I think it can at least amount to an imperfect representation (which might be redundant - are all representations different from that which they represent?), perhaps even a perfect one.why assume that mathematics can represent it at all?
Maybe they're Sith. Vim's Palpatine, Stan's either Maul or Vader.i meant more goodside darkside. out of vim and stan, whos darkside and whos goodside, or are they both goodside but could be darkside?
meaning - what? what then is "complexity"?But I think it probably did arise from complexity.
consider a particularly sad piece of music. can you really imagine a fully materialist explanation for the emotion you feel?
science does not assume that consciousness can be represented mathematicallyI think it can at least amount to an imperfect representation (which might be redundant - are all representations different from that which they represent?), perhaps even a perfect one.
By why assume that? A very simple reason is that science assumes that, and we can argue that the corpus of science holds itself together under a shared belief by way of such a mechanism - you believe the working axioms because everyone else does, and the belief is substantiated by the hard and critical thought that goes into it, no?
Well intuitively I think we would both agree that a human is more complex than an amoeba so I don't really feel that the point rests on having a precise definition of complexity.meaning - what? what then is "complexity"?
I would say some of the more advanced scientists do, and just that its a huge knot to untie. What about all the Stuart Hameroffs of the world? The Stuart Kauffmans? Can't lay claim to an understanding of it all, but until such an udnerstanding comes around a more nebulous and unfalsifiable metaphysics might need to hold its place.science does not assume that consciousness can be represented mathematically
All will turn out well.stan go back to basics - WTF is your point in 5 words, at least 3 of which must be less than 5 letters long.
simply saying "complexity" isn't enough to bridge the gap - you don't know why life arose out of non-life and you certainly dont have a mathematical explanation for it sufficient to generate an AIWell intuitively I think we would both agree that a human is more complex than an amoeba so I don't really feel that the point rests on having a precise definition of complexity.
Probably the definition would be something like the amount of information necessary to describe something completely in any terms. Or maybe you could go even simpler and say how many different systems something has or even how many parts I dunno. Not really the point.
I think you're right there, and the task (or one of the tasks) would be to figure out how life arose. And then contrive a mathematics around it, in the interest of an ever more robust techne.simply saying "complexity" isn't enough to bridge the gap - you don't know why life arose out of non-life and you certainly dont have a mathematical explanation for it sufficient to generate an AI