AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 126
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Great, so genes must be very nervous to pass on information.
People have extremely expanded the semantic field of the concept of information, and as a consequence, many contradictions have arisen. Most likely, at the gene level, we can only talk about biochemical processes. Information is a "later" product, arising at the level of a functioning organism. Gene decoding is interpretation, representation, and gene transmission and operation is biochemistry. Genes are carriers of information, but information exists at the level of the "interpreter", not the carrier. Imho.
Honour board. Instructions on the toilet air freshener. Komsomolskaya Pravda.
These are all media. The generator can be a calculator that generates the answer. The converter is the decoder.
That's an incorrect statement.
And not only the brain.
You have a fragmentary idea. Or too narrowly specialised. Ilya originally charged about something else.
I try to cut my thought short as soon as I smell the "smell" of nonsense, and if I don't say more, it means I realise the limitations of my understanding and don't want to breed fantasy). Not wanting to fantasise and not being able to, are different things. Having a limited imagination and not imagining on purpose are also.
If information exists outside the medium, then it should have a physical expression in the material world. However, there is no such thing (yet). If physicists register "information field" or "information particles", they will certainly inform us.))
1. She doesn't need a host. We need a host. Subjects dealing solely and only with matter, consisting of matter and interacting with matter and nothing else. We have to read information from somewhere and process it somewhere. Namely, in material objects. We do not interact with anything else in principle.
2. Connected, but not interacting.
Assertions devoid of scientific basis and not confirmed either experimentally or theoretically are unsubstantiated. Based on the etymology of the word, information is a product of human thinking, but over the last century, the meaning has expanded considerably. Now, everyone is "swimming" in theories about information. Therefore, now it is better to restrain fantasies and stick to facts).
... it's better to restrain fantasies and stick to the facts.)
You speak the truth.
Good day, everyone.
And if you start sticking to facts, you should not print a lot of letters about matter without explaining to people WHERE, after all, this matter appeared...
Otherwise, all further reasoning about it loses all sense.
And the same facts, with their inherent stubbornness, unperturbedly poke us right in the eye that the only physical object, which, without any problems, has the right to exist always, without the need to appear for the first time, is "emptiness", ... the complete absence of anything ....
If you recognise this fact, the conversation will be one...
If you do not recognise this fact, a completely different story will begin....
If information exists outside the medium, it must have a physical expression in the material world. However, it is not observed (yet). If physicists register "information field" or "information particles", they will certainly inform us.))
And can't quarks and the "material" particles and fields they form be information? Information, which in a specific "space" (which is its carrier) interacts with itself according to certain rules (set by its carrier-space). This question is not so simple, and there is no specific answer to it.
About definitions of information we have expressed above that there are many notions and they diverge too widely in meaning. For example, there is such an understanding of information that it is something that can "surprise" the subject of information perception. And what cannot surprise is only some "data" (by analogy with data from informatics). In this way, for example, information is a subject-dependent phenomenon. However, it is possible to consider information from another angle, then the subject is secondary and it can and does exist by itself, being a carrier of itself (then all matter is information).
Truth be told.
Good day, everyone.
And if you start sticking to facts, you should not print a lot of letters about matter without explaining to people WHERE, after all, this matter appeared...
Otherwise, all further reasoning about it loses all sense.
And the same facts, with their inherent stubbornness, nonchalantly poke us straight in the eye that the only physical object which, without any problems, has the right to exist always, without the need to appear for the first time, is "emptiness"... the complete absence of anything....
If you recognise this fact, the conversation will be one...
If you do not recognise this fact, a completely different story will begin....
Following your logic, if emptiness is a physical object that has the right to exist always, without the need to appear, the question"where, after all, this matter came from..." iscompletely removed. So it was always there.
Here's an example of "logical manipulation": if the void is a material object that has always been there, then matter has always been there. But. if the void is a non-material "object", then the question of the origin of matter remains.
Logically, the next question is:" Is the void a material or immaterial object?". Followed by:" Is the Void an object?".
If the Void is a material object that has one property - beginningless and infinite existence, then Matter is beginningless and infinite in the state of emptiness. Does this mean that it is initial and finite in the state of a "filled" object? And further, the question is:"how does the state of emptiness pass into the state of an object and back?".
Here we will need physicists' advice).
People have extremely expanded the semantic field of the concept of information, and as a consequence, numerous contradictions have arisen. Most likely, at the level of a gene, we can only talk about biochemical processes. Information is a "later" product, arising at the level of a functioning organism. Gene decoding is interpretation, representation, and gene transmission and operation is biochemistry. Genes are carriers of information, but information exists at the level of the "interpreter", not the carrier. Imho.
Well, you need a receiver to accept
It's a fuzzy concept, yes.
And can't quarks and the "material" particles and fields formed by them be information? Information, which in a specific "space" (which is its carrier) interacts with itself according to certain rules (set by its carrier-space). This question is not so simple, there is no specific answer to it.
About definitions of information we have expressed above that there are many notions and they diverge too widely in meaning. For example, there is such an understanding of information that it is something that can "surprise" the subject of information perception. And what cannot surprise is only some "data" (by analogy with data from informatics). In this way, for example, information is a subject-dependent phenomenon. However, it is possible to consider information from another angle, then the subject is secondary and it can and does exist by itself, being a carrier of itself (then all matter is information).
The assertion that some, physically little-studied, material objects can be considered as information, introduces a complete chaos into the structure of physical concepts. The question, rather, should be "can quarks, other particles and fields be carriers of our information?". They probably can. In the future. But in themselves, they are NOT information and have nothing to do with information. And anything can be a carrier of information. Even clothes hung on a rope under the window. Does that mean they have special quarks on them? I don't think so. Information, in my opinion, has to do with the vital activity of organisms (not only humans), and is distributed to the physical world by them artificially, through various methods and means. Living organisms (mainly nerve cells) use signals or pattern language, and people build information "constructions" to the extent of their intelligence and necessity, and thus solve a lot of problems of their existence.
Information at the signal level and information at the concept level are not fundamentally different, because both fulfil a function in the vital activity of the organism(s), but the more complex the nervous activity, the more data it receives and processes. However, data is NOT information. It is a product of the interaction between the nervous system and the environment. Having received data, the NS does further work and "turns" it into information within itself. Then, the NS can write/read the products of its work, deriving further benefit from this process.
This is roughly how I see it.
The assertion that some, physically unexplored, material objects can be considered as information, introduces a complete chaos into the structure of physical concepts. The question, rather, should be "can quarks, other particles and fields be carriers of our information?". They probably can. In the future. But by themselves, they are NOT information and have nothing to do with information. And anything can be a carrier of information. Even clothes hung on a rope under the window. Does that mean they have special quarks on them? I don't think so. Information, in my opinion, has to do with the vital activity of organisms (not only humans), and is distributed to the physical world by them artificially, through various methods and means. Living organisms (mainly nerve cells) use signals or pattern language, and people build information "constructions" to the extent of their intelligence and necessity, and thus solve a lot of problems of their existence.
Information at the signal level and information at the concept level are not fundamentally different, because both fulfil a function in the vital activity of the organism(s), but the more complex the nervous activity, the more data it receives and processes. However, data is NOT information. It is a product of the interaction between the nervous system and the environment. Having received data, the NS does further work and "turns" it into information within itself. Then, the NS can write/read the products of its work, deriving further benefit from this process.
This is roughly how I see it.
How do we know stars exist? How do we know what happened billions of light years away? If we close our eyes, does the information disappear about everything around us?
If one person looks up to the sky and sees the Moon, is there more information? If three people see the Moon, is there three times more information about the Moon? And if no one looks up to the sky and no one sees the Moon, then there is no information about the Moon, and therefore the Moon itself doesn't exist because there is no information about it?
How do we know stars exist? How do we know what's happening billions of light years away? If we close our eyes, does information disappear about everything around us?
If one person looks up to the sky and sees the Moon, is there more information? If three people see the Moon, is there three times more information about the Moon? And if no one looks up to the sky and no one sees the Moon, then there is no information about the Moon, and therefore the Moon itself does not exist since there is no information about it?
There's an interesting experiment in quantum physics. Particles without an observer behave like a wave. If I'm not mistaken, it was in the documentary "How Deep is the Rabbit Hole".
By the way, I've come up with an interesting psychological move.
They say that in order to speak in public without nerves, it is necessary to imagine that the audience in front of you and completely naked.
By this analogy, in order not to get nervous every time someone pisses you off, you can imagine that your interlocutor is just an AI executing a programme. Then you'd be less nervous. But it doesn't help me to repair the neighbours upstairs, they are pounding and pounding on my nerves).