The meaning of life is to eat and replicate. All true consciousness serves the art, not life. The art is the coocoo child of life.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
I don’t think we’re in a good position to speculate about the fundamental nature of the universe.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RealtimeAI
While I don't know who you guys are, I agree: that does not sound to be an enviable position to me. I am very grateful that my position seems to be better :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @RealtimeAI
Here is some speculation about the nature of the universe for you: 1. the reason why there is something rather than nothing is that existence is the default. Everything that can be implemented is implemented.
3 replies 5 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I focus on the language used by
@Plinz for making intelligible theories. I interpret that language as archetypically Galilean, i.e. objective properties separated from subjective properties. I conclude that this theory is fundamentally dualist, and thus cannot conceive of life.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @achrafkassioui
Life is just cells. I suppose you mean reality vs. mental representation vs. experience of mental representation. The first is mathematical precondition for the others, the second function approximation, the third self narration within the second.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @achrafkassioui
1. Cells can self-organise, an emergent property contradicting the second law of thermodynamics governing matter in general. Thus one can argue that life has a metaphysics beyond matter alone 2. Complete the tetralogy by including pure mental experience (NOT representational)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You could say it is still relational. Representation might be a red herring.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.