|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 10/14/2003 : 11:59:03 [Permalink]
|
I define sentient as being aware of ones existence. Based on this I do not even consider a dog to be sentient. A dog simply is an organisim that reacts to its enviroment. If however, you define sentient as simply 'being aware' then reacting to the environment is evidence of sentience and most living things are sentient.
Comp org, you are saying without a shred of anything remotely resembling evidence that a freaking rock may be sentient. Based on either definition it fails. Now maybe, like in TOY STORY, when no one is looking the rocks start walking around and talking to each other, but this has not been proven.
The only thing I can gleen from your posts is that you feel that since people (and maybe animals, based on the definition of sentient) have electrical activity in their nervous system and they are sentient then electrical activity implies sentience.
You state:
quote:
'Sentient' seems to require electrical activity and that criterion is met in any mineral formation [read: "rock"].
You then further state:
quote:
Did you forget to read "I was thinking more of 'sentience' being, at the very least, coordinated electrical activity."? Surely it is the coordination of electrical activity into 'meaningful' patterns which indicates 'sentience' or 'intelligence'.
What is this coordinated, 'meaningful' electrical activity that is evident in mineral formations?
You wrote:
quote:
furshur: "Water seems to be a requirement for Sentience." I'm not shur that this statement is true. Maybe I don't know enough about neural pathways
I was trying to use your logic to show you the problem, I will try again:
You wrote
quote:
'Sentient' seems to require electrical activity and that criterion is met in any mineral formation [read: "rock"].
Actually, many things are reqired for sentience, among them are electrical activity, organic molecules and water. This is based on the list of all PROVEN sentient beings. Quite simply they are all organic and living.
You picked ONE requirement of sentience (electrical activity) and implied that it is the only requirement.
Therefore using your logic, I picked ONE requirement (water) and implied it was the only requirement for sentience.
You can believe anything that you like, but your arguments are not logical.
Trust me, in this 4th dimensional space-time continuum a rock is just a rock.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2003 : 12:22:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I define sentient as being aware of ones existence. Based on this I do not even consider a dog to be sentient. A dog simply is an organisim that reacts to its enviroment.
My Word, furshur! You seem to have fallen into some kind of time machine and are are living in the 15 or 1600's.  quote:
more from furshur
Actually, many things are reqired for sentience, among them are electrical activity, organic molecules and water. This is based on the list of all PROVEN sentient beings. Quite simply they are all organic and living.
Does this mean that you expect to find sentient beings in the Lakes of Titan?   |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 06:29:04 [Permalink]
|
Thank you for your well thought out and fact based response.
As for your question:
quote:
Does this mean that you expect to find sentient beings in the Lakes of Titan?
Since I am a skeptic I would of course not expect to find sentient beings on a moon of Saturn, especially since the 'lakes' as you call them (if they exist) would probably be composed of liquid ethane and methane. However, it would be more likely that a sentient being exists on Titan than the likelyhood that a rock is a sentient. Don't get me wrong, both suppositions are absurd.
If you believe that a rock is sentient I cannot prove you wrong. Just as I cannot prove that UFOs don't exist or that the Lock Ness monster doesn't exist or that Zeus is not hanging out on the top of mount Olympus.
But based on science, observation, and common sense I can say that a rock is an inaminate object.
In closing, I will cease from responding to this silly thread because the facts are irrelivant to the belief set and challenging the beliefs is just too threatening to the believer.
"A rolling stone gathers no moss."
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2003 : 07:32:11 [Permalink]
|
The real issue remains: Is it or it is not possible for rock to be 'sentient'?
BTW, furshur, none other than the famous British Cosmologist, Ian Fleming Stephen Hawking has recently expressed concerns in the area of 'sentient minerals'----in particular, the WWW. (Nor is he the first.)
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2003 : 08:21:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
BTW, furshur, none other than the famous British Cosmologist, Ian Fleming Stephen Hawking has recently expressed concerns in the area of 'sentient minerals'----in particular, the WWW. (Nor is he the first.)
Just wondering what you are talking about here. Do you have any links to actual information on whatever it is you are trying to say. I enjoy Stephen Hawkings writting quite a bit and would be interested.
I think you are trying to discuss the possibility of a sentient computer, like the TERMINATOR movies or Data on STARTREK. Is that right? Just curious. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2003 : 08:34:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Originally posted by  Computer Org
BTW, furshur, none other than the famous British Cosmologist, Stephen Hawking has recently expressed concerns in the area of 'sentient minerals'----in particular, the WWW. (Nor is he the first.)
Just wondering what you are talking about here. Do you have any links to actual information on whatever it is you are trying to say. I enjoy Stephen Hawkings writting quite a bit and would be interested.
I think you are trying to discuss the possibility of a sentient computer, like the TERMINATOR movies or Data on STARTREK. Is that right? Just curious.
Will try to remember where it came up. His concern was that the vast number of interconnected computers in the WWWeb might accrue something akin to 'sentience'.
(FYI: "SuperComputers" nowadays are made up of interconnected, off-the-shelf processors along with the necessary software to allow them to operate together. The last one I read about had 200 Pentium Pro's.)
The real issue STILL remains, however: Is it or it is not possible for rock to be 'sentient'? (As in a real, natural rock with many millions of years available to 'organize' its electrical activity into meaningful patterns----even if those patterns are meaningful only to it and, perhaps, fellow like-evolved rocks.)
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
| Edited by - Computer Org on 10/16/2003 08:38:39 |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2003 : 10:18:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Originally posted by  Computer Org
BTW, furshur, none other than the famous British Cosmologist, Stephen Hawking has recently expressed concerns in the area of 'sentient minerals'----in particular, the WWW. (Nor is he the first.)
Just wondering what you are talking about here. Do you have any links to actual information. . . .
It's pretty much fluff, but try this CNN link. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2003 : 20:21:01 [Permalink]
|
Computer Org wrote:quote:
(FYI: "SuperComputers" nowadays are made up of interconnected, off-the-shelf processors along with the necessary software to allow them to operate together. The last one I read about had 200 Pentium Pro's.)
None of which even come close to "sentience" yet.quote:
The real issue STILL remains, however: Is it or it is not possible for rock to be 'sentient'? (As in a real, natural rock with many millions of years available to 'organize' its electrical activity into meaningful patterns----even if those patterns are meaningful only to it and, perhaps, fellow like-evolved rocks.)
Do you have a citation for this "rock evolution" you propose? Since rocks do not reproduce with heritable characteristics, I'm skeptical, to say the least.
quote:
It's pretty much fluff, but try this CNN link.
And show nothing more than either:
A) very smart people can also be incredibly stupid, or
B) very smart people can be misreported in the popular press.
I don't particularly care which is true, and so am not going to do the digging to find out. But if it turns out that (A) is correct, it's stupid because Hawking has forgotten that we can pull the plug (well, Hawking can't, but the rest of us won't let him fall prey to the scary sentient computers, now will we?). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2003 : 16:06:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I was thinking more of 'sentience' being, at the very least, coordinated electrical activity. We humans learn to coordinate our electrical activity when we are young via experience. A rock would have to do that without ever moving-----something that would likely take a very long time.
My question, IMO, remains unanswered.
You are forgetting something important in the comparison:
Our coordinated electrical activity is allowed thanks to the fact that we have very structured pathways in which this electrical activity takes place. Not only that, it's a combination of electrical and chemical communication. The brain in general is extremely complex, the human brain is the most complex structure in the Universe known to Man. It took 3,5 billion years to evolve. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2003 : 06:56:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I was thinking more of 'sentience' being, at the very least, coordinated electrical activity. We humans learn to coordinate our electrical activity when we are young via experience. A rock would have to do that without ever moving-----something that would likely take a very long time.
My question, IMO, remains unanswered.
You are forgetting something important in the comparison:
Our coordinated electrical activity is allowed thanks to the fact that we have very structured pathways in which this electrical activity takes place. Not only that, it's a combination of electrical and chemical communication. The brain in general is extremely complex, the human brain is the most complex structure in the Universe known to Man. It took 3,5 billion years to evolve.
First, may I please (--no sarcasm intended--) remind everyone that it is not my idea to propose that rocks are sentient. This all started with my bizarre story near the top of page 3------I am just asking the question in the same vein as questioning the existence of intelligent off-Earthers ("aliens").
Dr. Mabuse, I had thought that the "very structured pathways" weren't; that we were just born with a whole bunch and that they, through learning, became structured. In fact, I didn't think that anyone knew exactly how our brain's neural pathways are structured.
Although simple crystals are not very structurally complex, many minerals are. (What this might imply, if anything, I don't know.)
As to man's brain's lengthy evolution, my point was that there are individual rocks that are that old. The 'sentience' question asks whether a rock could, over many millions of years, slowly manage its internal electronics into increasingly 'meaningful thoughts'.
We have complex electronic gizmoes which detect (and even chart) the human brain's electrochemical activity. So far as I know, there is no such counterpart for inanimate matter. That is to ask: "Are we sure that the electronic activity in a rock is random?"
_____________________________
Dave W.: I don't disagree with what you wrote except for the problem of 'rock reproduction' and inheritable traits----which I think I just addressed above.  |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 22:29:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Our coordinated electrical activity is allowed thanks to the fact that we have very structured pathways in which this electrical activity takes place. Not only that, it's a combination of electrical and chemical communication.
Dr. Mabuse, I had thought that the "very structured pathways" weren't; that we were just born with a whole bunch and that they, through learning, became structured. In fact, I didn't think that anyone knew exactly how our brain's neural pathways are structured.
We don't, and I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not thinking of the neural net, but the individual cells. The signal travels through the 'appendages' or 'tendrils' (don't know the English word for them) of the neural cells to its destination. These are the conduits through which the signal travels, that you can not find in stones. Except maybe as a vein of ore that is electrically conductive. And even if one considered whole mountain ranges, the electrical current must "flick a switch" of some kind in order to store information.
quote:
Although simple crystals are not very structurally complex, many minerals are. (What this might imply, if anything, I don't know.)
In this case size does matter, and smaller is better. I don't know off hand the size of a brain cell, but there must be billions of them in our brain. How big does a rock have to be before it had conductive veins enough so it could hypothetically function as a single brain cell (which is far more complex than a simple transistor)? Then it will have to be interconnected to billions of other nearly identical rock formations before it can even begin to function.
quote:
As to man's brain's lengthy evolution, my point was that there are individual rocks that are that old. The 'sentience' question asks whether a rock could, over many millions of years, slowly manage its internal electronics into increasingly 'meaningful thoughts'.
Now we are touching the subject of thermodynamics. In order to decrease the entropy (gathering its thoughts) we must have an energy source in order to rearrange the state of its "neurons". Besides, they have to be in a state of constant flux to even become aware of something as simple as the passing of time.
quote:
We have complex electronic gizmoes which detect (and even chart) the human brain's electrochemical activity. So far as I know, there is no such counterpart for inanimate matter. That is to ask: "Are we sure that the electronic activity in a rock is random?"
If you have an electric conduit and no magnetic field, the electrons will balance them selves out throughout the conduit. With no physical or chemical sender or receiver at either end, no current will flow, it will always even itself out (increase the entropy).
And once again we will need energy sources. Chemical-to-electric are short-lived. Heat-to-electric are like Peltier Elements, nice but requires a distinct hot-to-cold energy transfer in order to work. Radioactive materials could produce that heat (like in the batteries of satellites like Galileo that recently was crashed into Jupiter), but radioactive materials that active are rare, and of very low concentrations. Otherwise we would detect them.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/22/2003 22:37:07 |
|
|
|
Badman
New Member
United Kingdom
20 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 10:46:28 [Permalink]
|
Errr, i think that if someone offers you steak (16oz Aberdeen Angus)you might as well eat it cause it's Dead
It aint coming back to life darlin |
|
|
|
Maglev
Skeptic Friend
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 14:15:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Too many humans" generally means that humans will die as a result of overpopulation. That's selection for you, the driving force behind evolution. In life - human or otherwise - there has always been misery of one form or another. Overcrowding will simply be a different form of misery. I think it's bound to happen, and to swing this back around towards where the topic came from, it's bound to happen whether or not PETA gets its way.
Hmmm... Overpopulation is, well, a myth. Demographic experts are now saying that the human population will grow to about 8 billion by 2050 and then start to decline... Lack of food is also a myth, but dont take my word for it, check out
http://www.fumento.com/stats/overpop.html
Its looking more and more a hijack... sorry |
Maglev
"The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
--Douglas Adams, on evolutionary biology. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2003 : 07:00:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Overpopulation is, well, a myth. Demographic experts are now saying that the human population will grow to about 8 billion by 2050 and then start to decline... Lack of food is also a myth
Actually, it is about 9 billion people in 2050. The article you referenced is rather simplistic. As far as no lack of food... If all of the people were spread evenly throught the world then what the article states would be true unfortunately people are in localized areas and will continue to live in localized areas. We can expect to see terrible bouts of starvation (like currently happens only magnified) everytime the inevitable droughts and famines occur. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2003 : 13:07:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Originally posted by Maglev
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Too many humans" generally means that humans will die as a result of overpopulation. That's selection for you, the driving force behind evolution. In life - human or otherwise - there has always been misery of one form or another. Overcrowding will simply be a different form of misery. I think it's bound to happen, and to swing this back around towards where the topic came from, it's bound to happen whether or not PETA gets its way.
Hmmm... Overpopulation is, well, a myth. Demographic experts are now saying that the human population will grow to about 8 billion by 2050 and then start to decline... Lack of food is also a myth, but dont take my word for it, check out
http://www.fumento.com/stats/overpop.html
Its looking more and more a hijack... sorry
Actually, it is about 9 billion people in 2050. The article you referenced is rather simplistic. As far as no lack of food... If all of the people were spread evenly throught the world then what the article states would be true unfortunately people are in localized areas and will continue to live in localized areas. We can expect to see terrible bouts of starvation (like currently happens only magnified) everytime the inevitable droughts and famines occur.
Nine billion humans? Ho, ho, ho! And how many will be driving HUMMERs, SUVs or other light trucks? How many will be using air conditioning? Pollution alone will either poison us all or cook us all well before we see the 9,000,000,000 mark.  |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
