to see if the basis needs change.

there is also the cosmological argument which demonstrates that there is necessarily an immaterial actuality which is prior to all material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Continue.

Explain — apokrisis

Take away all laws of physics or the natural order. That's true chaos.

Can you think of a test that would detect sapience or consciousness? — bert1

Yes. You see if your synthetic being goes beyond its programmed capacity or scope and does something on its own that wasn't predicted (in machine learning). Something novel, something that is attributed to the body.

Not just sexes, pretty much everything is being stereotyped. — baker

Modern moral thought seeks to dissolve rigid patterns—arguing that social identities and roles should be fluid, inclusive, and adaptive. But the question arises: if the cosmos thrives on patterned predictability, are we defying natural order when we reject all categorization?

Perhaps political correctness is not a rebellion against truth but against the misuse of truth.
Where the laws of physics are descriptive (they describe how matter behaves), human “laws” and social codes are often prescriptive (they dictate how people should behave).
Confusing these two is the origin of moral error.

Thus, it is not that rigidity is wrong or that fluidity is right—but that cosmic rigidity serves being, while social rigidity often serves power.

If the universe’s consistency ensures existence, and its entropy ensures change, then perhaps human liberty is the social form of cosmic entropy.
Too much rigidity yields tyranny. Too much fluidity yields chaos.
Thus, just as the cosmos balances order and disorder, civilization must balance law and liberty.

Racism and sexism are not “natural laws” but misapplications of pattern recognition.
They emerge when humans mistake statistical or biological tendencies for moral truths.
The difference between physics and prejudice is the difference between observation and judgment.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Selective Universe: Order, Entropy, and the Philosophical Paradox of Natural Rigidity [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17341242

You take materialism to be true — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, you must have a basis for other arguments to circle around.

simple unboxed freedom. — apokrisis

That's entropy. Any large-scale or permanent chaos would doom the universe.

What about hydrogen and oxygen? — RogueAI

Every element is crucial in its own place. But carbon was the building block of life and organic chemistry.

ummm.... Elementary biology and chemistry?

I think the main topic got sidelined here.

Rather than dissection entropy, we should examine what makes carbon the heart of consciousness.

According to me of course. — punos

And what is your argument for that?

Indeed it is. — punos

So the universe (space) managing itself (entropy) for sustainability? Yes, my point too.

But it does leave a question:

Why is the universe, a scattered body without any central command, hellbent on sustainability and manages to do so uniformly without direct communication between the elements?

Not to mention, non-living matters don't have sapience to communicate. Signal interpretation should be seen as sapience. Does that mean non-living matters are alive in their own sense (Panpsychism)?

Which is easier to prove? That it is or that it isn't? — punos

Empirical data says chaos exists. You argue otherwise.

If something appears anomalous or miraculous, it is because we do not yet understand its natural nature. — punos

So in true sense, nothing is unnatural or supernatural? That's what my thesis argues, though.

Chaos is just hidden order. — punos

So entropy is orderly?

space — punos

Isn't space part of the universe?

the universe is always certain about what it will do in the next moment in time. — punos

Can you prove it?

cell is widely accepted as the precondition for living matter (i.e., those who have free will and mind). machines lack cells.

How would you prove or observe machine consciousness? — RogueAI

one of the outcomes of consciousness is free will. — Copernicus

Supernatural? — punos

What is the definition of supernatural?

If there is any "anomaly" to the natural law, is it unnatural? Does that make entropy or other chemical reaction exceptions unnatural?

Why would a universe that values order also permit chaos?
Perhaps because rigidity without decay would yield stagnation. Entropy ensures transformation.
If the laws are the skeleton of the cosmos, entropy is its pulse—its motion through time. The two are not contradictions but complements: order defines the possible, entropy defines the dynamic.

The cosmos, then, is not a tyrant of predictability, but a governor of structured uncertainty.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Selective Universe: Order, Entropy, and the Philosophical Paradox of Natural Rigidity [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17341242

Is it possible some machines are conscious? — RogueAI

It was never proved or observed. And one of the outcomes of consciousness is free will. But what is "will" exactly? A person in a coma or paralysis has consciousness, but physical inability to execute will. Does he lack free will? If not, how do you know he has free will? Just because he was born with it?

Why is that? — Harry Hindu

I think I've equated it with the eye's inability to see itself.

If we can reproduce intelligence "artificially" then why not cells? — Harry Hindu

Will that cell generate consciousness?

Test them for what? What would that show? — bert1

To see if their "artificial" body can generate sapience or consciousness.

@Banno@Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry if I had been unwelcoming in my arguments.

I'd ask you to bring all your arsenal and attack me reasonably so that I can see if I have any fault.

I'm working on a book, so I want a proper review and feedback beforehand.

Your point being?

There is conceptual work to be done before we can assess the value of any related science. — bert1

Test synthetic beings. Things would likely go south — the price we pay for discovery.

When AI achieves consciousness — punos

When or If?

Your desire to be convinced is the problematic attitude. It's an attitude which rejects possibilities opting only for that which one is convinced of. And that is what you take for granted. — Metaphysician Undercover

I welcome any counterargument. But they need to be convincing enough.

Whom am I stereotyping when I say the distinction between male and female is biological, but the distinction between man and woman is social and linguistic. — T Clark

I didn't say it's your fault. I just reacted to the facts you presented.

thanks.

Nope, i have no objections — punos

What about AI consciousness?

you couldn't convince otherwise.

no, I used it to denote stereotyping.

Wow. No objections. Looks like finally everyone agreed.

If you're a monist, you might have inputs on this.

I don't see where I got it wrong.

I don't see why.

That's not the argument he was making. — Philosophim

I didn't counter him. I responded to the fact he presented.

If transwomen are women or transmen are men just because of cultural or habitual identity, does carrying a gun or shooting down schools make a Norwegian an American, or does loving KFC chicken make a caucasian man an African American, regardless of ethnicity or nationality?

Because it's pretty much stereotyping. We're stereotyping sexes here.

I'd love to hear your idea of conscience.

Is a person not of sound mind no longer a person? — Outlander

If you have the liberty to choose, then it's voluntary. But if, let's say, I hypnotize or control you with magic, then not. — Copernicus

Who decides whose mind is sound and whose isn't? — Outlander

This is a chokepoint I've been stuck for a long while in multiple cases. I guess if I can crack this formula, I can solve multiple paradoxes at once.

Check out the hyperlink to see how this is something I have yet to solve.

What if I was drunk/high/on drugs/delirious from lack of sleep/in an emotional frenzy and had no such agency? — Outlander

You are not of sound mind. Everything you do that is not done voluntarily (under influence or coercion) doesn't count as [voluntary] action.

If you have the liberty to choose, then it's voluntary. But if, let's say, I hypnotize or control you with magic, then not.

I've already discussed something similar here.

Here we go with more presumptions. That overused word "may" that means nothing in absolute discussion. — Outlander

Okay. They MUST have had other gains or motives.

Leaving a hundred dollar bill under a rock on the sidewalk, maybe? You'll never gain any benefit from it. Who knows, it might go to some drug addict. Or, someone really down on their luck who needed just that amount to make rent or cover this month's bills might pick it up instead. You'll never know. — Outlander

No. You served your agency or desire to act.

That would, technically be selfless, no? — Outlander

No. They may had gains or motives other than altruism.