@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote: Asked another way, how many tools are in nature's toolbox?
Well, so far we have discovered two. Matter and energy, inluding their opposites. Oh yeah and forces. so that makes three. What is the opposite of a force. I mean when described intervally, matter is positive, gravity ( a force) is negative, and light is 0. So wait, that makes four in a sense.
Forces, matter, energy, light (which can be defined either way). Is nature a toolbox or a tool? And we are the manipulaters. I'd much rather see it that way.:a-ok:. Because we have causality expressed artificially, like we are a clone of nature's construct, living within its container.
:lol:Fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy set theory is to analog as the common comtemporary view is to binary, digital.
:a-thought:Artificial Neural networks perhaps don't work to establish consciousness because they are concisely precise in relation to the cause and effect. If an exact cause is stated or inputed then execute the exact output to coincide with the initial.
Conscious would imply a margin, not lineality to cause and effect links. Here is the causality of the conscious mind.
[ATTACH]18[/ATTACH]
Intention through a limited perspective allows for cause and effect to gradient. Now what is the force that allows for that gradient or is it simply limited perspective? Consider the star shape itself. I could have made it any shape, it makes no difference as long as there is a boundary, which is like the limits of our insight. Here is causality of computer processor.
[ATTACH]19[/ATTACH]
Artificial is linear and there is no limited perspective because the computer has the full perspective of the knowledge it is processing for its intentions. Consider the outer lines in the second picture. They are like the perspective, but they are not there, because they are not part of any cause.
[CENTER]Now what would the diagrams look like if causality worked in a cycle?
[/CENTER]