studiot

What I am not sure about is how various 'copying' processes handle the new hidden partitions that Windows has.

Interesting, thanks. +1

Thank you for pointing this out; I'm sure I made this mistake a few times in ignorance. +1 Perhaps this LIGO article might help the discussion @Growl did you mean the third one on the list inspiral ?

I think Genady has a good point in However I don't quite see the point of this thread.

Well I agree there is only onle red, but I note there are also some aliasing bars on you grid Of course red plus green makes brown.

Yes in general I agree. The Brain is the most complicated thing in our known universe so it is little wonder that we have barely begum to get a handle on it. Even more so when you realise that the brian alone is only part of the whole human consciousness system. We have at least found that bit out. As regards the weather here is a true story from my experience. We have also found another way to predict the weather. Weather prediction is quite important to many industries not least the gas supply industry, especially in the winter. So some years ago British Gas, which normally uses the met office predictions, wanted a backup system if for any reason the normal weather forcasts became unavailable. So they experimented with statistical methods on the basis "Null hyypothesis : Tomorow's weather will be the same as today's." What are the chances ? Conditional probability, Markov and Bayesian methods allowd them to conclude that the developed statistical calculator "Was at least as accurate as the met office in predicting the temperature in the next 24 hours and therefore the gas demand".

+1 Fruit fly consciousness is actually very interesting on account of their behaviour, as you have already observed. I already said that I don't know about US law but the point is that UK law require the fabrication of tyres to incorporate tell-tale markers at the minimum legal tread depth. Hence the tyre self diagnoses when it is too worn. However the tyre in this respect is not even a machine, let alone living or conscious so can take it no further. We have been through all that with the discussion about my accidental wedge. This whole thread appears to be one long litany of rejection. The opening post starts with a hypothesis of rejection "Artificial Consciousness is Impossible" and carries on from there. You seem to have rejected pretty well all matters germaine to the discussion of this hypothesis, at times quite rudely to others. Your current score of matters germaine appears to be You nearly 100% Others nearly 0% Do you think this likely for any human analysis ?

OOps what amistake The equations for gravity should be proportional to inverse square of the distance. [math]F = G\frac{{{m_1}{m_2}}}{r^2}[/math] and [math]{a_1} = \frac{{{F_1}}}{{{m_1}}} = G\frac{{{m_1}{m_E}}}{{{m_1}r^2}} = G\frac{{{m_E}}}{r^2}[/math] [math]{a_2} = \frac{{{F_2}}}{{{m_2}}} = G\frac{{{m_2}{m_E}}}{{{m_2}r^2}} = G\frac{{{m_E}}}{r^2}[/math] My apologies

If you really want a discussion you must respect the other side and stop this dodging and diving. I SPECIFICALLY CALLED THE CAR TYRE A CONSTRUCT NOT A MACHINE. If you can't stop trying to put words I did not say into my mouth I will stop here and now.

Several members have congratulated @Alkonoklazt for bringing this paper to our attention and I believe it is so interesting it deserves adiscussion thread all of its own The Empty Brain Robert Epstein https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer The paper is short but I am not sure I have permission to reproduce it here. Perhaps a mod would advise please ? I have a couple of reservations about the paper in that it makes absolute declarations or assertions although I do appreciate the 'market' in which the concepts are being promoted. For instance it says there is no 'memory' and no algorithmic programming. In this case I wonder how I can correctly produce long numbers such as social security numbers, telephone numbers and the like on demand.

Thank you. When have I ever said otherwise ? The only thing I have said about machines is that they have no business in this thread and that you were misusing the scientific and engineering definitions of a machine. I did offer you a more interesting concept - That of a self diagnosing construct. In this case it is not programmed but is constructed to be self diagnosing. This is the car tyre I asked you about and you did not reply to. Thank you, I had not heard of this so I will have to look more into it. +1 However it does introduce another interesting concept, relevent to consciousness, intelligence, etc. The concept of life. Again we have an ill defined concept but one characteristic I was taught is that of 'response to stimulus' However I observe many such responses in what I would call non living things. For instance rocks in the desert respond to the stimulus of thermal cycling in the hot sun and cold desert night by exfoliating due to alternate expansion and contraction stresses. So no I do not accept the continuum concept for these because it is demonstrably possible to have life without consciousness, with or without intelligence, with or without self awareness (my car tyre exmple provides an example of non living self awareness) What I was leading up to with my venn diagrams was that we have lots of concpets or categories, with some overlap but some separation. My initial criticism of thie opening of this thread is that it tries to be absolute ie all and to me therin lies its downfall.

As I am not sure what your theory is I can't say. By the way (BTW) please use the correct word which is' hypothesis' for your proposition, 'theory' has a special meaning in Science. Dr Swanson has pointed out that your hypothesis about falling bodies (presumably to Earth) is quite independent of the gravitational attraction of two isolated bodies of similar small size,so that they may be considered as 'point masses'. So let us continue through some calculations that can be covered in 11th grade mathematics. First we will look at the statement you queried Let mE be the mass of Earth, m1 be the mass of A and m2 be the mass of B For any single mass N2 say that [math]F = am[/math] where a is the acceleration and F is the force. Also we have for any pair of masses Newton't law of gravitation says that [math]F = G\frac{{{m_1}{m_2}}}{r}[/math] where r is the distance between their centres and G is a universal constant. So for masses A and B, both at distance r above the surface (or therefore the centre) [math]{a_1} = \frac{{{F_1}}}{{{m_1}}} = G\frac{{{m_1}{m_E}}}{{{m_1}r}} = G\frac{{{m_E}}}{r}[/math] and [math]{a_2} = \frac{{{F_2}}}{{{m_2}}} = G\frac{{{m_2}{m_E}}}{{{m_2}r}} = G\frac{{{m_E}}}{r}[/math] Therefore we have that the accelerations due to their gravitational attraction to the Earth are the same. [math]{a_1} = {a_2}[/math] Therefore they fall at the same rate. Once we have agreed this we can move on to the question of A and B attracted to each other in isolation, where the accelerations are not the same but depend upon distance r. This is an altogether more difficult question.

Rather than a tart reply, I will just ask for a link to your passage on catapaults. Perhaps I could understand that.

Energy is a property so energy of what ?

We have both French and Dutch Speakers here so please post the original question entirely.

Well you haven't post the original question verbatim.

Must be awfully powerful gravity at this theme park. 110/9 = 12.22

Although you don't need the points +1 for the two dimensional categorisation. Reminds me of the 2D square currently in use by the LBGTetc community. But also begs the question "Why only two category variables ?" I ask because I like to place myself on another axis, which I call the don't care axis.

Since this is homework what have you done towards It ? Have you read the question properly because as you have stated it a solution is not possible. You say neither initial nor final velocities are supplied so what equation were you thinking of using ? However I suspect there is actually more information supplied indirectly.

Both you, mrmack and I have all queried the difference between intelligence and consciousness, looking for straight answers. Perhaps we should examine it more closely ? I don't pretend to fully understand any of these concepts but here are some thoughts, I consider useful. Firstly consider some entity in its surroundings, environment or universe as in Fig 1 So we have three things. The entity, the environment and the interaction between the two. Perhaps the entity feels overhot in the sun so gets under the tree for shade. It is tempting to think that the entity must be self aware to be conscious and conscious to be intelligent and the whole sequence must be like nested like russian dolls as in the venn diagram in fig2. But this doen't hold logical water. As mrmack says, there are scales of these things. Self awareness. I am not normally aware of the touching of my feet on the ground, the feel of my clothes or the working of my kidneys. Yet I can define and descibe myself. Consciousness Am I conscious when I am asleep or self aware ? Ditto after 10 pints or whiskys. Intelligent I leave that up to your consideration.

Yes I agree with TheVat is is a shame because you are setting a good example by using correct terminology for instance hypothesis instead of that much abused term, theory.

First let me say also thank you posting this essay I had not heard of. +1 It is fascinating and touches on many things there have been discussions over at SF in the past. Some of these things you have also introduced in your thread, as have I. but I have gained the impression, like many other members, that your analysis is very (von neumann) computer oriented and thus straightjacketed by it. I am inclined to think your reference deserves a discussion thread all of its own. Especially as I have some criticism of it, particularly about memory, algorithms and the Human brain/mind. As time presses I will return with more detailed answers and for the moment just present an extract from Ellenberg.

Please note the date on the original question and answer.

How is this an answer to me ? You asked abouth their point in the singular. I gave you as straightforward an answer as possible. What did you not understand about that ? Yet you reply No - and then order me to "state my points" in the plural. I have no doubt you know many things, quite a few that I do not, but This is no way to treat other people who know other things than you do. No one knows it all.

Surely you know ? There is no requirement for an algorithm. Other mechanisms are available.