It's Life Jim, But Not As We Know It - Life and the Soul in Vedanta, Samkhya and Science

Recently, a complete synthesized artificially by inserting "bacterial artificial chromosomes" (BACs) in a blank (without nucleic acid) so-called "ghost cell", a cell was achieved in every aspect that qualify as "living". Thus, there is a divine spark, a soul at the cellular level? Or is it within the structure of the artificial DNA (some people believe that DNA is the seat of the soul). It 'hard to follow this argument as a BAC is synthesized from simple molecular building blocks. So if there is an "animal-like" (cf. Rerum Natura of Lucretius in) the proto-soul in a cell, is less than the level of aggregation: the energy captured at the molecular level. Then the so-called dead matter should be considered as having type animal soul Animism "" In reality, this amounts to. "All matter is actually living.Peter Russell, a famous philosopher and scientist arrived at the concept of the "primacy of conscience", which is actually the same as "panpsychism." Everything is consciousness. matter, energy, are illusory and temporary in nature and are integrated within the consciousness that pervades everything. This is also the consideration of a series of Vedantic, they call this jnana or consciousness pervading Paramatma or Brahman.The following topics were presented by contrast adept dualist school of Samkhya: Still, even if one accepts the notion of aggregation, there is still a problem with the monistic view. If Brahman is present in all things, animate as inanimate objects, how do you explain why some parts of Brahman grow in clusters of life and not others? What I quoted above is the part that are not agree with. we can take as a fact that Paramatma is living like us. We can therefore assume as obvious that we are living, because there is something within us that is life, which can be Paramatma, to use terminology. makes us think and grow and feel and perceive our environment and react to it. So we can see that life is not that how things are rocks.You an assumption that Paramatma is everything and everything must therefore be living. But hypothesis is not confirmed by observations. We observe that there are both living and nonliving entities, and therefore everything that is not in us which is the source of our life is present in non-living. This is a of two things must be true, Paramatma is not or is not present in non-living, or Paramatma is the source of our life. Somewhere along the line, we got something wrong.I Thu to all agree that the atomic and subatomic particles to react intelligently to each other in the Way. The extent of my knowledge of science is very limited, but I'm pretty sure that the reactions of these particles are just the forces of nature. They did not meet the street , exchanging pleasantries and making arrangements to meet later for drinks. I do not have all concluded that the particles are above it can be illusory.From conclude that the meaning of the terminology "live", "lifeless" and "intelligent "are used and interpreted differently from what was intended. And 'perhaps a matter of semantics, definitions. Or perhaps we can use trivial definitions get to my original understanding. It is the purpose of this post to give a convincing argument conclusive. It is rather intended to cast doubt usually accepted paradigm regards the above mentioned terminologies Sun I do not pretend to prove monism, but I pretend to be able to design in these terminologies We doubt.So duality to the test. In First it should be noted that the term "inanimate" derives from the Latin in-and animal "soulless" To me, this term is a contradiction in terms if the soul is omnipresent pervading all, following the reasoning of the Samkhya school (by virtue of Law of .. the nature of the effect is the same as the cause), the nature of this all must be the soul's true that in well.Now eg Vedantic texts like the Bhagavad Gita, but many other texts distinguish between prakriti and purusha and that these terms are often translated as "material nature" and "living being / user", respectively. If we follow these translations and accept the Gita as authoritative texts (I do), it would seem that animate-inanimate dichotomy is valid. However, the translation is burdened with a meaning that has been given by scholars who perhaps saw some similarities between English and Sanskrit terms, but this does not necessarily mean that they have received the translation right. But before I go into that further investigation you must first see whether, in light of current knowledge and science, that what was always called "inanimate" is really so different from what is called "living." The ontological definition of "life" in a dictionary can be the following (note that I pulled out the definitions relating to the time of artistic views, etc.) "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions examined as metabolism, growth , reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. The state or condition characteristic of an organism vivente.Una source of vitality, and vitality to animate forza.Vivacità; animazione.Ambiente real or Indeed the nature. "Of course definitions Noting that living is the opposite of dead or inanimate, by definition, will not be able to demonstrate that there may be some features" live "to" inanimate. "We would like to enter the kingdom of tautologies. not I am interested in that.But functional definition "is manifested in the functions examined, such as metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli and adaptation to the environment from inside the body" is something we can use to verify if the existence of the term "inanimate" what justified.Biological cellular organisms certainly pass the test. They have all these characteristics. This includes the bacteria artificially synthesized I mentioned earlier in this article. So no need to add a "divine spark" to these entities macromolecular aggregates. If we follow the law of conservation of the nature of a phenomenon from cause to effect (as explained by the Samkhya), then life must be present at a lower level of aggregation. On the other hand, there is the law of complexity and emergent properties, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This law challenge some of the principles of the law of conservation of the nature of a phenomenon from cause to effect, as emergent property is by definition a property that is not present in the constituents of the lower levels of aggregation, but at a higher aggregation is apparent level.So IS1 "life". a property that emerges from the aggregation of structured and functionalized macromolecular entities examined, such as DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, etc. OR2. What is a property already present in one or more lower levels.As aggregation is easier to show second to first begin to see if "Events in search functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli and adaptation to the environment from within the organism "are present in a level.At lower the level of macromolecular aggregate many of these functions can indeed be recognized: Wikipedia defines metabolism as" the set of chemical reactions in living organisms to maintain life processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce argument, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments is usually divided into two categories of metabolism, catabolism ... breaks down organic matter, for example to collect the energy in cellular respiration. anabolism uses energy to construct components of cells and proteins analyzed as nucleic acids, "he admitted, the definition given here is too much at the cellular level, but if you identify with living organisms macromolecule and ignore the definitions that are by definition intended only for the life as commonly defined at the cellular level or a single body, it is right to reduce the metabolism term for the ability to construct and the distribution and the energy of collecting and arranging the entities capable thereof.Macromolecular of growth, aggregation, Thursday of clustering exists. prion proteins and other proteins involved in diseases of the brain all share this property. The construction can not be denied.Self / RNA splicing and protease enzymes which are able to degrade other macromolecules, but also themselves have been demonstrated. fault can not be that the energy collected directly from the light denied.Proteins (rhodopsin, etc.) have been demonstrated. Otherwise, the energy collected by the enzyme protein redox reactions, etc. The supply of energy is self-evident from self-degradation or catalysis of a reaction of a form of proto-enzymes.So metabolism at the molecular level (because after all the macromolecules are molecules) can be removed demonstrated. The growth in the form of aggregation, clustering, concatenation or even curing, etc. acknowledged.Reproduction can be so difficult, the generation of offspring with the same characteristics of the parents is more. prion disease prions to transform into healthy and sick Malthus prions are capable of a rudimentary form of reproduction. Viruses are reproduced from their hosts. DNA and RNA under the right conditions can reach a certain level of play. Note that asexual reproduction, which is quite common in animal and plant kingdom, it is simply the result of the growing species original, then splits off Which identical offspring. smaller molecules are, of course, not able to reproduce themselves, but then again, playback is not necessarily vital for survival. The limitation of life to which entities can are active self-reproduction is very narrow and arbitrary. A definition given by scholars.What is a more interesting life as it is much closer to the concept of consciousness, which is the ultimate reality of being, is the notion that a life can be stimulated or the response of adaptation to the environment from the interior of the DNA organism.Proteins Thu and reacting to the environment in response to stimuli from the environment. Engaging in different types of enzymatic catalysis depends on the environmental stimuli. Duplex DNA separated into individual strings in response to stimuli from the environment. You can also fit under mutation.Smaller molecules is dependent on environmental parameters involved in a reaction or fail to do so if the conditions (stimuli) are not right . The ability to react depends on the internal parameters of the body, its shape, its energy content (molecular orbitals) etc.So characteristics of proto-life are already present at lower levels of aggregation, even if we follow the student narrow definitions. For now I will not repeat this analysis at the same level of detail at the next level of aggregation (atomic and subatomic) as it is not my intention to give a comprehensive theory. I just want to doubts about the preconceived paradigms that there would be something inanimate search nature.Shortly, Thursday particles of energy exchange and sub-particles (neutrinos, etc.) As far as the metabolism. Bombardment of nuclei results in the large fall apart into small nuclei. So does radioactivity. With regard to reproduction. fusion of nuclei results in a more aggregated nuclei. As for growth. particles react to stimuli from the environment Thu: electromagnetic fields, the absorption and expulsion of the photons, not repulsion, attraction etc.It was then that the atomic and subatomic particles were reported capable of intelligent behavior. In essence this amounts to the assumption that as long as the expected behavior is an automatic algorithm, is the intelligence as we know it.Particulate entities can not be said to behave like robots. This would mean that a given set of parameters we can predict the exact behavior of the particle. At this level cannot.The characteristics of molecules, atoms and subatomic particles are usually studied in the form of complexes. We can not know much about some individual molecule, but we know a lot about the behavior of a large group of molecules the same ensemble. But then so is not fair to deny certain characteristics of particles as individual entities can not know if these features are there or not. At the atomic and subatomic level ( and also at the molecular level), when the phenomena can be adequately described by quantum mechanics. This is the Heisenberg principle: we can not know fully the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously in this dimension. Knowing one excludes the other knowledge . In these dimensions is a behavior of the entities of particulates is not deterministic. Only the behavior of complex may be provided with a degree of definition Certain certainty.The of intelligence, as indicated by the large artificial intelligence developer Ben Goertzel, which is a practical definition and functional, you pay too much for my current shedding of doubt is: Intelligence is the ability to achieve complex goals. Or put otherwise, the greater the complexity of the set of objectives that can handle a body, greater the intelligence.The above processes of growth, metabolism, reproduction and response to environmental stimuli can not be denied a priori for the particles. These processes are a milestone for the definition of complexity. How minutes can be it is not fair to deny these processes, the quality of complexity. So, to deny the presence of particles is a matter of intelligence definition.The phrase "but I'm pretty sure that the reactions of these particles are just the forces of nature. They did not meet on the street, exchanging pleasantries and making arrangements to meet later for drinks "requires a high level of intelligence, definition of intelligence. Well most of the species of the animal kingdom can not be removed shown to achieve this high level of human (or primate) and intelligence. But do not deny the animal kingdom Thurs A certain level of intelligence.As I said the behavior of individual particles is non-deterministic. the complex behavior of these molecules seems to obey the more deterministic "laws of nature", but the same can not be said of the subject individual particles. At this size the statistical laws of nature become rather difficult to understand, but with a degree of chaotic order.So Certain things we know about the following subject to these laws? I really like automatons? I would not have the courage to say so. Note that large groups of human beings to obey certain patterns, which are not necessarily present at the individual level. Isaac Asimov thought much about this topic in his series "Foundation." The predictability of the behavior of the large group. So what do we know? Nuclei Some may go for a pint of neutrinos - which is just as fantastic as to say that they have no intelligent behaviour.But there is more to the story. How stupid automatons? AI proceeds at a rapid speed challenges many of our preconceived ideas about intelligence. It is not within the framework of this topic, but I promise that it can be convincingly demonstrated that most part of our "intelligent" algorithms are. Reaction Schemes fixed as the neuro-scientist R.Llinas says. So, for the most part, we are automatons. When the highest level of intelligence comes into play is the creativity. Bacteria can be demonstrated that this aspect of intelligence. Read my article "Bloom is a hive intelligence algorithm." And also the process of creativity is subject to existing laws, rules and models. It is not a random process. We are currently Separating these rules. What remains is that there are times of some choices to be made. Now, in an ideal way to automatically programmed would try to get the best in many applications IA solution.However realized that it is one of the algorithms can not always achieve the solution best, can end up in loops or useless it would take forever to get to the solution. This is why current AI applications relatively satisfied with "good solutions" and jumps out of the paths lead to the fruitless efforts. Just like the human brain or animal AI is increasingly planned to make a "guess". Also, agents or AIbots AI are increasingly able to survey processes, such as information exchange, merger, demerger, the disposal of waste characteristics, procreation and mutation (genetic algorithms, artificial life: Alife, etc. see Ben Goertzel of "Creating Internet Intelligence," Chapter 11: Webworld) course in the world of AI, including the traditional definition of life can not be denied.Yet we continue to argue that they are automata, which have no self-consciousness or awareness .. Thurs bacteria have self-awareness? Yet we have no doubt as to the life of a semantic bacterium.It 's all new. Where is the border? What I particularly interested in technology as a developer is to see what happens once the computers or the Internet as a whole, is equipped with artificial intelligence that can simulate all of our reaction schemes and in addition has fixed rules creativity.The point I'm struggling with the phenomenon of "initiative" and "free will". This is the point where not only because it is involved in environmental parameters require it, but where it occurs because under the conscious entity wants to make known his will. A free will, that can bypass the rational, which can deny its internal parameters to act in the opposite direction. A free will, which is able to deny themselves pleasure, denying his functions.But optimization we really have free will? We are not so secretly or unconsciously make a choice at the end of the best educated guess (as an optimization on)? When we deny the joy, the indulgence in certain passions, when we check the behavior of our Sun as not to yield to fixed action patterns, we are not doing this because we are programmed to different levels of aggregation to ignore the reasons for the lower mental levels of aggregation? It's not that we have calculated that the pursuit of these goals higher mystics, in the end, may be a better way of functioning of our body ? that the will is really free or is the term "free will" just another stupid mind? Until we reached the so-called "liberation", we are not as dead as presumed dead matter? Before we can really say that we are not robots or automatons ourselves that matter is not believed to be dead or living, or be denied a level of consciousness, we should have more parameters. From the logical conclusion of the primacy of conscience, the Monist view panpsychism seems the most promising point.What right to initiate translation Prakriti? According to wikipedia "or Prakruti Purusha or Prakriti (from Sanskrit language prakrti) means" nature ". This, according to the Hindus, the fundamental nature of intelligence with which the Universe exists and functions. And 'described in the Bhagavad Gita as "primary driving force." It' s the essential constituent of the universe, and is the basis of all the activity of creation. "It does not sound very dead to me. It sounds like" dead inanimate particulate " either.This is my understanding. Purusha or Brahman is the aspect of consciousness as the knower of the field and the final user. Respect for the principle of consciousness. Prakriti is the aspect of Brahman or consciousness that is enjoyed, and the field observed knowledge. speaking analogies, is stuff the mind of God What is consciousness without an object of observation (even if the object of observation in itself)? Although there is no concrete object of observation, at least there is awareness of being in itself, being aware of being aware. Otherwise, there is no consciousness or awareness. Sun Consciousness can not be defined only by one who knows. known is the interaction between the knower and the known. What we call life, then, is the interaction between these aspects of knowledge and. To suppose that anything can occur (in the form of an illusion) as one without the other is the materialistic point of view . In quantum mechanics the act of observation leads to the observation of some aspects of entities known. This becomes possible because the act of observation.There is not known, and without knowing the knower can not exist without knowledge. This is the mystery of universe.There is nothing in the current understanding of science and philosophy that points to the objective reality independent of an observer. Wittgenstein says that the facts are the relationships between phenomena, but does not attribute independent existence to the phenomena themselves. Nietzsche it denies the objective reality. So does the Buddha. Howard Bloom describes "reality" as a mass hallucination (Global Brain 2002). As long as people continue to believe in objective reality? In the presence of inanimate particles? It is simply representations within the mind itself is a mind that collection of links and algorithms that only relations. In the mind there is no "cow." Yet, the connections between neurons to create the image and meaning of what call a "cow." It 's all in illusion.Prakrti can be described as mind stuff Brahman relations alone, and by virtue of his observation of Purusha, his consciousness and awareness are the only existence. [EXTRACT] recently synthesized artificially by inserting a complete "bacterial artificial chromosomes" (BACs) in a vacuum (ie no nucleic acid) so-called "ghost cell" a cell has been obtained, which applies in every aspect "alive". Thus, there a divine spark, a soul at the cellular level, or is it within the structure of the artificial DNA (some people believe that DNA is the seat of the soul). It 'hard to follow this argument as a BAC of simple molecular building blocks are synthesized. Thus, if there is a "type animal" (cf. Lucretius rerum in nature) of proto-core in a cell, is at a lower level of aggregation: the energy detected at the molecular level. If then also the so-called matter considered animism as a soul-dead kind of animal "," In reality, this corresponds to. "All matter is actually living.Peter Russell, a famous philosopher and scientist came to the concept of" primacy of conscience ", which reality is the same as "" All panpsychism is the consciousness of matter, energy, .. are temporary and illusory nature and rooted in the all-pervading consciousness. This is also the view of a series of Vedanta, this all-pervading Paramatma or jnana or consciousness Brahman.The following counter-arguments were greeted by a schoolteacher called dualistic Samkhya presented: Yet, even if one accepts the idea of aggregation, there is still a problem with the monistic view, if Brahman is present in all things, animate and inanimate objects, how can you explain why some parts of Brahman in residential units. to develop and others do not? What I mentioned above the part that I'm not using. we can as a matter of course, to assume that lives Paramatma, as we are. We can also assume that we live, because it is something in us that life is what may be the Paramatma to use the terminology. It leads us to think and grow and feel and perceive our environment and react accordingly. And we also see that life is not in things like making a rocks.You assume that Paramatma is everything and so everything must be active. But this hypothesis is not confirmed by observations. We observe that there are things, both residential and non-living, and therefore what is in us, which is the source of our life is not present in non-living. So one of two things must be true, Paramatma is not present in the non-living or Paramatma is not the source of our life. Somewhere along the line something wrong.I We are not at all agree that the atomic and subatomic particles react with each other intelligently. The extent of my knowledge of science is very limited, but I'm pretty sure that the reactions of these particles only the forces of nature. you are not satisfy, in the street, exchanging pleasantries and a system that allows for drinks later. I'm not at all to conclude that the particles are illusory.From that can be closed up, which means that the terminology of "live", "lifeless" and "intelligent" to be used and interpreted in different ways to come, this that it was intended. Maybe it's a matter of semantics and definitions. Or perhaps we can come up with common definitions of my original understanding. Is not the purpose of this paper to give a convincing argument conclusive. but rather sparse. paradigms doubt standard as regards the terminology above, then do not pretend to prove monism, but I ask the question in being able to pull doubt.So duality in this terminology, we go to the test: first, it should be noted that the term "dead" comes from Latin and animators, "soulless" For me, this term is a contradiction in terms when the soul is omnipresent pervading all, as (under the law is the type of effect is the same as .. cause) after the founding of the Samkhya school, the nature of the soul This must be true because well.Now that in about Vedanta texts like the Bhagavad Gita, but also many other texts, a distinction is made prakrti and purusha, and that these terms are often translated as "physical nature" and "creatures / Gourmet" means. When these translations and accept the Gita as authoritative texts (which I do) it is evident that the dichotomy is a good animated-inanimate. However, the translation of meaning, that of scholars who have seen, maybe some similarities between the English and Sanskrit terms has been loaded, but this does not necessarily mean that they gave the correct translation. But before we continue this investigation, we first want to see if, in the light of knowledge and modern science, that what has always been "senseless" as it is in fact so different from what is called "Living". The ontological definition of "life" in a dictionary, the following (note that I have taken these definitions in terms of time, artistic vision, etc.) to be "the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and matter inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli and adaptation to the environment, within the State Organismus.Der nature or characteristic of a living source of vitality Organismus.Eine, a Kraft.Lebendigkeit vitality and invigorating. Animation.Die real environment or reality, the natural "course definitions is that life is the opposite of dead or inanimate, is not by definition be able to demonstrate that there may be some" live "the characteristics of the" inanimate "to be. we would be in the realm of tautologies. I'm not interested in that.But functional definition "in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment of the manifest in the body" is something that we are using, to probe to see if the existence of the term "inanimate" was justified.Biological cellular organisms certainly pass the test. you have all these characteristics. This includes the artificially synthesized The bacterium belongs to the beginning of this article mentions. So no need of a "divine spark" on the entities to add macromolecular aggregates. If we, the law of conservation of the nature of the phenomenon follows (as explained by Samkhya) of cause and effect, so we should live there at a lower level of aggregation. On the other hand, the law of complexity and emergent properties in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This law eliminates some of the principles of the law of conservation of the nature of the phenomenon of cause and effect, as an emergent property, by definition, a property that is not present in the components of the lower levels of aggregation, but occurs at a higher level of aggregation level.So IS1 is "life". a property of the aggregation of functionalized modeled and macromolecular entities such as DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, etc. or 2 outputs. a property that already the levels of one or more of aggregation below. As is easy to show 2. of 1. begin to see if "events to functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli and adaptation to the environment, from within the body" to a lower level of aggregation. At present, the macromolecular level, many of these features can be detected in the file: ... Wikipedia defines metabolism as "the set of chemical reactions that maintain the life of living organisms to pass through these processes allow organisms to grow and multiply, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments metabolism is usually divided into two categories: catabolism breaks the organic material, for example, in order to collect the energy in the cellular respiration. Anabolism uses the energy for the parts of cells, such as proteins and nucleic acids "approved design, the definition given here too at the cellular level , but if you equate living organisms with macromolecules and ignore the definitions established by definition only for life, as they are usually defined at the cellular or organismal alone, it is right to build the concept of metabolism to reduce the capability of collecting and mining and energy , and to dispose of the company thereof.Macromolecular capable of growth, no aggregation, clustering exist. Prion proteins and other proteins in the brain are involved in this common property. construction can not denied.Self / RNA and protease enzymes which are able to degrade other macromolecules, but also have been proved. failure can not denied.Proteins that the energy collected directly from the light (rhodopsin, etc.) have been demonstrated, or enzyme protein energy collected by redox reactions, etc. The transfer of energy is of course on self-abasement or catalysis of reactions enzymes.So a form of proto-metabolism at the molecular level (because the molecules are macromolecules eventually) be detected. possible the growth in the form of aggregation, clustering, or even linking polymerization, etc., can also be acknowledged.Reproduction is to produce offspring with the same characteristics of the parents even more difficult prion prion disease. convert normal prions in patients and therefore are capable of a rudimentary form of reproduction. viruses from their hosts to reproduce. DNA and RNA in the right conditions, can reach a certain level of play. Note that asexual reproduction, which is quite common in animal and plant kingdom, in fact, is merely the consequence of increasing the original species, which then cleaves the identical offspring. smaller molecules are naturally unable to reproduce, but then again, is the propagation is not necessarily essential for survival. The impaired quality of life for people who are capable of active self-reproduction is very narrow and arbitrary. A definition is given by scholars.What another interesting definition of life as it is much closer to the concept of consciousness, which is the ultimate reality of existence, is the notion that life is able to respond to stimuli or adaptation environment is the answer to make within the organism.Proteins DNA and the environment in response to environmental stimuli. enzymes on a different type of curing depends on the environmental stimuli., strands of DNA double-separated into individual strings in response to environmental stimuli. molecules can also customize mutation.Smaller practice depends on the parameters of the environment in a reaction or not do, if conditions (stimuli) are incorrect. The ability to respond also depends on internal parameters of the company, its shape, its energy content (MO) properties of the proto etc.So life are present already at the lower levels of aggregation, even if you follow the narrow definitions of scholarship. For now I will not repeat this analysis in the same detail to the next level of aggregation (atomic and subatomic) because it was not my intention to give a comprehensive theory. I just want to question the preconceived paradigms that no such thing as an inanimate nature.Shortly would shed particles to exchange energy and sub-particles (neutrinos, etc.) So far the metabolism. ..... bombardment of nuclei results in disintegration of large size into smaller nuclei, radioactivity So even if the fertility of the fusion nuclei results in an aggregate larger nuclei in terms of growth of the particles do not react to stimuli from the environment: electromagnetic fields, the ' photon absorption and expulsion, repulsion, attraction etc.It was then stated that the atomic and subatomic particles were not able, intelligent behavior is running. Basically this is the assumption that, while an automatic algorithm to predict the behavior, not intelligence, as we know it.Particulate entities can not be said to behave like machines. This implies that given a set of precise parameters can predict the behavior of the particle. At this level cannot.The properties of molecules, atoms and subatomic particles, usually designed in the form of sets. We can not know anything about a single molecule, but we know a lot about the behavior of a large group of the same molecule, an ensemble. But it is not right to refuse certain properties of single-particle units, because we can not know whether these properties are or not. At the atomic level and sub-atomic (and molecular level), the phenomena can be adequately described only by quantum mechanics. This includes the Heisenberg principle: ... We can not at the same time fully aware of the position and velocity of a particle in this dimension, knowledge is the knowledge of other excluded in these dimensions, the behavior of the particles-units is not deterministic, only the behavior of the complex to a certain extent It is expected that certainty.The definition of intelligence as indicated by the great Intelligence developer Ben Goertzel artificial, which is a functional definition which is suitable for practical enough to my present, in which the degradation of doubt is the following: intelligence is the ability to produce complex targets to achieve. In other words, the greater the complexity of the number of business objectives is able to address, the greater the processing described above intelligence.The of growth, can metabolism, reproduction, and response to environmental stimuli is not a priori be denied for the particles . These processes are a milestone in terms of complexity, by definition. minutes, as may be, is not fair to deny these processes, the quality of complexity. therefore deny the presence of particles is a matter of intelligence definition.The phrase "but I'm pretty sure that the reactions of these particles are only the forces of nature. not meet on the street, as an exchange of courtesies and precautions and then for a drink "is a very high degree of intelligence as a definition of intelligence. Now, most of the species of the animal kingdom can not prove that this high level of human resources to realize (or primate) intelligence is. But we do not deny the animal kingdom a degree of intelligence.As I said before, the behavior of individual particles is not deterministic. The behavior of the complex of these molecules seems to be more deterministic obey "laws of nature" but the same can not be said of the single particle units. to be this size, the laws of nature and not surprisingly, difficult to understand, even chaotic, with some degree of order.So what we know of the following laws of this company and they really know how the machines? I would not have the courage to say so. Note that the large groups of people to obey certain patterns that are not necessarily present at the individual level. Isaac Asimov reflects on this very subject in his ".." Foundation series, the predictability of the behavior of the large group so that we could have some souls go for a pint of neutrinos - which is just as great as they say, not behavior. intelligent but there is more to the story. What a stupid car? Artificial intelligence is put at breakneck speed into question many of our preconceived ideas about intelligence on. does not fall within the scope of this topic, but I promise it can be shown convincingly that most of our "intelligent processes" algorithms. are fixed reaction pattern as the neuroscientist R.Llinas it expresses. then to a large extent we automata. in which the highest level of intelligence comes into play is creativity. bacteria have been shown to be this aspect of intelligence. Read my article "Bloom hive-intelligence, an algorithm is." and the process of creativity is subject to existing laws, rules and models. Is not a random process. We are currently reviewing these rules to untangle. What remains is that at times the decisions are taken. Now, a machine would be programmed in an ideal way to experience the best solution.However realized in many applications of artificial intelligence, the algorithms can achieve or not always the best solution that can end in a loop or would be useless to last an eternity, is to get to reach the solution. because current applications of AI to settle for relatively "good solutions" and jumps out of synthetic routes that lead to the fruitless efforts. Just as the human brain or animal AI is increasingly programmed to do a "hypothesis". Moreover AIbots agents or IA are increasingly able processes such as exchange of information, merger, demerger, the disposal of waste characteristics, reproduction and mutation (genetic algorithms, Artificial Life. Alife, etc. Ben Goertzel see "Internet Intelligence Creation, "Chapter 11 does not Webworld) security in the world of AI, the traditional definition of life may be, we still maintain that denied.Yet machines that do not have self-awareness or consciousness are. Bacteria do not have confidence in themselves? But we do not have any doubt about the life of bacterium.It semantics all A 's new. Where you see the line? What interests me, especially as technology developers are working to see what happens when computers or the Internet as a whole, the AI ​​can simulate all of our fixed patterns of response and also a provision for creativity.The talent point I'm struggling with the phenomenon of "initiative" and "free will". This is the point where not only the measures to be taken, because the environmental parameters that will dictate to do so, but where it operates, as well as the conscious entity will manifest his. A free will can ignore the rational, which can be denied their internal parameters do the opposite. An agency that is able to deny them the pleasure denies optimization functions.But we really free will? We're not secretly or unconsciously end up performing a selection of the best educated guess (as an optimization on), and if we have fun, enjoy certain passions, if we control our behavior so as not to give fixed action patterns, do not deny do it because we planned on a different level of aggregation, the reasons for the lower mental levels of aggregation ignore it? I do not think we calculated that the pursuit of these objectives may be more mystical end to be a better way of functioning of our body? It 'really free will, or the term "free will" just another trick of the Spirit? Until we have the so-called "liberation" to achieve, there are just as dead as the issue should be dead? Before we can really say that we are not automatons who probably lives or be automatically subject either dead or should not be denied, the first level of consciousness, must be disposed of several parameters. Based on the logical conclusion from the primacy of conscience, the monistic panpsychism is look at me, the most promising start point.What the correct translation of Prakriti? According to Wikipedia, "Prakrti or Prakriti or Prakruti (prakrti from Sanskrit language) means" nature. "It is, after Hindi, the fundamental nature of intelligence with which the universe exists and functions. It comes in the Bhagavad Gita, as described "original unity." And 'the essential ingredient of the universe and is the basis for all creative activities. "It does not sound very dead to me. No, sounds like "death of inanimate matter particles" either.This is, as I understand it. Purusha is the aspect of Brahman or consciousness as the ultimate connoisseur and expert in the field. observing the principle of consciousness. Prakriti is the aspect of Brahman or consciousness, which he enjoyed, observed, and the field of knowledge. Speaking of similarities, it is God's spiritual content. What is consciousness without an object of observation (even if the object of observation itself)? Although there is no concrete object of observation, at least there is the essence of his self-conscious, more aware of being aware of their own. Otherwise there is no consciousness or awareness. This awareness can not be defined only by one who knows. And 'the interaction between the knower and the known. What we call life, is also an interaction between these aspects of knower and known. To make sure that nothing can be taken arises (in the form of an illusion) than without the materialistic point of view. leads in the quantum mechanics of the act of observation for the observation of some aspects is manifested by entities. This is made possible by the law of observation.There is not known without knowing the knower and known can not exist without. This is the secret of anything universe.There the current understanding of science and philosophy, which declared its independence on an objective reality of an observer. Wittgenstein, that the facts of the relationship between phenomena, but are not to attribute an independent existence to the same phenomena, Nietzsche denies the objective reality. So also Buddha. Howard Bloom describes the "reality" as a mass hallucination (Global Brain 2002). As long as people continue to be one to believe in objective reality? In non-living particulate matter? It is simply representations within the mind. spirit that build a collection of algorithms, ie, connections and relationships only. In spirit there is no "cow." But the connections between neurons of the image and importance of what we are a "cow." It 's all a illusion.Prakrti as Brahman, the spiritual content of the report and can be described only by virtue of his observation as Purusha, his awareness and consciousness of mere existence.