questionposter

But that's exactly how new motorbikes are developed in the first place. Saying something is quantified doesn't automatically make it a physical thing. There's plenty of non-physical things that can easily be quantified. Time can be quantified. Energy can be quantified. Gravity can be quantified. Intelligence can be quantified. Do bacterium know "what" they are doing? Do ants even know "what" they are doing? How do you know? How do you definitively know computers don't know "what" they are doing? Living things are made from things that just have chemical reactions, definitive chemical reactions that have specific causes and specific outcomes. This is the same as a computer except instead of chemical reactions it's 1s and 0s. An input is a chemical reaction and an output is another chemical which causes some reaction which causes another reaction, yet there's still plenty of consciousness.There's already evidence to suggest something can know "what" it's doing even though it's made from things that don't really know "what" they are doing as much in the first place. Computers would basically mimic that of a less complex consciousness. It seems to be exactly the same as how some other plants/animals act.

This sounds like string theory, but its..."too" symmetrical in working. There's still anti-matter and dark matter, very great imbalances, and we need to know how their composite particles add up to make the spins they have and etc before we can determine the thing that causes all particle-ness in the first place. Matter is already more complex than we currently have the knowledge to support. Also, about loops "accelerating". As far as our physics can support, subatomic particles themselves aren't "accelerating", they are in fact "waving", usually perfectly as a sine wave. I myself want to think that everything is made from the same substance, but it could be because of the inherent anti-symmetry of the universe that that isn't so.

A bird randomly develops a limb in place of wings which have two fingers on them which don't work super great, but all the other arm joints are the same. It turns out this is fine as it can still find food with its powerful sense of smell and put it in its mouth with its fingers as well as break things with its beak. Its successful, and then in a couple hundred thousand years, a bird like this one comes along only it randomly develops 3 fingers, and that works out fine. Another couple more hundred thousand years have passed and random changes in the wrist bone structure lead to a bird that can grasp things making it even more successful. Etc.

Energy isn't physical, but I can say an electron has exactly .525*10^-23 joules of energy. But how do you quantify complexity itself then too? I could make a bigger motorcycle engine that doesn't generate as much as a smaller engine. Or I could generate an engine with less parts that goes at the same speed as another energy with more parts. Also, here's a link explaining individual cells themselves have consciousness. Just how it doesn't make sense that a brain is a single thing and has a single consciousness, it might also not make sense that a cell itself is a single thing, not that the articles suggest that, but I'm connecting that to the other part of the topic. Although with your complexity thing, individual particles have a less complex consciousness then? I mean particles do react to things, its just that they aren't living. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htm "The argument I will develop is that both information and physical substrate problems point to one solution; that consciousness is a property of a cell, not a group of cells." and another one http://www.ucl.ac.uk...gfjxe/awnew.htm I distinctly remember the text from 2 years ago. I'm not completely sure it was talking about it that way, which is why I brought it up here. I didn't know there was a way to quantify consciousness, but I remembered things saying that individual cells had consciousness too and there's a bunch of weird stuff in quantum mechanics where particles seem to act as if they "know" whats going on but only in simple manners, so it makes some sense "consciousness" probably doesn't have a formal definition in the same sense "the universe" doesn't have a formal definition. We can look at what we think it is or its properties are, which seem to be awareness of its environment in things which contain an abundance of it or some kind of acting on its own, and it's complexity can seem to vary among different organisms. It also seems to be what a lot of people label as "self awareness", but I don't have any idea how you could ever quantify that or really even measure that. How do we actually know an ant can't chose something? I guess that's another possible definition, the ability to make a choice. I still don't know how to quantify that. When do you draw the line between a choice and just acting on instincts?

Well, uhh, no, we don't, there's also equivalent pieces of evidence suggestion we don't because not only do we not understand how all those pieces fit together exactly, we don't even fully understand the pieces themselves. If the text books aren't accurate somehow, then we don't know either as far as this forum knows. It's like arguing for or against the existence of god. Wait, when did I say consciousness was physical? But also, how does something have more consciousness than something else? How is something more conscious than another thing if consciousness its not quantitative? No, I wouldn't say we do a lot. We know somewhat about what can atoms do, but we don't know a lot about what makes them up or why they are they way they are. There's so many factors and the processes of the brain are so complex that you can't define the brain of an organism based on intelligence or IQ even though they seem to encompass a wide variety of thinking capabilities and operations of a brain. Well, it was more of an exaggeration, but that's just one factor, and yet how that one factor varies seems to greatly effect things like memory and cognitive thinking. http://nymag.com/new...951/index1.html I mean I would agree we have some progress, but we are thousands of years from being able to just download martial arts into people's brains. I'm still not seeing where I said consciousness is a physical thing. All I said is I saw some text in some biology books that quantified consciousness. Time isn't physical, but you can quantify it. Energy is a physical thing in of itself, but you can add up energy or subtract it anyway. Consciousness could easily be a "result", but that's the same as adding the answers of "1+1" and "2+2", which gives a definitive real number of "6". I'm pretty sure I didn't misread the text books, but what else could it have meant?

Well, I heard news reports about problems with the vaccines farm animals receive and even talked to a chef who worked for Oice's (probably local restaurant) who said the sushi-grade tuna (raw tuna you can eat) was raised especially to not have harmful germs. Then there's even things like socking thin layers of raw mean in lemon jiuce to kill the bacteria. Point is, we do all kinds of things to kill the germs in meat, because for some reason you normally can't naturally adapt raw meat from the wild. Maybe its because of that cold thing where there's many mutations, or maybe because of the bacterial/viral load varies, idk.

I don't have the text books anymore, it was a while ago and I just remembered these questions, but they were around 800 pages and it was called "Biology", and a few said something close to or exactly as "...a single cell is the smallest single unit of consciousness..." And sure, intelligence is different, but not only do we not really understand how that works still, there's literally millions of factors and we don't completely understand how most of those fit in with everything in the brain. If I don't get enough sleep, I have the IQ of a clinically mentally retarded person. If I get a lot of sleep and eat well, I have an IQ higher than Einstein.

I noticed people said they eat other raw meats such as fish and lamp, but those animals are especially raised and/or given anti-bacterial vaccines and taken care of as to not have harmful bacteria in their muscles and fat. I'm talking about basically just eating a wild animal or an animal that isn't specially raised.

Dictionary.com has multiple definitions here. http://dictionary.re...e/consciousness I don't know what it is exactly in science myself, all I know is that biology, specifically from multiple textbooks, seems to define single cells carrying a single unit of it, so one cell contains a single unit of consciousness. But it would also make sense for some of the things is quantum mechanics, specifically the things that depend on the mere measurement of something. There's also stuff like IQ and the quantitative measurement of intelligence and thinking capacity, but I'm not a big fan of those because we don't know exactly what intelligence is or exactly why and how thinking is the way it is.

ATP is basically a naturally rechargeable battery, why not just manufacture that? It completely solves the problem of storing energy and it already makes use of the energy the Earth already recieves. Just let ADP sit out outside during the daytime so that it becomes ATP, then just put it in an car designed to use it little bits at a time to transform the energy released from it into mechanical energy.

But since there's no observable boundary, any contraction we're seeing could be local in an even larger area of space than we know of, perhaps even infinite. Maybe even what we're seeing isn't the effect of a big bang, but of some other lesser shock waves, or properties of the fabric of space which still remain unknown. There's virtually no way to actually test any of it. The best thing we can do is measure from our relative position how other galaxies appear to be moving away from us, which as far as we can see in our current observable universe is relatively constant. Actually, it's not even necessarily that, it's just that the photons themselves get stretched out in wavelength as they travel great distances, the galaxies themselves are already doing something different by the time their light reaches us.

How do you get consciousness from no consciousness? You can't. That's why molecules and atoms and particles themselves have to contain less than a single unit of consciousness. A single cell is the smallest singular unit of consciousness, but, 0+0 doesn't equal 1. Things like .5+.5=1, or .25+.25+.25+.25=1. But, this is pretty easy logic and it might help explain why quantum physics is so weird which is why I think it's been thought of before, so is there official quantitative any measurements of consciousness for things less than a single cell? I mean I know people who still think viruses are living things at least partially, but they're way smaller than bacterium even. Is there even a name for this type of thing in science? Like maybe micro-consciousness or something?

But how could electrons be a perfect sphere if they are so delocalized? A sphere isn't an undefined or unlocalized shape, it's a definite shape, and then when you actually observe an electron, it's merely a point. Maybe there's forces pulling the different points of an electron and protons by relation of triangles all the way around into a sphere, as in you can draw straight lines from where a proton "can" be to where an electron "can" be and get a definite shape, but the particles themselves don't act like that.

If it was coal then that means it had once harbored life which there's no evidence for. It's just elements that happen to absorb optical light really well, which is anything that's black basically, whether its plastic or metal or etc. It doesn't seem to be made a lot of combustible gases either or we'd be seeing more light.

How come no matter how many times you live through eating raw meat, your body doesn't make the right anti-bodies for it even though you survived it? I know different meat has different germs, but how come you will get sick the same way no matter how many times you eat raw chicken? You'd think you would have figured out a way to beat salmonella if your still alive after the first time.

How can an electron be a sphere when there's no gravity to pull it into a sphere? Shouldn't it be more like a wavey blob with a relative shape?

So we know that there's matter, and then we know there's anti-matter. How do scientists know just from that when we have no evidence about the big bang itself or before that there should be equal parts of matter and anti-matter or that they should have annihilated each other completely? Yeah, there's less anti-matter, but obviously that's just the result of how matter/anti-matter naturally work. There's just naturally a process where unknown particles create different properties that add up to make only specific things and break down and build up in only specific ways, so where did all these assumptions come from?

Right now, we have no idea. We don't have enough information to answer this with an sort of precision. The only things we can say is that as far as we know, the universe has no specific observable boundary, and that if you go back in time the observable universe seems to take on a denser and hotter state.

So what? Great, now their saying the observable universe is 93 billion light years.

Well it just seems like something is missing. So if the electron was spinning, would it be accelerating just if it was spinning in a way that it would have to radiate its energy awayor not?

Wait, where did you find this out? What would possibly cause them to go faster than light anyway? Couldn't it just be that since neutrinos are so small that at a certain high-enough energy state their wave functions take the shape of something with a very large radius as to cause a neutrino to appear past where it would appear if sub-atomic particles were just particles traveling near the speed of light?

It still seems like an electron is doing something similar to spinning, like it has angular momentum. Perhaps spin is just the pattern at which an electron waves at or appears.

There's virtually no way to even test some a lot of the theoretical stuff. We can't test tiny 4 dimensional fold in the fabric of space, that's like string theory or an educated guess, there isn't even a way to prove there's an actual fabric of space, it could just be how force carrier particle's act in a vacuum or some other unknown forces. Also, I thought calabi yau space was a part of the whole "what is the fabric of space?" thing anyway http://en.wikipedia....%93Yau_manifold

Ok, spin in classical terms is an object rotating. How does an electron act? It acts like other things, but ALSO like that. I think it's semi-classical because it's not just a wave, it's also a particle, so I think it is spinning, it's just not in completely the same way we'd expect or the cause for it is different, I don't see any other way to get a rotating magnetic field.

Now that I look at it, I think he just googled some kind of complex number thing but he doesn't know how it works. Literally, he might just be trying to make him/herself look smart.