Leaderboard

I've seen these in your other post. You have called them there, "laws" because you were asked about "laws". Now you call them "principles" because you are asked about "principles." In any case, they are neither scientific laws, nor scientific principles you are asked about, but generic statements in logic and philosophy. They only help avoid errors in thinking, but they do not forbid any natural phenomena.

Jamie Maussan, a UFO researcher, is showing this evidence TO the government of Mexico. He's the one making the claims, not the government of Mexico. That's the way I read this story.

Well, there appears to be widespread belief across the internet that Sadiq Khan misrepresented his Scientific report. This appears to have gone unchallenged. There also appears to be no notable challenge from anyone regarding Peter Fortune's allegations. This would make me suspect that disbelieving Peter Fortune's allegations could fall into the category of conspiracy theory. Also, as the accusations against Sadiq Khan are so widespread across the internet, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide any further documentation whatsoever. It is your responsibility to do your own due-diligence, and the accusation is well reported enough and notable enough that you can easily find copious amounts of results yourself by simply consulting any of many internet platforms, including Google.

The original ULEZ area in London was tiny, so the improvement will be tiny. You can't put all improvement down to ULEZ anyway, because cars are getting less polluting constantly, as old ones are scrapped and new ones are bought. You would have to compare the improvement to a non-ULEZ equivalent, to get a truer picture of any effect. There will of course be SOME effect, but it's likely to be tiny, and only in certain weather, because the wind will play a huge part generally.

Yes, the claim about the child that had air pollution as the reason for death on the death certificate is in fact true, I believe. Perhaps someone with Scientific knowledge could confirm just how a coroner could possibally know for a fact that a child's death was directly caused by air pollution. If nobody can, then I may consider this diagnosis to also be unscientific. I will be honest, my concern is that Low Emission Zones are just cash cows.

I cannot be conscious. In act of human agency, my parents got together and started a bioware program which oversaw the metabolizing of air, hydrocarbons and trace minerals to feed the growth of a self-assembling neural network. The neural net has a sophisticated system of heuristic and self-programming algorithms running in a massively parallel cortical stack architecture with both digital and analog aspects of neural signaling. This assembly is guided by a blind and nonsentient evolutionary process of several billion years duration, and there is clearly no principle which would introduce consciousness or agency into the development process. Further evidence of my lack of consciousness is my constant repetition of primitive survival programs, reproductive programs (even when completely useless towards procreation), and notable lack of novel strategies for obtaining dinner or maintaining wakefulness when input stimuli drop below a critical threshold. I do not possess intrinsic impetus. All my behaviors are programmed by a blind process. My consciousness would be impossible, as my design precludes it!

The government of Mexico is not saying any such thing. They are conducting an enquiry, that is all, and this apparent fraudster* Jaime Maussan has presented these objects as evidence. It should hardly need saying that you need to be extremely circumspect about YouTube videos. * QUOTE: In 2015, Maussan, who reported the existence of the "Nazca mummy," led an event called "Be Witness," at which a mummified body, purportedly of an alien, was unveiled. However, Maussan's alleged "alien" discovery was later debunked, and the mummified corpse was shown to be that of a human child. UNQUOTE From: https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/09/13/alien-corpses-mexican-congress/ P.S. I see, from later on in that linked article, that Avi Loeb has got in on the act again - though not in relation to these dodgy dolls - airing his speculative ideas about Oumuamua.

They simply look too stereotypical. With all the variety we see on Earth, what are the odds they'll look anything like us? Could argue some commonalities are going to be necessary for a space faring race. Tool usage and social behaviour for example, but beyond that?

Not real. I saw a news article on this... https://apnews.com/article/extraterrestrials-ufo-mexico-congress-af7d54fabf3278ef83c39d899c457c76 In 2017, Maussan made similar claims in Peru, and a report by the country’s prosecutor’s office found that the bodies were actually “recently manufactured dolls, which have been covered with a mixture of paper and synthetic glue to simulate the presence of skin.”

My grandfather. He did not really resist, just said some things here and there. It was enough for a neighbor to report him, for the "legal system" to find him guilty and to send him to gulag where he disappeared, to detach one of two rooms in the apartment where his family lived and to give it to the neighbor.

So I did a bit of research, and it turns out that the Sámi, which are the indigenous people of the Nordic countries, are basically indistinguishable from the Inuit. This map show the present homeland of the Sámi (Sámpi) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sámi#/media/File:LocationSapmi.png Here is a map showing the regions my genes come from(Which matches what I know from my family tree)The small Northern regions show some overlap with the Sámi regions, and I know my ancestors were from the Northern parts of those regions So it is not a stretch to assume that the 2% tagged as Inuit is Sámi, and with that bit of info, the results make a bit more sense.

There is research showing the effect of air pollution on health and also research showing the improvement in London air quality since the original central area ULEZ was created. It's probably too soon to have research directly on the impact on health of ULEZ, as these health effects become apparent over a period of many years, but it would seem quite reasonable to infer from the above that ULEZ has a beneficial impact. (I'm in London and the air is still filthy: I can wipe a black film off the glass topped table in the garden after only 24hrs.) P.S. It looks from this link that there is a study now in the works to see what difference to health ULEZ is making: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.04.21251049v1.full.pdf. But we'll need to wait for some years before it reports, of course.

Artificial consciousness would obey the laws of nature. This makes it a natural phenomenon.

(System was sticking multiple replies together while I was typing this, but end up putting one reply by itself anyway.) Oh, the people who downvoted the post above that was answering 4 people at the same time? Uh, you had better be the same people I'm answering to right now. Being Mr. Horse from Ren & Stimpy won't help you understand anything. Are you sure you aren't just encouraging me? ...I have 27000 fake internet points on Reddit so do you think I care about those? Look up a page on law of contradiction. What does it say? It says it's interchangeable with several other terms, including principles. Natural phenomena, like artificial consciousness? Please clarify what you meant. p.s. Correlation does not imply causation applies to physics.

One child died of asthma, a few years ago, and the coroner claimed that the death was linked to vehicle emissions. For that reason, the case got huge publicity in the press, even though children die of asthma in the countryside too. So now, the whole of London has to turn cartwheels and pay through the nose, just because Kahn thought that there would be votes in it for him. It's actually the poorer section who will have to pay, the richer ones' vehicles are probably exempt, due to being newer, or electric. When I were a lad, you had smogs in London that really did kill people, asthmatic or otherwise. We had it tough. Who'd a' thought that global warming would cause such an deluge of snowflakes?

Therein lays the rub. You're assuming that the device is built on the title question of "is it possible." I'm not, because my argument (if you even bother to read it) goes ground-up. You on the other hand, already presumes the answer. You know what it is you're doing, right? Yeah, okay I'll ignore your rubbish for a second to say this: You only stated effectively "consciousness is a continuum" and not "consciousness necessarily exist in all things" That doesn't contradict anything I say.

I see that you don't want to answer my question. It shows that you are a troll. There is no point to continue.

Sure. the point is that there ARE relativistic effects that don't. There is a need of a complete model, otherwise we're relying on producing symptoms via functionalism and behaviorism. Practical models don't have to be complete. Doesn't matter where I'm citing the paper from unless the information is bad. If I have to issue a correction inserting the word "certain" in front of the word "relativistic," sure. Doesn't change my point. I've contacted my editor. You keep ignoring the crux of the issue and therefore you're a troll. Bye.

First definition: "Humanly contrived" - Merriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial Edit: Actually, a much better word to look at is artifact: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artifact Look at sense 2A. Human agency is involved. If you look at the rest of my article, you will see the importance. There are multiple issues with your last sentence. I've covered those in my article. Do people read my argument before engaging with it? 1) Machines don't learn. AI textbooks readily admit to this. The term isn't being used in its usual English sense of the word: ...The textbook applied the definition to a spreadsheet. Yes, updating Microsoft Excel is in this sense "machine learning." 2) Intention involves a subject matter. There's no such thing in an algorithm. A machine's internal operation is utterly isolated from external reality. It is dealing with a one-dimensional operative reality that is divorced from referents and thus isolated from the causal world. I gave two demonstrations illustrating this (The "Chinese Room" reference in the first demonstration was referring to Searle's famous Chinese Room Argument demonstrating semantics to be insufficient for syntax): 3) There's zero understanding. See above. To even understand something, this "something" must be a referent. Think of it this way- What is a conscious thought without even a subject? Now, look at the above two demonstrations on how a machine works. An algorithm is referentially empty. You, as a programmer, is responsible for a machine's operation along with the hardware designer that designed the hardware. Sure. this is the reference I used in my article (which no one saw, because nobody reads my argument before engaging with it: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266515947_Relativistic_effects_on_satellite_navigation You're not arguing, you're asserting. "X is true because I said so." - Many people in this forum That's GPS. I was talking about satellite navigation.

Then why is it even called artificial consciousness instead of natural consciousness? Please give this a bit more thought. What "design"? From whom, God? That's what you're saying?

Spot the non-sequitur. This has, of course, bugger all to do with climate change. London has been found to have poor air quality, especially along busy trunk roads where poorer people tend to live, sufficient to have adverse impact on health. The fact that it was worse in the 1950s is no kind of argument for saying it is acceptable now. Please provide substantiation of this allegation that does not rely on a YouTube video. YouTube is full of crap. (And that fat git with the glasses is the moron who said you can grow concrete, so we can safely discount anything he has to say.😄) By the way, it's called Imperial College, not The Imperial College.

You don't want to read? Okay, sure. 1. Principle of non-contradiction (philosophy of logic) What is "programming without programming"? An "instruction without an instruction"? A "artifact that's not an artifact?" Upon deeper examination (read the article) the concept of "artificial consciousness" is self-contradictory. 2. Principle of underdetermination of scientific theory (philosophy of science) The long of it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/ Since (of course) you're not going to read that, you may have heard of various related sayings surrounding the concept: “Correlation does not imply causation” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation , “All models are wrong, some are useful” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong , and last but not least, “The map is not the territory” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation Once again people... Please... READ THE ARGUMENT. I don't want to constantly rehash, only to be accused of re-assertion. Good grief. Two editors from two publications and four different professors read every last word- Why can't you?