You can’t trust another till you trust yourself, because if you don’t trust yourself then how do you know who’s trustworthy?
Let’s look at the molecules that come together to make up that bird. They behave in relationship to each other the same way they would if they didn’t share the environment of the birds mass.
Let’s look at chemical heat. Thermal emissions from the bird behave like light, are considered part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the light you see that bird by has no meaningful difference to distinguish it from the heat generated by the birds biology, right? This is why thermal signatures can be detectably bird shaped, same as visual signatures are bird shaped.
And rock shaped. Indeed, this applies to anything. So where does the thing that makes a rock a rock and a bird a bird begin?
Our relationship to those things? At least fundamentally.
A morphic field or pattern somewhere? Sheldrake! Yes. The difference between your perception of the bird and the material presence of the bird is a perceived half-truth at best, or rock. Things come together because there is a limited set of potential variables governing manifestation of energy as matter.
Ah. Now it really gets interesting! If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s a duck, but the same process that gives rise to ducks also gives rise to pigeons, and hawks.
Or something dressed up to look, walk, and sound like a duck. Indeed. There is a reason you can imitate ducks. Artificial intelligence engineers are relying on this principle to make progress in their own work. What really would be the difference between a mental process going on in our brains and the same process taking place in electronic hardware? If they imitate it to every detail, which it looks like they may be able to do as they make advances toward quantum computing.
There seems to be some intangible subjective component in us that I’d say the machinery does not have. But it is very elusive? I would say that the intangible is a twist of morphic geometry, a footprint we display by virtue of having arisen as a part of the natural process of life on earth. But, the patterns being processed by the artificial intelligence would be the same as they are in the physical environment before any observation takes place, and we would indeed be using the same patterns ourselves.
Akin to a cultural difference? In a sense, yes.
So ducks, cardinals, and rocks also have a “footprint” which they derived through evolutionary processes? Yes, as do the materials that go together to make a computer, as does the electricity travelling along it’s circuits which is a part of the same spectrum as the light our eyes use to see. The really interesting part is in the order. What gives anything order? Why is order persistent at all? It’s not explained by our knowledge of matter. The same materials that can make a duck, can make a turkey sandwich, and a clod of soil. They even seem to play a role in human neural function as well, but those forces configure themselves in all sorts of ways do they not? And what would make them take any particular shape or alignment at all?
Magnetic force brings “order” to iron filings. Inertia might have something to do with this. If so why then would there be diverse outcomes?
You pick up mud and it’s more likely to be a clump then to take the form of a bird (for example).
Entropy, then? That would lead to dispersion of matter into energy and diffusion of energy over space, end product being nothing to observe left.
Yes, entropy would work against persistence.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.