And you call yourself a scientist. SMH.By whom? When? Show me the papers.
Show me the research.
I'll bet you $100 right now it uses a predefined definition of life.
Which as I've just shown, is not only inadequate but probably outright wrong.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And you call yourself a scientist. SMH.By whom? When? Show me the papers.
Show me the research.
I'll bet you $100 right now it uses a predefined definition of life.
Which as I've just shown, is not only inadequate but probably outright wrong.
So, < crickets >And you call yourself a scientist. SMH.
Yes, actually there is. Lots of it.I think what I am saying is there is no empirical evidence which supports inanimate objects being alive or conscious.
And you believe rocks meet that definition?So, < crickets >
Just as I thought. You have no evidence. You're just regurgitating garbage you read on Google.
Tell ya what - NASA has a definition of life. It says:
"A self sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution".
You like that one?
Where's the empirical evidence? Show me.Yes, actually there is. Lots of it.
The problem is, neither of those things can be measured. (Yet).
That's the big advantage my definition has, over yours. Mine is metric, it can be measured and quantified.
As a matter of fact, scientists all over the world are working on that very thing, as we speak.
There's at least three teams in the bay area working on it today, this morning. Google is very interested, so is Microsoft, and there's a company called Numenta in Redwood City that thinks they already have the math. (And the working hardware to test it).
Honestly, the math is a little above my pay grade. I looked at it, scratched my head, said "okay, good luck"... They're smart people, they'll figure it out. They have pretty much unlimited computational power, which I don't have and can't afford. The next question is "why is red red", and I finna think on that for a couple of days and see what pops out. I'm a biophysicist though, not an AI guy, I figure they'll have the answer before I will.![]()
NASA's definition? I find it quite inadequate.And you believe rocks meet that definition?
I asked you first.Where's the empirical evidence? Show me.
Actually you didn't. I asked you first. But here you go.I asked you first.
You call that empirical evidence?Actually you didn't. I asked you first. But here you go.
Respiration, growth, excretion, reproduction, metabolization, movement, and responding to the environment
Now where's your's?
You are making yourself look like an idiot.You call that empirical evidence?
I call that conjecture.
What proof do you have that any of that is necessary for life?
I think you are a mental patient.The difference between my proposal and Sir Roger's, is that mine is macroscopic, whereas his is microscopic.
Mine "simulates" a quantum collapse topologically, and it depends on the rest of the network for the phenomenon of consciousness.
On the other hand, Sir Roger invokes some complicated physics which I don't fully understand (not being a full fledged physicist, but merely a lowly biophysicist which is something different). He talks about quantum entanglements acting backwards in time, which smacks of a many-worlds view, thus it seems to me that his would require some form of string theory. Maybe one of you physics types can explain it more fully.
lolI think you are a mental patient.
You are a moron.lol
I've been called worse.
So that's all you've got?
Okay, tell you what -;if you want to talk about life let's move to the other thread. This one is about consciousnessYou are a moron.