Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=transformers+robots&oq=transformers+robot&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l4.5268.14977.0.17423.8.6.0.2.2.1.390.1814.2-3j3.6.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2j1.4.psy-ab.KlDxi4m1g50&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.cGE&fp=298aa0ebeef20938&biw=1309&bih=709

Fil, so, if that's the closest mathematics has come to representing the complexity of the behavior of life itself including life's evolvability... what still remains unrepresented.. in your opinion?

Oh, you're talking about "animation." LOL

Good point, Matt. It seems to me that virtually all of our cognitive difficulties with Reality can be described as "modeling problems": we live in a world of definitions of the situation *(a sociological notion) and models of Reality.

*It is concluded by qualitative sociologists that we respond not just to situations but to our definitions of situations.

It was a joke about the movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/
You were implying that self-organizing machine must be very complex.
They don't have to be BTW... but I gotta go back into the real world for a bit.

Matt, can you explain why it is allowed in this experiment to allow the machine that reproduces itself to access material outside of itself... surely the machine 'should' only be able to use itself as the material for creating a duplicate of itself...or is that not attempted because that scenario is obviously on the face of it impossible?

Of course realize you're kidding, Cis

Eventually however robots will be just like us in every way except possibly they'll be dry inside where we're wet

Your forgetting about the "oil" in stuff dale...even digital stuff always leads to analogue perceptions remember...oh never mind me...where did I jump from wet and dry to analogue or digital as continuous or quantized...oh wait gases that was it, fluids !

Of course Fil the early models will require some joint lubrication, while doubtless most batteries will be of the wet type

Eventually though the robot will be built chemically just as we are, will be hardly distinguishable from us without DNA analysis

Ig if no trouble can we have a link to the experiment to which you refer

I don't know how right a person I am to answer this question Ig.
I didn't post the video it is in regards to, and don't have much familiarity with the experiment in question.
There are some "real world" examples of self-assembly.
The first that comes to mind are prions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
Prions are simple proteins which can catalyze themselves. Prions are pretty well studied, and are stable enough to even exist against the onslaught and ravenous hunger of all the microbiotic life forms on this planet.
It would be pretty unlikely to find many other protein self assemblers, because of what a monopoly life has placed on the organic compounds on this planet. Pretty much anything that can be eaten, is eaten.

Yes context is important.
Framing... of an interaction.
Do we approach this thread as a debate, or a discussion... do we perceive the comments as constructive, or offensive... the frame is socially and psychologically very important.

I find your comments very constructive, by the way.

Thank you JL for expressing this. I've felt this but couldn't put it in words.

We have quite a few robots in our manufacturing facility. They do almost all of the actual production. We do have people that move materials, but robots could certainly do that also. It's just a matter of cost. We also have people that keep the robots running, but more and more they have predictive maintenance and could take care of themselves. Some or our machines order their own materials too. There are facilities that are very highly automated. Most electronic production is too small for humans.

I know that robots are being used in many companies now including moving of materials, manufacturing, and inventory control. However, I'm not aware of any robot making itself without the assistance of humans providing the necessary materials, utilities, and programming.

Brain farts are like ****. You digest information, then **** out information. **** stinks. My question is why all the noise? Claiming to be wise surely means you don't know. Our ancestors said "If you find yourself, you'll loose yourself. When you loose yourself, you'll find yourself." In other words, if you think you know, you don't know. When you realize you don't know, you understand the question without the answer.

The question must come before the answer. If you see the question as the answer, then your more lost than the ones who see the question for what it is. The meaning of this reality (question) is truth (answer).

Love not the **** .

The question is the joke which is hilarious . Wait for the punchline. It's mind blowing!

In regards to a very simplistic model, here is a very simple one:

Conways Game of Life (an example of very simple cellular automata)
*Take a grid (square grid).
*Each cell in the grid only interacts with it's 8 neighbors.
If cell is white look at neighbors.
---If 2-3 neighbors are white, then stay white, otherwise turn black.
If cell is black look at neighbors..
---If 3 neighbors are white, then turn white, otherwise stay black.

This is much less complex than the way atoms (chemically) interact BTW.

Here is a demonstration of some of the behaviors (along with suspenseful music):

It has actually been demonstrated that such a system can build a Turing Machine (a computer)!
Some of these states (conditions at a specific time) will not allow you to work backwards. You can't look back in time and know what the conditions were previously. It is deterministic, but unPOSTdictable.

This is a lecture from a biology class for (I think) non-biology majors at Stanford. It is a long video, but the cellular automata bit begins around 4 minutes in.

But, JL...if a Christian were to argue: "If you would just pray to God to give you faith...and continue to do so until God grants you faith..."

...you would easily see the absurdity of such a claim.

Yes...you can talk yourself into anything if you put enough effort into it.

I am pretty sure if you were to "pray" enough and with sufficient dedication...at some point you would "begin to see the light." You would develop "faith that god exists and shines his light upon you and the rest of humanity."

Buddhists come to Buddhism expecting that if they meditate...they will become enlightened (or variations on that general theme.)

And lo and behold...they meditate...and it happens. And after"persistent and sincere" meditation..."truths" are revealed.

Look, every religion has its benefits to the people who see benefits in religion. If you or the others here see benefits in Buddhism...stick with it.

But this is a discussion forum...and if you discuss it here...questions about its validity will be raised.

If you want to think self does not exist...do it in peace. If you want to think meditation brings enlightenment...do it in peace.

I do not know the nature of REALITY...and my guess is Buddhism is not going to tell me anything more valid about the truth of it than will Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Mooniism, or kindergarten.

I think you folk are well meaning...but you are kidding yourselves.

Dale...I'm going to refer you to my last response to JL.

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with a Christian about whether it is logical to assert the existence of a god is a go-nowhere proposition. I do it occasionally for the enjoyment of the conversations...and the benefit of having to exercise my brain.

The same goes with Buddhists...and non-dualists.

You guys may be absolutely correct in everything you guess...

...but that does not make your guesses non-guesses.