[barmar]

Today's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is apropos:

http://www.smbc-comi...=comics&id=3161

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-31, 09:45, said:

Except in some very unusual cases, none of which spring to mind, of course the relationship is causal. And in any case, it would require some supernatural agent to enable our consciousness to continue to exist while our brains are worm food or ashes.

Perhaps. But the supernatural agent need not, itself, be conscious; in which case I would not call it a god.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-31, 09:45, said:

it would require some supernatural agent to enable our consciousness to continue to exist while our brains are worm food or ashes.

hmmm ... I think I disagree, except in the trivial sense that if 2+2=5 then everything is true (including the existence of god).

People who believe that the mind can exist independently of the brain, and therefore interpret out-of-body-experiences literally, and believe in reincarnation etc, are probably prone to believe in many weird things, spiritual and otherwise. But in principle I see nothing inconsistent in believing that the mind is made of some strange stuff that isn't bound to our 3-dimensional space, while at the same time not believing in god.

[blackshoe]

Why is there Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal on Thursday?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-31, 16:04, said:

Why is there Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal on Thursday?

SMBC is so good, it comes out every day.

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2013-October-31, 12:29, said:

Perhaps. But the supernatural agent need not, itself, be conscious; in which case I would not call it a god.

Completely off topic, the best book I have ever read on the effect of consciousness is, of all things, a science fiction novel: Blindsight, by Watts.

It posits the discovery in near-space of a structure that, on investigation, is the work of a space-traveling form of intelligent life that lacks consciousness. At the same time, humans have identified a sub variant of homo sapiens that underlies vampire myths, and have been able to 'civilize' such people, but one of their characteristics is that while they are very intelligent, they, too, lack consciousness.

It sounds weird, especially the vampire bit, but it isn't 'fantasy' fiction. It is in fact what is called 'hard science fiction' in that nothing in its imagined world is inconsistent with our current understanding of physics....no warp drive, no magic. And vampirism doesn't bestow eternal life nor does a stake in the heart constitute the only sure way of killing them

His main idea seems to be that consciousness comes at a real price: that intelligence that lacks self-awareness is likely to be far more efficient than our messy version, but that is very definitely, from our perspective, bad news.

I have seen Blindsight deservedly, imo, on lists of the best science fiction novels of all time, but I also know that it didn't sell well, perhaps because Watts is not a widely known writer, and partly because science fiction is very much a niche market. If by writing about the book, I can get him some sales, so much the better

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2013-October-31, 13:56, said:

hmmm ... I think I disagree, except in the trivial sense that if 2+2=5 then everything is true (including the existence of god).

People who believe that the mind can exist independently of the brain, and therefore interpret out-of-body-experiences literally, and believe in reincarnation etc, are probably prone to believe in many weird things, spiritual and otherwise. But in principle I see nothing inconsistent in believing that the mind is made of some strange stuff that isn't bound to our 3-dimensional space, while at the same time not believing in god.

Yes, fine, but the majority of, eg Christians, believe that Jesus provides eternal life.

[blackshoe]

Laurence Watts? I remember that name, though I don't remember reading him.

[nige1]

IMO, consciousness is simply the ability of your brain

• to collate relevant stimuli and memories
• to create an imaginary model of reality with you and your internal processes as part of that model
• treating yourself as a unique distinct self-aware active agent,
• so that you can estimate the effect of your actions on yourself and reality in a purposeful way,
• icing on the cake is being able to verbalise this so that other conscious beings understand.

Under such an interpretation, a computer-program can pass any Turing-Test for consciousness.

Incidentally, the soul is the God particle (Genesis 2:7)

[mike777]

nige1, on 2013-November-02, 15:24, said:

IMO, consciousness is simply the ability of your brain

• to collate relevant stimuli and memories
• to create an imaginary model of reality with you and your internal processes as part of that model
• treating yourself as a unique distinct self-aware active agent,
• so that you can estimate the effect of your actions on yourself and reality in a purposeful way,
• icing on the cake is being able to verbalise this so that other conscious beings understand.

Under such an interpretation, a computer-program can pass any Turing-Test for consciousness.

Incidentally, the soul is the God particle (Genesis 2:7)

Not so simple. I doubt this is generally accepted as a definition and measure. As I understand it still no accepted definition and way to measure and compare.

[32519]

Which is heavier?
1. A kilogram of feathers, or
2. A kilogram of gold.

[Zelandakh]

The kilogram of feathers is heavier, since gold is measured in troy weight and that is lighter than a standard gram. If using the same measure then the question is obviously trivial.

[Trinidad]

I would say that it depends on whether the chicken is still attached to the feathers.

Rik

[helene_t]

if by "heavier" you mean "have bigger weight" while by "a kilogram of ..." you mean "a quantity with mass 1 kg" then the gold is heavier because of Archimedes' law (it replaces less air). But maybe that is not what the question means .....

[gwnn]

I expect that in any normal measurement if you get 1.00kg in a weighing scale, there would be significantly less than 1 kg of actual feathers due to the air packed next to them (even leaving aside the air trapped inside each individual feather). Conversely, if you put 1 kg of actual feathers in a large bag and weighed it, it would be significantly heavier than 1.00 kg.

edit: how could I forget about buoyancy! It is a complete game changer!

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2013-November-06, 05:24, said:

if by "heavier" you mean "have bigger weight" while by "a kilogram of ..." you mean "a quantity with mass 1 kg" then the gold is heavier because of Archimedes' law (it replaces less air). But maybe that is not what the question means .....

When I, as a European, came to the USA one of the first things I had to do was take a short course on a technical scientific subject. At that time (and perhaps still), many american engineers and scientists didnot have any idea about how the SI system works. Neither did they have a feeling of the size of the units. Okay, a kg is somewhat more than 2 pounds and a liter a little over a quart, but this thing about the difference between mass, weight and force?!? Way too complicated.

After seeing several instructors struggle with their SI units, there was one instructor who had understood it all (or had he?). He could clarify what a Newton was: "If you want to get an idea what a Newton is: It is roughly the mass of an apple.".

Rik

[32519]

What is lighter than a feather, yet a thousand men cannot lift it?

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2013-November-06, 08:46, said:

What is lighter than a feather, yet a thousand men cannot lift it?

Guess 32519's posting ban has expired...

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2013-November-06, 08:55, said:

Guess 32519's posting ban has expiredbeen lifted...

FYP

[Trinidad]

32519, on 2013-November-06, 08:46, said:

What is lighter than a feather, yet a thousand men cannot lift it?

Spoiler

The Higgs boson

Rik