2 ms·
I agree with the language part you said. I find worrying that Wolfram is not talking enough about it.
by animanoir 6y ago
I agree with the language part you said. I find worrying that Wolfram is not talking enough about it.
- barefeg 6y agoIt’s because it’s probably not possible to define within the standard “toolset”. Look at for example the thoughts of the definition of energy by R. Feynman. You might think us physicists for sure can define energy. After all it’s one of the basis of physics. But it turns out it’s not possible without circular arguments
- neonological 6y agoIt's possible that energy is a sort of axiomatic property. Meaning it can't be further deduced or explained similar to a mathematical axiom. I doubt consciousness is such a thing though. Asking "what is Consciousness?" is like asking "What does it mean to be American?" Being American is purely a made up phenomenon and my argument is that although it is may not seem this way, the word consciousness is largely the same thing, just a complex category.