|
Fractal of the Day
by Jim Muth
|
|
Fractal visionaries and enthusiasts: While studying today's image, I had the impression of an alien spider crawling across the screen. I immediately named the image "Arachnid". Then the time came to rate the image. I first decided to settle on a 6, but then I left the screen for a few minutes. When I returned, I noticed how closely the colors resemble the terrible Fractint default palette, and settled for an average 5. The scene of today's FOTD is located in a valley in remote part of the infinite Z^sqrt(2)+C fractal, about 29 turns down the logarithmic spiral. The parameter file takes about 1/4 hour to finish -- long enough to make the trip to Paul's web site at: The fractal weather featured heavy rain all day, which led to a flood in the fractal basement. All this was climaxed by some noisy thunder-storms that passed over after nightfall. The fractal cats disapproved most strongly, not only of the rain and noise, but also of the temperature, which never rose above 63F (17C). Such a temperature is simply too chilly for two intrepid fractal cats. An hour or so ago I found a letter on the Philofractal list from Morgan Owens. The subject of the letter is, "I guess Jim Muth would assert that strong AI is impossible." Actually, I have no firm opinion about the possibility or impossibility of strong AI, or synthetic consciousness. It could be possible, or it could just as easily be impossible, though I lean a bit toward its impossibility. But in a way, it seems less likely that a mass of gooey meat known as a living brain could be conscious, than it would be for something like the internet network, with its millions of interconnected computers with their billions of silicon chips to be conscious. (And how do we know that the net is not conscious?) I also consider the question of the possibility of strong AI to be unscientific, much as is the question of God. The question "does God exist?" is not scientific because there is no way to scientifically test the hypothesis to determine an answer. At this time, we have no way of directly observing and testing self-awareness, even the self-awareness of human beings. The world of philosophy is not the same as the world as seen by science. In the world of philosophy, the existence of an objective universe is not at all a given fact. From the philosophical viewpoint, we observe mental images of other human bodies behaving like our own, and assume that these mental images accurately reflect the existence of human bodies existing apart from ourselves. Then, we assume that these other bodies are being driven by an interior consciousness similar to our own. These are very likely to be correct assumptions, but the assumptions cannot be scientifically proved or disproved. The brain wave printouts and brain scan images we now study in our attempt to understand consciousness, are not consciousness itself. They are simply physical graphs of electric waves and physical photographic images, which are produced by the brain activity that we assume somehow creates consciousness. It would be quite possible today for some clever person to construct a device that would reproduce the same electric waves and scanned images as a functioning conscious brain, and even control a robot body, but would that make the device conscious? I seriously doubt that it would, though diehard AI enthusiasts might insist that it would. There is more to self-awareness than a graph of the electrical activity happening inside a mass of meat. Consciousness is a funny thing. We can't observe it objectively in others, yet when we do not observe our own consciousness, it doesn't exist. Some claim that the activity of the bio-material brain creates consciousness; others claim that consciousness itself creates the consistent series of mental images that we know as the objective material world. Still others give in to despair and claim that since consciousness cannot be measured, it does not exist. (To this last group I ask, "what is it then that has the illusion of consciousness?) When and if science develops a means of objectifying and thereby directly observing self-awareness, I shall answer the strong AI question. Until then, we can amuse and distract ourselves with unlimited debate and speculation, but we shall find no answers. And until tomorrow at this same time, I'm out of here. Take care, and watch out for that computer -- it may be observing you while you observe it. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com |
START 20.0 PAR-FORMULA FILE================================
Arachnid { ; time=0:15:34.17--SF5 on a P200
reset=2001 type=formula formulafile=allinone.frm
formulaname=MandelbrotBC1 function=floor passes=1
center-mag=-1.193364087424675/+0.4048602099941181/\
1.235979e+007/1/-35 params=1.414213562373/0/-29.3/0
float=y maxiter=4000 inside=0
logmap=460 periodicity=10
colors=000F0ZF0ZF0aF4eF8hFCkFGnFIqDIt7Iv1Iy0Kz0Kz0\
Kz0Ky0Kx1Kv4Kv7KuAKsCKrFKpIKpLKoOKmQGlTCjV7j`AfdDc\
jF`oIYuLVyMSzPPzQMzOLzMLzLLzJLxILvGLuDJrCJpAJm9Jl7\
Jj9JgAIdCG_DFXCDTACQ9AO79L67I46I34L13O04Q06T16X47_\
79aAAdCAgFCjIDmLFpOFsQGvTIyVIvYLu_Os`PpaSocTmdXjfY\
ig`giaid_iaYj_VjXTjSSlPPlMOlJMdVOYfOVgQSiTPjVOlYLm\
`IoaFpdDrfAsi7ul4vm5xpAysFzuKzxPzyUxxZsxcoxcivcgvc\
evccucauc_ucYrcWpcUocSmcQjcOicLgcIfcFcc0a`0`Z0_U0Y\
40S44O4AJ4FF3L93P43V03_03c0Aa0G`0M_0SY3YX6dV9jTCpS\
FvQIzPJxTMuXOr_PmcQjfSgiTdlV`pXYsYVv_Sy`OzaLzcIzdF\
zfDzlCzpAzv9zz9yzCszDovFjrIfmJaiLXdOS`POXQJSSFPM9I\
G3CC06600100600A00F00J30O70SC0XG0_L0cP0gT0lY0pa0uf\
0yj0zo0zr0zl0zg0zc3z_6zT9zPCzLFzGIzCLzGOzLQzPTzTXz\
Y`zaczffzjizolzspzxszzvzzyzzzzzuyzmxzfvz_uzTszMrzF\
pz7oz0mz0VzGDz`IzaMzaQzaVzc_zcczcgzdlzdpzdrzXszOuz\
Fvz6vz0zzAzzMzzYzzizzspzf
}
frm:MandelbrotBC1 { ; by several Fractint users
e=p1, a=imag(p2)+100
p=real(p2)+PI
q=2*PI*fn1(p/(2*PI))
r=real(p2)-q
Z=C=Pixel:
Z=log(Z)
IF(imag(Z) > r)
Z=Z+flip(2*PI)
ENDIF
Z=exp(e*(Z+flip(q)))+C
|Z| < a }
END 20.0 PAR-FORMULA FILE==================================
|
times.
