Some of the other commenters have pointed this out. But this just doesn’t quite work.
I’ve been doing Game Dev for the better part of 15 years now which is almost all of my career. I’ve been almost solely focused on building Tools and almost always building Editor internals and the interactions with the engine/assets systems.
There’s just so so much nuance to how editing works. You also want to be as close to how the engine will render so there’s also the need to either embed or have an api on your game to edit content live. People need hot reloading, people need things to look and act correct.
Just rendering a model accurately can be a challenge. Don’t get me started on animations
> LIGO can't point to specific locations in space
Since LIGO doesn’t need to collect light from stars or other objects or regions in space, it doesn't need to be round or dish-shaped like optical telescope mirrors or radio telescope dishes. Nor does it have to be steerable, i.e., able to move around to point in a specific direction. Instead, each LIGO detector consists of two 4 km (2.5 mi.) long, 1.2 m-wide steel vacuum tubes arranged in an "L" shape (LIGO's laser travels through these arms), and enclosed within a 10-foot wide, 12-foot tall concrete structure that protects the tubes from the environment.
> A mirror at the vertex of the arms splits a single light beam into two, directing each beam down an arm of the instrument
Mirrors at the ends of the arms reflect the beams back to their origin point where they are recombined to create an interference pattern called 'fringe
It’s the simulation and fitness function that are difficul not the genetic algorithm really.
I’ve done a bunch of playing around with NEAT, a variant of GA using NNs, for various things. Typically for GA stuff though you have a genome, aka some set of instructions for an individual, a fitness function for scoring them, and then you generate new individuals from those genomes for the next population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia[1] - is what you are now describing mixed with a little bit of Maxwell's Demon[2] - something is intercepting between you and a true experience.
Real, in the way I believe you are trying to express, is a complicated topic.
My understanding is that the mass relates to particles that the w boson would have to interact with during collisions for it to have the mass that was measure. Our known model doesn't predict this which means there might be particles that we haven't found in our current model. Which is where the super symmetry comes from
Sharp knives are far better than dull knives. They don't slip. Don't require too much force. With the added benefit of when you cut your finger off they can sew it back on from a clean cut :D
> And yet I can speak concretely about a hydrogen atom
You can talk about some abstractions about how a hydrogen atom works, but we don't fully understand everything about atomic structure. We don't know if there is something that makes up the structures of subatomic particles becuase we don't have particle accelerators that have enough energy for us to peer deeper into what quarks are made up of. We don't even know if we've found all the types of particles.
I think you could still use the definition. Because your still conscious, your just something that is aware of its ability to change shape and maintain its awareness through that change.
Nothing is really static in life. So nothing ever really is always just a thing, it was one thing, now it's a slightly different thing.
It reads to me as: Here is a list of examples of things that plants do that would imply some kind of decision making process. When we anesthetize them they lose those abilities, is that something that tells us they have consciousness.
Secondarily, one can make the argument that due to the fact that you have a nervous system in your arm and your brain loses the signals from that system, in some way you have lost part of your consciousness when you are anesthetized. Since at it's core consciousness is just an awareness of what is happening to you.
Thirdly, whose to say if plants are conscious that their roots don't function in some way as their brain.