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 <whatsons...@gmail.com>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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to