Philip Benjamin  Monday, May 9, 2022 9:13 AM '' 
Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

[Philip Benjamin]
As for Wikipedia, there is no contradiction here! As far as chemistry is 
concerned an atom is the smallest unit of matter for any chemical bonds. No 
atom, no chemistry. As for the British Encyclopedia, "without the release of 
electrically charged particles" (i.e. before division into constituent 
fundamental particles) is the keynote. It is high time that the sciences think 
in terms of Dark atoms and their Dark chemistries.
    Brilliant Niels Bohr and his ardent followers did not think in terms of 
chemistry. There are physicists who still think of Socialist PAGAN Hitler and 
Marxist PAGAN Stalin and Fascist PAGAN Mussolini or appeaser-occultist PAGAN 
Neville  Chamberlain still carrying out their activities in the Many Worlds!!  
Absurdly, they have no need of a Many World chemistry!!  There are eminent 
physicists who follow the late brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking in proposing 
"self-creation" of the Universe (Many Worlds?), without being aware of the 
basic logical Law of Noncontradiction" and the basic laws of chemistry.
Philip Benjamin
(Nonconformist to anarchist Marxist pagan globalism of WAMP-the-Ingrate)

From: 'Rosemary   via Consciousness-Online<>>
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 3:02 PM Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Is 
Artificial Life Conscious?

Dear Philip,

Definition from Encyclopaedia Britannica
An atom, is the smallest unit into which matter can be divided without the 
release of electrically charged particles. It is also the smallest unit of 
matter that has the 
 properties of a chemical 
 As such, the atom is the basic building block of 

Definition according to Wikipedia
An atom is the smallest unit of ordinary 
 that forms a chemical 
 is composed of neutral or 
 atoms. Atoms are extremely small, typically around 100 
 across. They are so small that accurately predicting their behavior using 
 if they were tennis 
 for example-is not possible due to quantum 

Overall, it appears that 'science' has multiple definitions for a thing, and a 
very long time ago it was established that it is impossible to determine laws 
or theses until all one's terms are defined - that you have a common language.

And I have just discovered three definitions, none of which agree, about one of 
the most important things in chemistry and physics. It is no wonder no women 
want to go into science as it is now, as the first thing a woman [or child] 
would ask is - yes but what is it? And the answer seems to be 'scientists' 
don't know.

Incidentally one could argue logically that if there are no definitions that 
can be agreed upon, no 'science' has taken place for quite a long time. It 
seems that your red and my red and wikipedia's red and britannica's red are all 

I find it quite extraordinary that two respected sources [and a third if we 
count your good self] can't produce a common definition. Is your particle 
Britannica's particle? Where are particles in Wikipedia?

I am not trying to be obstructive here, but there are billions in schools and 
universities being taught this stuff - why on earth should they bother if the 
top brass can't even agree on fundamentals?

The only thing that seems common is that 'something' exhibits properties that 
tell you what it is. But how it does this is unknown, apparently because no one 
has bothered to ask - which let's face it is not very scientific.

Maybe some more fundamental thinking needs to be undertaken going back to some 
fundamental 'truths' that can be agreed upon.

best wishes


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To view this discussion on the web visit

Reply via email to