Law Mandating C++, OpenGL, and Linux Only

Erm, we're made up of matter. It is not the matter that creates sentience, but the arrangement of that matter into a nervous system and a brain capable of generating sentience.

 

Make a better one

 

The problem with what you have put forward is that although you say that matter does not create sentience, you still put forward the notion that the brain, which is no more than an arrangement of matter (as you correctly point out), generates sentience. This is no more than a round about way of saying that matter creates sentience, and that is simply not true. There are many problems with this point of view. One of which is that in order for this notion to be accepted, we first need to consider that the brain is no more than a collection of atoms. One would need to precisely identify the mechanism that makes such a collection of atoms coordinate their activity in such a unified way that sentience is possible. Matter simply does not operate in such a way on its own.

 

Give me a few million dollars first and I will get to work on it right away!

 

The system, the arrangement, generates sentience, i.e. a mind. In this, an organic sentience is very much like a computer. It's not the silicon and other materials and the electricity alone that make a computer function, but the arrangement of these things into a specific system that gives rise to the properties of a computer.

The brain does what it does because of the underlying physics, the interactions of the chemicals. This describes the entirety of organic life, in fact. It's all a vast, complex system of chemical interactions.

 

And I would put forward that you still have not precisely identified the mechanism that causes the arrangement to act in such a unified way.

If you want to put forward the notion that it is no more than the interaction of chemicals that produce sentience, I would point out to you that all of the chemicals that are in a living body are present in a dead body. Therefore if your position is to be accepted as true, then we would have to accept the notion that it is possible to give life to a dead body.

 

Well, yes, a dead body can be brought back to life, but only if it's done before too much of its components break down, rendering the system incapable of functioning as a living body.

There is no mechanism needed beyond having the right arrangement of living components, and life that is "living" has all of its chemical interactions happening in the way that they must for the organic system to function. Otherwise, the complex system ceases to function and the constituents are then subject to being broken down and used by other organisms that are alive, usually and primarily microorganisms that cause decomposition.

I sense a religious resistance to the truth in your position.

 

Can you give an example of a dead body being brought back to life? Furthermore, if the components have simply broken down, then it should be possible to recreate the chemical reactions to make them functional again and thus bring the dead body back to life.

The idea that no more is needed than the "right arrangement of living components" is circular and is really no more than a belief than can not be demonstrated to be true. Again, if that is true then expert chemists should be able to bring a dead body back to life, regardless of whether the components have broken down.

 

You'll never get anywhere with an attitude like that.

For the record, I know such an undertaking would be daunting for an individual and Im mostly just giving you a hard time.

But I do think your 'make a law' perspective is backwards. We should be advancing with innovation. Given the two options: limit access to and use of technology to increase efficiency -or- advance the technology to make it more efficient, I see only one option as more 'progressive' (not politically, but actually) in the long term. Eventually someone (maybe you!) will create a better code that makes everything.... better. They'll do it sooner in an open environment. Restrictive laws are more likely to delay developement.

 

I understand. I'm just going with the flow.

I don't think that what I have put forward is overly restrictive of innovation, but in practical terms, it would be difficult to implement because the toothpaste is out of the tube. If it had been done years ago, perhaps it would be possible. Again, I would point to the fact that we have 120v electricity in the US as an example of standards. In that case its not even the most efficient thing, but at least it is a standard, and makes it convenient for consumers. What I proposed would make software development and maintenance more cost effective because you would reduce the cost of cross platform development and maintenance. Not only that but you would get more software that would run on a variety of platforms which would be of benefit to consumers. Its not going to happen tho. Just saying.

 

We don't very well have the power to resurrect a billion dead cells all at once, do we? Plus, we know that the brain reacts to severe situations by, for example, going into shock.

But yes, this is the demonstrable truth of life. From the microbial level on up to the largest and most complex of animal and other macrobial life, it is all a system of interactions. There is nothing beyond that that is observable or testable, and nothing that we observe about life suggests that there is something beyond that. No expert chemist can hope to effect necessary changes at the microscopic level to bring back a body that is sufficiently dead, as in broken down from its living state. Can you appreciate the complexity involved in that? We're made of billions of cells, and quite a lot of them have to be alive in order for the whole multicellular organism to be alive, and even then there can be severe complications because of the greater systems within said organism that need to be in working order.

Going back to computers, one faulty resister can take an entire system down. It's a far simpler system than an organism and is not subject to decomposition the way organic systems are, so that is far more reparable. It's not a race against time, and a whole computer is still less complex than even a single cell...

 

The marketplace should determine what programming languages, etc. are used, not your arbitrary views.

 

The problem with what you have put forward here is that although you acknowledge the complexity involved in the interaction of the various atoms, molecules, chemicals, and cells that support life that we observe, you would have us believe that somehow or another all of these various elements magically come together and act as an integrated unit to form an organism. It is just like someone putting forward the ridiculous notion that the hundreds of thousands of people who serve in the US military somehow or another are able to coordinate their activity without any sort of command structure. Such a notion is absurd. In a similar way to put forward the notion that the billions upon billions of elements that make up an organism are somehow or another able to magically coordinate their activity such that the single, integrated experience of sentience is manifest is ridiculous. It is simply not true. And again, you have not precisely identified the mechanism that causes the billions upon billions of elements to coordinate their activity to form a unified, integrated organism. All you are doing is some hand waving and saying that it magically takes place.

Furthermore if what you say is true that sentience is simply the result of some chemical reactions, then expert chemists should be able to start from some raw chemicals and produce something that is sentient. It doesn't have to be something that is complicated as a human being. Since you cannot produce an example of that, OR say EXACTLY how it can be done, what you are saying is bogus. For you to say EXACTLY how it can be done, you would need to precisely identify what the mechanism is that will cause the chemicals to unify and form the integrated experience of sentience. Since you cannot do this, what you put forward falls short.

And the fact that it takes so much work to manufacture a computer whose parts integrate together to perform a task should tell you that there needs to be a mechanism that causes the various atoms and molecules to come together to form an integrated unit. To say that it just happens is indeed absurd.