|
On July 04 2013 18:20 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 18:15 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 18:12 DertoQq wrote:
@xM(Z
so ? this is not even remotely related to this thread. I have no idea what you are trying to say. There is nothing non-physical about all this stuff. last i checked that was still on the debate table here, with people strongly claiming that we are more then matter and souls were flying around. plus, i told your mind what it has to do to evolve!  I meant that your article is only talking about physical stuff, so why are you quoting it to defend your "more than matter" view ?
my "more then matter" view is a futuristic one, not actual, current one (my current view is that brain = mind = quantum physicality). if you notice, i use 'will' and 'would' when i talk about that. i talk about what it could/might become in a few hundred of thousand of years of further evolution.
|
On July 04 2013 18:26 Rassy wrote:
No, i would qualify that as extensive calculation, since that is how computers work.
They can only find answers by trying out every possibility,thats for example how chess, go and back gammon programs work.
Humans are somehow able to skip and not calculate/investigate irrelevant paths, and with an infinite number of possible paths for the explanation of physics i think computers will hit a wall.
This is just about algorithms. Currently, our computers are way worse than us at doing all this things, exactly for the reason you say (they is too many possibilities). Btw, most of the latest chess AI also skip a good part of the irrelevant paths.
All in all, we just handle the decision making more efficiently than a computer.
My question is, would you really dismiss the possibility that a computer could handle this the same way as we do ?
|
On July 04 2013 18:27 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 18:20 DertoQq wrote:On July 04 2013 18:15 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 18:12 DertoQq wrote:
@xM(Z
so ? this is not even remotely related to this thread. I have no idea what you are trying to say. There is nothing non-physical about all this stuff. last i checked that was still on the debate table here, with people strongly claiming that we are more then matter and souls were flying around. plus, i told your mind what it has to do to evolve! I meant that your article is only talking about physical stuff, so why are you quoting it to defend your "more than matter" view ? my "more then matter" view is a futuristic one, not actual, current one (my current view is that brain = mind = quantum physicality). if you notice, i use 'will' and 'would' when i talk about that. i talk about what it could/might become in a few hundred of thousand of years of further evolution.
I think you really have a problem answering clear question. Why did you quote this particular article (the last one) ? Why does it help your case ? Why do you think it is even related to this topic ?
|
On July 04 2013 18:31 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 18:26 Rassy wrote:
No, i would qualify that as extensive calculation, since that is how computers work.
They can only find answers by trying out every possibility,thats for example how chess, go and back gammon programs work.
Humans are somehow able to skip and not calculate/investigate irrelevant paths, and with an infinite number of possible paths for the explanation of physics i think computers will hit a wall. This is just about algorithms. Currently, our computers are way worse than us at doing all this things, exactly for the reason you say (they is too many possibilities). Btw, most of the latest chess AI also skip a good part of the irrelevant paths. All in all, we just handle the decision making more efficiently than a computer. My question is, would you really dismiss the possibility that a computer could handle this the same way as we do ?
Hmm no, i wouldnt dare to say that.
There might come and already are new ways of programming like cloud computing or fuzzy logics and i dont know much about programming and AI at all.
If computers would start to operate in such a way they will loose an advantage that they now have over humans, by calculating every posibility the computer misses nothing, if they would start to operate like us they would start making errors and miss posiblities.
I still realy doubt that a computer will ever be able to find new and meaningfull explanations for physics though, or to devellop completely new mathematics basicly out of nowhere like newton did,(i do believe they can devellop new mathematics verry closely related to already existing mathematics) but i can imagine them composing music or poetry at a verry high level far in the future.
|
On July 04 2013 18:34 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 18:27 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 18:20 DertoQq wrote:On July 04 2013 18:15 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 18:12 DertoQq wrote:
@xM(Z
so ? this is not even remotely related to this thread. I have no idea what you are trying to say. There is nothing non-physical about all this stuff. last i checked that was still on the debate table here, with people strongly claiming that we are more then matter and souls were flying around. plus, i told your mind what it has to do to evolve! I meant that your article is only talking about physical stuff, so why are you quoting it to defend your "more than matter" view ? my "more then matter" view is a futuristic one, not actual, current one (my current view is that brain = mind = quantum physicality). if you notice, i use 'will' and 'would' when i talk about that. i talk about what it could/might become in a few hundred of thousand of years of further evolution. I think you really have a problem answering clear question. Why did you quote this particular article (the last one) ? Why does it help your case ? Why do you think it is even related to this topic ?
how the hell does a stance on biologic material getting teleported via electromagnetic waves then one about brains emitting electomagnetic waves does not belong in a "Is the mind all chemical and electricity" topic?.
i quoted so that people would make new connections between mind <-> matter making them favor the physical approach. i didn't quote it for me, geez
|
On July 01 2013 10:45 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:40 kwizach wrote:On July 01 2013 10:36 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 10:33 coverpunch wrote:On July 01 2013 10:26 casuistry wrote:
Yes, it's all electrical and chemical events. Accept it.
What's really funny is that half of the people saying yes in this thread still believe in free will. We can "control" the laws of physics! With our brain made of elements ruled by physics! What a miracle! Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity. It's not a separate issue. If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist. But brain activity is not absolutely deterministic. It's stochastic. Could you explain why it's stochastic? So far the only factor making it non-deterministic that I've encountered is quantum mechanics. Brownian motion, the mechanism through which neurotransmitters diffuse through the synaptic cleft is a stochastic process. Since neurotransmitter binding controls the ratio of excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic potentials, whether or not EPSPs and IPSPs sum up to generate action potentials, and the timing and frequency of action potentials all depend on stochastic processes. The difference between pulling the trigger or putting down the gun can be the difference between whether one neuron's neurotransmitters got there first or not.
This is still deterministic and wouldn't make a difference in any discussion of free will
|
it's semantics.
-some people see free will as choice, as possibility and not necessarily as control over the laws of physics.
-some people see determinism as laws of nature with choice then get into a semantics argument with predetermined and/or predestined concepts.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 04 2013 18:26 Rassy wrote:
No, i would qualify that as extensive calculation, since that is how computers work.
They can only find answers by trying out every possibility,thats for example how chess, go and back gammon programs work.
Humans are somehow able to skip and not calculate/investigate irrelevant paths, and with an infinite number of possible paths for the explanation of the physical world i think computers will hit a wall.
I think the more helpful way of thinking how computers could have something like imagination, is really to think of imagination itself as a computational function.
I'm not a neurologist or psychologist, but from my very unqualified perspective, imagination is just a combination of 2 fundamental algorithms. The first is to list the possible actions(of which there are effectively infinite), using the resources we have or could conceivably have at our disposal. And the second is an instinctive understanding of which resources to utilise that would result in a more likely, or a better solution, a process which very quickly eliminates alot of bad solutions.
The first of those factors, computers are even better than we are, they are thorough, possess staggering amounts of raw processing power, and still improve at an immense rate. So not much needs to be said of it. Of the second factor, computer algorithms already use mathematical constructs to determine which variables are more likely to provide better solutions when manipulated (eg pure eigenanalysis for some of the simpler applications of machine learning).
While neural network, evolutionary learning and related algorithms are mathematically still relatively simple and generally work with very few degrees of freedom in their current form. It could be argued that this is just a primitive version of exactly the same processes we have to eliminate obviously bad potential solutions, and to judge which avenues of imagination to explore are more likely to yield desired results.
It's not inconceivable that when we subconsciously eliminate the more outlandish possibilities when 'imagining', it could well just be a more advanced version of what machine learning algorithms are doing now. Admittedly we don't really understand our subconscious decisions to characterise certain avenues of exploration as potentially more fruitful than others the same way we can understand how these algorithms characterise certain degrees of freedom has being more fruitful (since we wrote those algorithms conciously).
So it comes down to what we really think is involved in imagination. If the way we look at imagination as just creating possible solution models, and systematically eliminating models that are unlikely to provide desired solutions, then computers already do that, on a much simpler level, working with much fewer degrees of freedom, but it is an emerging field of computing and is almost guaranteed to be improving at an immense rate. What's more it turns out it doesn't require anything more than some relatively simple maths, and alot of computing power.
|
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. The sad part is that even university professors of physics where I'm from don't take the time to realize this...
Free will originates as a concept from the religious belief of the soul, if you are not responsible for anything how could you possibly go to hell or heaven after all...
|
On July 04 2013 13:30 TritaN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 11:06 biology]major wrote:
the mind is not in physical reality.
Your brain is a bunch of sodium/potassium channels opening and closing which propagate some electrical signals to each other. These neurons, the sodium channels and their physiology can be completely observed by scientists. However experience itself can never be observed. You can interpret other people's brains electrical activity and generate your own approximations, but the experience of each person is unique to him/her.
The question, "show me your mind" often asked by zen masters can not be answered by science, because it lies within the realm of philosophy. As the "mind" is a direct product of the structure and interactions of the chemicals in the physical brain, it is a bit presumptuous to assume that science will never be able to observe it. The "experience itself" that you talk about is shaped entirely by the brain. If I poke one area of your brain, it might leave you (and your "mind") permanently unable to recognize people's faces. If I poke a different area, it could cause you to believe that your loved ones have been replaced by body-snatching aliens.
All you are saying is that the mind and brain are related, which is fine. However the mind is just experience, and experience cannot be observed from anyone but the person experiencing. Even if we find out the role of each and every neuron in our brain, that only helps us modify the physical aspect of it. No matter how much you poke through my brain you won't find my experience inside :p
|
On July 04 2013 20:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 13:30 TritaN wrote:On July 04 2013 11:06 biology]major wrote:
the mind is not in physical reality.
Your brain is a bunch of sodium/potassium channels opening and closing which propagate some electrical signals to each other. These neurons, the sodium channels and their physiology can be completely observed by scientists. However experience itself can never be observed. You can interpret other people's brains electrical activity and generate your own approximations, but the experience of each person is unique to him/her.
The question, "show me your mind" often asked by zen masters can not be answered by science, because it lies within the realm of philosophy. As the "mind" is a direct product of the structure and interactions of the chemicals in the physical brain, it is a bit presumptuous to assume that science will never be able to observe it. The "experience itself" that you talk about is shaped entirely by the brain. If I poke one area of your brain, it might leave you (and your "mind") permanently unable to recognize people's faces. If I poke a different area, it could cause you to believe that your loved ones have been replaced by body-snatching aliens. All you are saying is that the mind and brain are related, which is fine. However the mind is just experience, and experience cannot be observed from anyone but the person experiencing. Even if we find out the role of each and every neuron in our brain, that only helps us modify the physical aspect of it. No matter how much you poke through my brain you won't find my experience inside :p
few inductions later - but you'd only have a point if the mind can experience itself right?.
so here's a question: can the mind be a sensor in itself?, and of so, then it would be a sensor of what?, what would it measure?
|
We don't know but we also don;t know of anything else it could be so tentatively, yes.
|
On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant.
Why is that?
|
To be more exact - is the mind, in all its complexity, physical, the is, the chemical and electric networks in the brain? What about morality, love, ideas, empathy, compassion, imagination? Are these mere byproducts of physiological processes that are in a way similar to the chemical and electrical impulses experienced by other animals?
Humans are not "in a way similar" to animals. We are animals, don't forget that. Yes we are at the top of the food chain and have accomplished more feats of understanding than the other animals on the planet - but we are not miraculously beyond the realm of flesh, bone, chemicals and electricity for doing so.
Also, morality, love, ideas, empathy, compassion and imagination are not unique to humans.
|
Of course the brain is a huge deterministic reactive and reflective electrochemical computer. Every reaction a person has to an event, be it the words "look to your right" or seeing a car crash, money on the ground, (anything really) is a result of an algorithm that took place milliseconds before the person takes the action. The brain has a really good highly distributed learning algorithm that maps patterns to abstract ideas. The fact that no two persons will have the exact thought process or reactions comes from the same reason no two persons have identical fingerprints. Minute differences in how neurons work have a huge impact on the end result (the reaction). The whole universe is centered around action -> reaction since the Big Bang, from the smallest of quarks to the galaxies. The brain just has really complex reactions. The most remarkable feature of the human mind is self awareness. It is sufficiently advanced that it has become aware of itself, and has defence mechanisms in place when the self awareness goes too far for it to handle. It makes up stories like "creators" and "gods" to cope with existential deadlock.
The human brain is just a really really really awesome computer. We should embrace that and not hind behind the veil of the supernatural. The supernatural exists only in the abstract world of the thought process.
To give an idea on how awesome the learning algorithm of the brain is, researches have been able to remap the nerves transmitting sound information from the ears to the part of the brain that deals with vision, where the visual nerves ends. Over time the visual cortex adapted to process sound instead of visual information.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 04 2013 20:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 13:30 TritaN wrote:On July 04 2013 11:06 biology]major wrote:
the mind is not in physical reality.
Your brain is a bunch of sodium/potassium channels opening and closing which propagate some electrical signals to each other. These neurons, the sodium channels and their physiology can be completely observed by scientists. However experience itself can never be observed. You can interpret other people's brains electrical activity and generate your own approximations, but the experience of each person is unique to him/her.
The question, "show me your mind" often asked by zen masters can not be answered by science, because it lies within the realm of philosophy. As the "mind" is a direct product of the structure and interactions of the chemicals in the physical brain, it is a bit presumptuous to assume that science will never be able to observe it. The "experience itself" that you talk about is shaped entirely by the brain. If I poke one area of your brain, it might leave you (and your "mind") permanently unable to recognize people's faces. If I poke a different area, it could cause you to believe that your loved ones have been replaced by body-snatching aliens. All you are saying is that the mind and brain are related, which is fine. However the mind is just experience, and experience cannot be observed from anyone but the person experiencing. Even if we find out the role of each and every neuron in our brain, that only helps us modify the physical aspect of it. No matter how much you poke through my brain you won't find my experience inside :p
The problem is, is the mind defined by neurological and psychological response to experience or the experience itself?
That is to say, if hypothetically, we were to physically modify a part of your brain that was not associated with memory storage (if that's even possible), but were to leave your memories, and therefore your experiences the same (obviously we can't change your history without a time machine, so our only means of modifying your past experiences would be through your memory, ergo if we don't change your past or your memory of the past, your experience is left unchanged).
Then A) your experience is unchanged, and B) you would almost certainly respond to stimulus differently than before (since we messed around with your brain), would you consider that your mind has changed now that your decision making is different from before? If so, doesn't it stand to reason your mind is more than just experience?
Moreover, scientifically, your past experiences can only have had an effect on you if physical changes are made to you as a result (eg it has effected how your brain is wired, there is charge distribution related to the storage of the memory of that experience, etc). Without these physical changes there is no way we know of that these experiences could have played a role in making you and your mind what they are, eg you have no memory of the experience, your brain chemistry/wiring are exactly the same as they would have been if you had not had that experience. Working backwards from that, then it stands to reason that the effects of your experience on your mind indeed have to be physically manifested on your brain and body.
Then, I'm not saying this is definitely true since we definitely don't know for sure, but I think at least in theory, all the effects your accumulated experiences have had on your mind (not necessarily the experiences themselves) would be indistinguishable from a set of experiences that have left the exact same physical manifestation on you. That is to say, whatever part your experiences have played in shaping your mind can be determined from the physical state of your brain, the actual experiences that caused these manifestations are irrelevant to the how your mind is.
Admittedly, physics and consequently science at large, makes the implicit assumption, that all things, and all the effects from their interactions that are scientifically meaningful are physical in nature, and consequently could not have come to any other conclusion than that the past doesn't actually matter so long the effects of the past are identical (and time travel is not a factor). However in that framework it does mean that your past experiences don't actually add anything to your mind that have not already manifested physically in your brain.
|
On July 04 2013 20:07 biology]major wrote:
All you are saying is that the mind and brain are related, which is fine. However the mind is just experience, and experience cannot be observed from anyone but the person experiencing. Even if we find out the role of each and every neuron in our brain, that only helps us modify the physical aspect of it. No matter how much you poke through my brain you won't find my experience inside :p
Well but experience is nothing real. It is just an abstract construct that includes both the concept of memory (for past experinces) and supposition (for future experiences). Experiences exist as long as there is a physical support that is able to reproduce them, such as the voice to tell them or a book in which those experience are stored.
And this is also the reason why scientists can't dig in your brain and find them. It simply doesn't exist. Everytime you try to recollect something, you are just reassembling the experience taking from different parts of the brain and reprocessing it. That's why you change the version of a memory over time (aside from physically changing the quantity of informations that your brain has stored).
|
On July 04 2013 18:31 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 18:26 Rassy wrote:
No, i would qualify that as extensive calculation, since that is how computers work.
They can only find answers by trying out every possibility,thats for example how chess, go and back gammon programs work.
Humans are somehow able to skip and not calculate/investigate irrelevant paths, and with an infinite number of possible paths for the explanation of physics i think computers will hit a wall. This is just about algorithms. Currently, our computers are way worse than us at doing all this things, exactly for the reason you say (they is too many possibilities). Btw, most of the latest chess AI also skip a good part of the irrelevant paths. All in all, we just handle the decision making more efficiently than a computer. My question is, would you really dismiss the possibility that a computer could handle this the same way as we do ?
I would. The human mind ignores natural law constantly. The ideas and concepts we perceive in out minds are chaotic, they luck structure when presented objectively.
As an artist, musician, writer, engineer etc you have a brain that observes the universe. Through a filtering process interprets the idea within the limits of the universe. But the painting, piece of technology, song, program that the brain constructs isn't as impressive as what the initial idea the mind presents.
The mind CREATES, the brain performs. If the brain is the computer, the mind is on the keyboard.
There more impressive things the mind has been reported to do through out history. For example foresight into the future, or memories of a previous life in time.
That's why I think science should stay away from the metaphysical. The metaphysical world is too vast, and too individual based. You cannot prove or disprove a lot of what each individual experiences. We don't share these experiences. And some individuals delve much deeper than others.
That's why theology exists and will continue to do so.
Best call us crazy and move on.
|
On July 04 2013 21:26 KingAce wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 18:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 04 2013 18:26 Rassy wrote:
No, i would qualify that as extensive calculation, since that is how computers work.
They can only find answers by trying out every possibility,thats for example how chess, go and back gammon programs work.
Humans are somehow able to skip and not calculate/investigate irrelevant paths, and with an infinite number of possible paths for the explanation of physics i think computers will hit a wall. This is just about algorithms. Currently, our computers are way worse than us at doing all this things, exactly for the reason you say (they is too many possibilities). Btw, most of the latest chess AI also skip a good part of the irrelevant paths. All in all, we just handle the decision making more efficiently than a computer. My question is, would you really dismiss the possibility that a computer could handle this the same way as we do ? I would. The human mind ignores natural law constantly. The ideas and concepts we perceive in out minds are chaotic, they luck structure when presented objectively. As an artist, musician, writer, engineer etc you have a brain that observes the universe. Through a filtering process interprets the idea within the limits of the universe. But the painting, piece of technology, song, program that the brain constructs isn't as impressive as what the initial idea the mind presents. The mind CREATES, the brain performs. If the brain is the computer, the mind is on the keyboard. There more impressive things the mind has been reported to do through out history. For example foresight into the future, or memories of a previous life in time. That's why I think science should stay away from the metaphysical. The metaphysical world is too vast, and too individual based. You cannot prove or disprove a lot of what each individual experiences. We don't share these experiences. And some individuals delve much deeper than others. That's why theology exists and will continue to do so. Best call us crazy and move on.
In what way?
|
Good disscussion, good read. Few points though:
1. Physical doesn't necessarily mean deterministic, Spiritual (if exists) doesn't necessarily mean 'outside all rules existing in physical world' (and certainly not outside all rules, because that just would be spiritual chaos).
2. The fact that we so far observed only one mechanism of physical determinism doesn't prove it's the only mechanism that exists - we might be as well just lousy observers that miss the action looking only at main screen and never at the minimap.
3. If any spiritual world exists, it must be bonded with the real one - otherwise, it's content will be irrelevant and unobservable as we live in a certain set of matter/energy/etc. and thus are completely unable to interact with entirely separate set.
4. Human language, even under scientific regime, is a pretty awful tool to illustrate many laws of the real world, so no wonder it works even worse at making entirely abstract hypothesis about spiritual.
5. The concept of God is the attempt to preserve the internal consistency of human language, because it's natural for humans to treat the world like a complete and narrative story with a clear beginning and the end (not that I'm saying it isn't, there's no proof for either side here). Frankly, the most ironic possibility would be if God existed in a way that doesn't fulfill that function, but I'm afraid we will never know that.
6. I think the mind is most probably the effect of very complex and fragile synergy of physical objects bonded by chemical and electrical processes all brough together by evolution, and, before the life existed, by coincidence of unorganic events.
7.To the computer part of this discussion: current chess software mixes the numeric evaluation of analyzed positions with the calculation, putting most emphasis on lines that are early on evaluated as 'most promising'. Many people interested in computer chess development say that it's not that hard to make ultrastrong program and the current efforts are more directed towards writing a program that elastically adjusts it's strength and makes just enough inaccuracies for a human to handle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
