|
On July 03 2013 01:52 NukeD wrote:
Okay ill take that as true than, but does the spectator play ANY role in quantum mechanics?
From what I understand, the whole spectator concept in quantum mechanics is just a way to say that there's no way to investigate something without affecting the result.
It's a bit like the Schrodinger cat experiment, until you look inside the box the cat is both dead and alive, but it's either dead or alive when you open the box and check it. This is not because you actually changed something by looking, the cat was either dead or alive before you opened the box, but there would be no way to know until we checked so we say it's both until the effect is observed.
At least, I think it's something along those lines, should be noted I'm far from an expert myself.
|
810 Posts
@doubleupgradeobbies :
That's what I would like to know, and that's why I asked if there were any experiment done to check if the observer has some kind of control. A rethorical question isn't enough.
@Tobberoth : that's not what I understood from quantums. Without observer, intelligent or not, "particles" behave differently than when they are observed. In one case wave function of possibilities, in the other one possibility is picked seemingly at random.
|
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well...
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 03 2013 02:06 Cynry wrote:
@doubleupgradeobbies :
That's what I would like to know, and that's why I asked if there were any experiment done to check if the observer has some kind of control. A rethorical question isn't enough.
I think I wasn't actually clear. Observation inherently does effect the outcome (according to most popular theories, quantum physics is... fuzzy).
The problem is not whether or not you can affect an outcome, but whether or not your choice to affect an outcome was determined by factors outside your control.
Ultimately it comes down to the mechanism of choice itself. Whether or not choice itself is determined solely by factors outside your control (including learned decision making algorithms, brain chemistry etc). Ultimately quantum physics doesn't offer any help in this question.
While there is a possibility, if slight, that your decisions are unpredictable even with perfect information, we don't know of any mechanism by which we can control or influence an outcome on a quantum scale. Eg being inherently unpredictable doesn't give you any more free will if it's also inherently uncontrollable.
|
810 Posts
No you were clear on that point and that's what I had understood of quantum physic as well.
Ok on us not having ways to test if we can influence outcome. And by influence I mean "the electron will go through that slit more than the other", not just collapsing the wave function in any way. Hope I'm clear.
|
On July 03 2013 02:08 knOxStarcraft wrote:
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well...
What the chinese room shows, if anything, is that no matter how complicated we make a machine all we seem to end up with is syntax. When exactly do we get semantics, ie meaning, into the picture. We have no answer to that question and it is unintuitive that we would end up with anything like that no matter how complicated the computer. Similarily, the problem of consciousness is not so much things such as memory or some parts of thinking, those we can understand; the problem of consciousness is why there is such a thing as "feeling" anything at all in the first place. Why is there qualitative aspects of conscoiusness in the first place, why isnt all this going on in the dark?
There is indeed reason to accept physicalism, but it is more because of how nonsensical alternative theories are than because we can make sense of a purely physical mind. I would like to quote Nagel:
Strangely enough, we may have evidence for the truth of something we cannot really understand. Suppose a caterpillar is locked in a sterile safe by someone unfamiliar with insect metamorphosis, and weeks later the safe is reopened, revealing a butterfly. If the person knows that the safe has been shut the whole time, he has reason to believe that the butterfly is or was once the caterpillar, without having any idea in what sense this might be so. (One possibility is that the caterpillar contained a tiny winged parasite that devoured it and grew into the butterfly.)
It is conceivable that we are in such a position with regard to physicalism
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html
|
810 Posts
On July 03 2013 02:27 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 02:08 knOxStarcraft wrote:
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well... What the chinese room shows, if anything, is that no matter how complicated we make a machine all we seem to end up with is syntax. When exactly do we get semantics, ie meaning, into the picture. We have no answer to that question and it is unintuitive that we would end up with anything like that no matter how complicated the computer. Similarily, the problem of consciousness is not so much things such as memory or some parts of thinking, those we can understand; the problem of consciousness is why there is such a thing as "feeling" anything at all in the first place. Why is there qualitative aspects of conscoiusness in the first place, why isnt all this going on in the dark?
Well if you meditate deep enough with your eyes open, you end up in the dark. The qualitative side of consciousness is a self imposed illusion to be able to do stuff. My guess, of course.
|
|
|
On July 03 2013 02:30 Cynry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 02:27 Snusmumriken wrote:On July 03 2013 02:08 knOxStarcraft wrote:
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well... What the chinese room shows, if anything, is that no matter how complicated we make a machine all we seem to end up with is syntax. When exactly do we get semantics, ie meaning, into the picture. We have no answer to that question and it is unintuitive that we would end up with anything like that no matter how complicated the computer. Similarily, the problem of consciousness is not so much things such as memory or some parts of thinking, those we can understand; the problem of consciousness is why there is such a thing as "feeling" anything at all in the first place. Why is there qualitative aspects of conscoiusness in the first place, why isnt all this going on in the dark? Well if you meditate deep enough with your eyes open, you end up in the dark. The qualitative side of consciousness is a self imposed illusion to be able to do stuff. My guess, of course.
that does not make sense. If theres absolutely anything that cant be an illusion its this. The cookies im eating may well be an illusion, the world may be one too, but the very experience itself cannot be (though the idea that there is someone experiencing it may well be)
|
On July 01 2013 10:13 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:12 aksfjh wrote:
As far as we can tell, yes. Although, one hopes there is more to it than that. Why? Why does one need anything more when what we have is already so wonderful?
I agree, there's more than enough that we don't know about, yet.
|
810 Posts
On July 03 2013 02:33 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 02:30 Cynry wrote:On July 03 2013 02:27 Snusmumriken wrote:On July 03 2013 02:08 knOxStarcraft wrote:
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well... What the chinese room shows, if anything, is that no matter how complicated we make a machine all we seem to end up with is syntax. When exactly do we get semantics, ie meaning, into the picture. We have no answer to that question and it is unintuitive that we would end up with anything like that no matter how complicated the computer. Similarily, the problem of consciousness is not so much things such as memory or some parts of thinking, those we can understand; the problem of consciousness is why there is such a thing as "feeling" anything at all in the first place. Why is there qualitative aspects of conscoiusness in the first place, why isnt all this going on in the dark? Well if you meditate deep enough with your eyes open, you end up in the dark. The qualitative side of consciousness is a self imposed illusion to be able to do stuff. My guess, of course. that does not make sense. If theres absolutely anything that cant be an illusion its this. The cookies im eating may well be an illusion, the world may be one too, but the very experience itself cannot be (though the idea that there is someone experiencing it may well be)
Oh guess I wasn't clear. I assumed the qualitative side was the sounds, colors etc, not the fact that you're experimenting something. The fact that you are perceiving is "real", the world you build with those perceptions is the illusion.
Edit : So I guess your question should not have been "why isn't it going on in the dark ?" but rather, why is it going on at all, right ?
|
On July 03 2013 02:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 02:06 Cynry wrote:
@doubleupgradeobbies :
That's what I would like to know, and that's why I asked if there were any experiment done to check if the observer has some kind of control. A rethorical question isn't enough.
I think I wasn't actually clear. Observation inherently does effect the outcome (according to most popular theories, quantum physics is... fuzzy). The problem is not whether or not you can affect an outcome, but whether or not your choice to affect an outcome was determined by factors outside your control. Ultimately it comes down to the mechanism of choice itself. Whether or not choice itself is determined solely by factors outside your control (including learned decision making algorithms, brain chemistry etc). Ultimately quantum physics doesn't offer any help in this question. While there is a possibility, if slight, that your decisions are unpredictable even with perfect information, we don't know of any mechanism by which we can control or influence an outcome on a quantum scale. Eg being inherently unpredictable doesn't give you any more free will if it's also inherently uncontrollable.
This is probably good place to distinguish quantum theory and interpretations of quantum theory. Whereas there is nothing really fuzzy about quantum theory as a tool for predicting things, interpretations are plenty and can be considered fuzzy.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 03 2013 02:27 Snusmumriken wrote:
There is indeed reason to accept physicalism, but it is more because of how nonsensical alternative theories are than because we can make sense of a purely physical mind. I would like to quote Nagel:
I think the reason for accepting physicalism is that almost all scientific theory is ultimately pinned on a basis of physics, ultimately all sciences essentially look at the world, no matter through how many layers, eventually through the lens of the physical.
Moreover, science, the scientific method, and our body of scientific knowledge, is to date, by far the most easily compatible way of analysing the world, between all people.
While there are infinite ways, philosophies if you will, to look at a problem, object or phenomena; repeatable, empirical observation is by and large a common language that we all experience in the same way, and consequently a standard by which disagreements about beliefs in how something works can most easily be resolved.
So ultimately, we resort to physicalism not necessarily because other ways of looking at the world are necessarily nonsensical, but because the best, most widely compatible tool we have for applying to the problem happens to deal entirely with the physical world.
In short, we work with the tools we have, and since nothing we have at the moment has anywhere near the level of compatibility and consistency among different peoples/cultures as science does, it is the tool that we most commonly turn to, and the lens that inevitably tints everything we use it for in the only part of existence that it deals with, physics and the physical.
|
On July 03 2013 02:27 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 02:08 knOxStarcraft wrote:
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well... What the chinese room shows, if anything, is that no matter how complicated we make a machine all we seem to end up with is syntax. When exactly do we get semantics, ie meaning, into the picture. We have no answer to that question and it is unintuitive that we would end up with anything like that no matter how complicated the computer. Similarily, the problem of consciousness is not so much things such as memory or some parts of thinking, those we can understand; the problem of consciousness is why there is such a thing as "feeling" anything at all in the first place. Why is there qualitative aspects of conscoiusness in the first place, why isnt all this going on in the dark? There is indeed reason to accept physicalism, but it is more because of how nonsensical alternative theories are than because we can make sense of a purely physical mind. I would like to quote Nagel: Strangely enough, we may have evidence for the truth of something we cannot really understand. Suppose a caterpillar is locked in a sterile safe by someone unfamiliar with insect metamorphosis, and weeks later the safe is reopened, revealing a butterfly. If the person knows that the safe has been shut the whole time, he has reason to believe that the butterfly is or was once the caterpillar, without having any idea in what sense this might be so. (One possibility is that the caterpillar contained a tiny winged parasite that devoured it and grew into the butterfly.)
It is conceivable that we are in such a position with regard to physicalismhttp://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html
Chinese room shows no such thing (if anything), it tries to show that there is something in our biological nature that formal algorithms lack and that this something is what introduces the semantics. Searle would have no problem with machine having access to semantics as long as the machine is not purely formal system.
|
I think it is but I wouldn't refuse the idea of soul and afterlife, everyone wants immortality in some other state of existence.
|
810 Posts
Well then, consider that at the moment of death, your perception of time goes into a black-hole like state, stretching toward infinity. And there you have your perceived immortality. No need for a soul.
|
|
|
On July 03 2013 02:08 knOxStarcraft wrote:
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well...
The human mind has always been explained through the paradigm of the technology of the moment. In the past, this was things like a book or a steam engine, and now its a computer. At the end of the day, we understand the function of the brain so poorly that its still a leap to make this comparison.
|
On July 03 2013 02:27 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 02:08 knOxStarcraft wrote:
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well... What the chinese room shows, if anything, is that no matter how complicated we make a machine all we seem to end up with is syntax. When exactly do we get semantics, ie meaning, into the picture. We have no answer to that question and it is unintuitive that we would end up with anything like that no matter how complicated the computer. Similarily, the problem of consciousness is not so much things such as memory or some parts of thinking, those we can understand; the problem of consciousness is why there is such a thing as "feeling" anything at all in the first place. Why is there qualitative aspects of conscoiusness in the first place, why isnt all this going on in the dark? There is indeed reason to accept physicalism, but it is more because of how nonsensical alternative theories are than because we can make sense of a purely physical mind. I would like to quote Nagel: Strangely enough, we may have evidence for the truth of something we cannot really understand. Suppose a caterpillar is locked in a sterile safe by someone unfamiliar with insect metamorphosis, and weeks later the safe is reopened, revealing a butterfly. If the person knows that the safe has been shut the whole time, he has reason to believe that the butterfly is or was once the caterpillar, without having any idea in what sense this might be so. (One possibility is that the caterpillar contained a tiny winged parasite that devoured it and grew into the butterfly.)
It is conceivable that we are in such a position with regard to physicalismhttp://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html
While I'm willing to entertain this discussion, I agree with above poster that the chinese room situation won't tell you very much about syntax vs semantics. Typical of philosophical thought experiments, it deals in hypothetical situations with poorly defined parameters.
To wit, in your own experience how can you ever know of any other exterior agent that truly deals in semantics? You can't, it's just that humans have evolved as very social/empathic animals that are very willing to personify and identify with exterior objects. But more to the point, I would argue semantics is a problematic and unclear thing, at best. A distinction between syntax and semantics presupposes some kind of meaning without object, a la form without substance, which isn't supportable in any kind of nonspeculative way, and certainly isn't supportable under physicalism.
|
On July 03 2013 02:56 oneill12 wrote:
I think it is but I wouldn't refuse the idea of soul and afterlife, everyone wants immortality in some other state of existence.
I think never being free to truly die is perhaps the most terrifying idea imaginable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
