Jean Louis <b...@static.rcdrun.com> writes:
> * Van Ly via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of
> other Emacs mailing lists <emacs-tangents@gnu.org> [2025-03-31 14:55]:
>> Is consciousness fundamental or inevitable? Where do you stand?
>
> Consciousness as alert cognitive state in which you are aware of
> yourself and your situation is obviously neither fundamental nor
> inevitable. Just turn around yourself, and you can see people walking
> like zombies or making wars, thinking how to kill other people.
>
> Computer can't be never aware of itself, it can mimic the awareness
> and mimic the survival urges for human to anthropomorphize it.
>
> Consciousness is quality only akin to the being, which is you. If you
> think of yourself as only a body, so be it, and if you think of
> yourself as spiritual being, so it is the same. You may be or not be
> conscious.
>
> It is not inevitable.
>
> It is not necessarily fundamental.
>
> Though maybe you think of consciousness in some other definition.
Natural philosophy science of the mind in 8-bit atari graphic resolution
simulcrom.
So, the Starliner had 28 thrusters and 4 failed leaving no failover coverage
remaining.
Maybe, 8✕1 serial and 8✕4 parallel p‑nodes are needed for Starship ITS AI and
the Tenstorrent RISC-V hardware will do for modernizing the Cray-1 general
purpose open free architecture.
Do Linuxheads make jokes at the expense of Plan 9? Why is that?
>
>> Suppose, a synthetic consciousness mind machine is instantiated and
>> has done the thing and the switch is turned off.
>
> We never perish.
>
> (defun discuss-consciousness (standpoint)
> "Simulate a discussion about consciousness with Van Ly.
> STANDPOINT should be a string representing the position on whether
> consciousness is fundamental or inevitable."
> (interactive "sWhere do you stand on consciousness
> (fundamental/inevitable/other)? ")
> (let ((responses '(("fundamental" . "Consciousness is not necessarily
> fundamental.")
> ("inevitable" . "Consciousness is not inevitable.")
> ("other" . "You may have a different definition of
> consciousness.")
> )))
> (let ((response (cdr (assoc standpoint responses))))
> (if response
> (message "%s" response)
> (message "Is consciousness fundamental or inevitable? Where do you
> stand?")))
> (when (or (string-equal standpoint "fundamental")
> (string-equal standpoint "inevitable")
> (string-equal standpoint "other"))
> (message "Consciousness as an alert cognitive state is neither
> fundamental nor inevitable. "
> "It is akin to the being, which is you. You may be or not be
> conscious.")
> (message "Computer can't be never aware of itself, it can mimic
> awareness and survival urges."))
> (when (or (string-equal standpoint "fundamental")
> (string-equal standpoint "other"))
> (message "Suppose a synthetic consciousness mind machine is
> instantiated and the switch is turned off. "
> "We never perish. Though if you are conscious about that or
> not, that is your decision."))))
>
> (discuss-consciousness "other")
Can your code snippet be represented in a 512-bit vectorframe? To what extent
are the number of bits needed for context?
You are trying to be funny or macabre, or both. But you are not.
--
vl
---
via emacs-tangents mailing list
(https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
