Sims and Simulations

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Half-brained idea? That half-brained idea actually supports your OP.

a reply to: FlySolo

No, you don't. LesMisp. is saying actually quite the opposite. As i took it, that is. But there is a hidden pattern in almost everything you can describe with maths, that's how physics works. And we found more patterns thanks to computers, because guess what programming language was in the early days a stepchild of maths. So i find my instruments, the ones i try to use to find a code, are actually the ones creating it. Is my laptop god? Should i offer him a sacrifice?

Did you took a loot at this thread ? :

Researchers Create Self Aware Super Mario

a reply to: FlySolo

Math is the way to determine the "logic". 1+1 is always 2 and simply because it will never be 5 or anything else, shows that logic is not chaotic. Even though our universe derived from chaos. While I am a proponent to evolution, "logic" can not evolve. It just is. Therefore, one could conclude that "logic" came before the big bang and the chaos that ensued. And it is the logic in "math" which has or is consciousness.

But math and logic have evolved and continues to evolve. And no, no logic or math has consciousness, nor did it exist before man started counting with his fingers.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In that case, and since the idea is so old, why waste time devising new arguments against it?

i find it amusing that you criticize the devising of arguments, and in the same swing you redevise an argument you have devised many times in the past.

but in answer to the topic: practice makes perfect.

I want to add a thought to all this. What if there's a "wall" in the progress of species? What if at some point there's no more living space, no more knowledge to learn? What happens when we've perhaps colonized the whole universe and have learned everything there's to know and there's nowhere else to go? How would a person stay sane like that?

Is it possible?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: FlySolo

Math is the way to determine the "logic". 1+1 is always 2 and simply because it will never be 5 or anything else, shows that logic is not chaotic. Even though our universe derived from chaos. While I am a proponent to evolution, "logic" can not evolve. It just is. Therefore, one could conclude that "logic" came before the big bang and the chaos that ensued. And it is the logic in "math" which has or is consciousness.

But math and logic have evolved and continues to evolve. And no, no logic or math has consciousness, nor did it exist before man started counting with his fingers.

really? so you are telling us that before man invented numbers, beryllium actually had six protons and 14 neutrons? perhaps electrons carried positive charges and protons carried negative charges. or maybe water was made from some boron atoms and a magnesium or two. not to mention the rainbow was actually orange blue red green violet yellow. frequencies? just a handful of digits to describe invisible stuff in the air. because screw logic, it hadnt been invented yet.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i find it amusing that you criticize the devising of arguments, and in the same swing you redevise an argument you have devised many times in the past.

How is it "redevised" if it is the same argument?

a reply to: jonnywhite

I want to add a thought to all this. What if there's a "wall" in the progress of species? What if at some point there's no more ground to use, no more knowledge to learn? What happens when we've perhaps colonized the whole universe and have leanred everything there's to know and there's nowhere else to go?

Is it possible?

it means the language needs to repurpose itself.

a reply to: TzarChasm

really? so you are telling us that before man invented numbers, beryllium actually had six protons and 14 neutrons? perhaps electrons carried positive charges and protons carried negative charges. or maybe water was made from some boron atoms and a magnesium or two. because screw logic, it hadnt been invented yet.

Why would I say that?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

i find it amusing that you criticize the devising of arguments, and in the same swing you redevise an argument you have devised many times in the past.

How is it "redevised" if it is the same argument?

redevised, reworded, paraphrased. its the same old shoe in a different colored box and peanuts instead of bubble wrap.

a reply to: TzarChasm

just a handful of digits to describe invisible stuff in the air.

Where do you think the word "digit" comes from?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

really? so you are telling us that before man invented numbers, beryllium actually had six protons and 14 neutrons? perhaps electrons carried positive charges and protons carried negative charges. or maybe water was made from some boron atoms and a magnesium or two. because screw logic, it hadnt been invented yet.

Why would I say that?

because you did.

And no, no logic or math has consciousness, nor did it exist before man started counting with his fingers.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I said math didn't exist, not protons. The only thing appearing out of thin air is your reasoning.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

just a handful of digits to describe invisible stuff in the air.

Where do you think the word "digit" comes from?

because our hands were the very first abacus. before writing and whatnot.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The abacus was the first abacus.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

I said math didn't exist, not protons. The only thing appearing out of thin air is your reasoning.

but even the math that one might use to describe the relationship between two particular protons is existent regardless of whether you have the language or technical prowess to write it down.

and when that relationship reaches a certain level, your lack of understanding or communication will not stop that rock from knocking you a good one. velocity, impact, tissue density, surface angle, the dimensions of the impacting object, all of those relationships can be expressed numerically and will factually explain the results of the poor idiot being smacked. subatomic physics translates to autopsy figures because numbers dont just change. they follow rules. rules that the whole universe obeys. otherwise, according to your logic, black holes would just spontaneously emerge and the earth would go interstellar figure skating because the numbers that would dictate the suicidal nature of such a course just dont friggin' matter.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

The abacus was the first abacus.

what exactly were you hoping to get out of posting this thread?

a reply to: TzarChasm

but even the math that one might use to describe the relationship between two particular protons is existent regardless of whether you have the language or technical prowess to write it down.

and when that relationship reaches a certain level, your lack of understanding or communication will not stop that rock from knocking you a good one. velocity, impact, tissue density, surface angle, the dimensions of the impacting object, all of those relationships can be expressed numerically and will factually explain the results of the poor idiot being smacked. subatomic physics translates to autopsy figures because numbers dont just change. they follow rules. rules that the whole universe obeys. otherwise, according to your logic, black holes would just spontaneously emerge and the earth would go interstellar figure skating because the numbers that would dictate the suicidal nature of such a course just dont friggin' matter.

Show me math interacting with anything in the universe. Show me one single number outside of our descriptions. Numbers dictate absolutely nothing, unless you can show me a number doing so.

Rules and laws imply a legislator. No; nothing writes or follows rules and laws except mankind. What you are witnessing when you observe a so-called law is a regularity, not a necessity, something that occurs in a certain way simply because it does, not because it is governed by some law-giver, not because things are being obedient to laws, or that they are being told to act a certain way according to some number or rule. There’s no need to further anthropomorphize the universe.

The law metaphor is a Biblical notion, first used to describe natural occurrences by Descartes and others of the mechanistic philosophy, who thought the universe was a grand machine built by a designer.

This sort of language is the left-over remnants of a God-believing society.

In other words, its complete superstitious nonsense.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If logic evolves, then the result of that evolution is intelligence. What is consciousness? It is the result of intelligence increasing to the point of becoming self-aware.