Bruno: corn starch is not a fluid (newtinian or not). It is a solid and when dissolved in water (or whatever?) it makes a N.N.fluid ---------My question about it's 'live, or not' status is: does it provide METABOLISM and REPAIR ????? I doubt it. Do not misunderstand me, please: this is not my word about :"LIFE" it pertains to the LIVE STATUS (process) which - according to Robert Rosen's brilliant distinction - shows a relying upon environmental (material??) support for its substinence (called metabolism) and a mechanism to repair damages that occur in the process of being alive.
Minds with chemistry impediment look differently at things. John M PS: I could not enjoy the video in the URL: I got a warning to close it down because it slows down my browser (to 0).J On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:23:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> > They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have >> > is, at what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you >> > think that those blobs have experiences already? >> > >> > Would it give them more of a human experience if an oscillating >> > smiley-face/frowny-face algorithm were added graphically into the >> > center of each blob? >> >> >> Here is a "deterministic" simple phenomenon looking amazingly >> "alive" (non-newtonian fluid): >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=3zoTKXXNQIU<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zoTKXXNQIU> >> >> Is it alive? That question does not make sense for me. Yes with some >> definition, no with other one. Unlike consciousness or intelligence >> "life" is not a definite concept for me. I use usually the definition >> "has a reproductive cycle". But this makes cigarettes and stars alive. >> No problem for me. >> >> Bruno >> > > "The good news is, after this operation you'll be every bit as alive as a > cigarette is". > > There are some cool videos out there of cymatic animation like that. All > that it really tells me is that there are a limited number of morphological > themes in the universe, not that those themes are positively linked to any > particular private phenomenology. They are producing those patterns with a > particular acoustic signal, but we could model it mathematically and see > the same pattern on a video screen without any acoustic signal at all. Same > thing happens when we model the behaviors of a conscious mind. It looks > similar from a distance, but that's all. > > Craig > > > >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> >> >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/8-pjDX84CC4J. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
