On Aug 17, 3:25Â pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 16, 5:49 pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Aug 16, 3:36 pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> On Aug 15, 4:53 am, Errol
gmail.com> wrote:>
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> Dont you just love the language. Micro tubules "can" switch from
>> relaxation to contraction. Cells are metabolically active, and micro
>> tubules seem to be essential to metabolic activity.
>
>> This is really brilliant research, and I take my hat of to such
>> incredible intellects. They are the Olympians of their field. Higher,
>> stronger and swifter.
>
>> Keep dissecting. Like the swimmer, you will have a job for life.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> INFORMATION AND LIFE
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (1)
> A universal computer is indeed
> universal and can emulate any process.
Nothing more universal than the universe, so it must be also able to
emulate.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (2)
> The essence of life is a process.
Life creates the process of essence.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (3)
> There exist criteria by which we
> are able to distinguish living
> from non-living things.
Correct. We can, but our things cant.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Interlude A:
> Accepting (1), (2), and (3) implies
> the possibility of life in a computer.
Then "Things Aint What Thy Used To Be"
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> LIFE AND REALITY
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (4)
> If somebody manages to develop life in
> a computer environment, which satisfies (3),
> it follows from (2) that these life-forms
> are just as much alive as you and I.
If somebody managed to prove reincarnation, then where would such
logic be?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (5)
> Such an artificial organism must perceive a
> reality (R2), which for itself is just as real
> as our "real" reality (R1) is for us.
Ill just ask my brain if it agrees with that statement.....
(2 hours later).....nope. Just sits ther flashing
synposastically .....
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (6)
> From (5) we conclude that (R1) and (R2) has the
> same ontological status. Although (R2) in a material
> way is embedded in (R1), (R2) is independent of (R1).
1+1=1+1.....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> REALITY AND PHYSICS
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> (7)
> If (R1) and (R2) have the same ontological status
> it might be possible to learn something about the
> fundamental properties of realities in general, and
> of (R1) in particular, by studying the details of
> different (R2's). An example of such a property is
> the physics of reality.
Thanks for confirming my actuality, with your possibility.
Thereby lies the difference.
Reality is where you are looking from, not what you are looking at, no
matter how sophisticated the ability to see becomes.
BOfL
>> BOfL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
