_of_that_hypothesis

I vote me.

Not unless you like to eat paint...

Good one! Do I like to eat paint, and why?

Can you be a bit more descriptive of your question?

Sure. My question is quite a succinct one. It includes features such as (but not limited to) a question mark, a dash between 'paint' and 'ball' and the name of a type of food I enjoy greatly when complemented with soft drinks.

I think we need a more clear definition of what I mean by "time" for your solution to work.

Are elephants more sentient than hungry-hungry-hippos? Ethically, which are the best to hunt?

Is it possible to construct a complete pizza using paint-ball guns?

If intelligent extra-terrestrials needed a single human representative, what kind of person do you believe will be most appropriate for representing the human species as a whole?

I want to fly by pulling upwards on my feet. Please explain how I can achieve that.

according to our standards

Who constitutes 'our?' Biologists?

It doesn't mean a single thing to me. You should have clarified yourself sooner.

We are not hard wired...

If you want an answer based on the principles that we have conceived to define life while neglecting our native concept of life, then yes, you can *mostly* consider them alive. It also depends on how specific your definition of life is. Some people tailor a definition of terms given the importance of their meaning within limited contexts. In conclusion, "Are stars alive?" is just a boring rhetorical question. Elaborating on semantics, there are never any exact synonymns between two words because -- though they may be defined in the same way -- words can have a varying consistuency of multiple definitions that apply in different situations. "Life" ... really? That's so useless.

Even the word "life" evaluated in just the way as you are most familiar to think of it (i.e. plants, animals, carbon-based lifeforms with DNA etc.) can have any number of simultaneously valid definitions. Words are tools. Frontier pushers often make themselves custom glossaries and give words their own spin to keep things concise and locally-effective. Even though the scientific consensus is that viruses are not considered alive, they are certainly more relevant to "life sciences" than stars... No matter how much you can translate the definition of life to unfamiliar objects, no one will be impressed. It's like trying to invent a new domain of "life science" when you should just go into cosmology / astrophysics !!!

Yes, stars are alive if you prefer that term over anything that might be more appropriate to describe such characteristics. If you're creating an evaluation of star's "life," then you may talk about them in the sense of being alive or not being alive (before the nuclear-fusion process ignites or after they burn out)... Bleh. This is boring.

By exploding!!!

Sigh.

Sigh.