Is the mind all chemical and electricity? - Page 33

On July 04 2013 21:26 RedFury wrote:

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 20:38 NukeD wrote:

Why is that?

On July 04 2013 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:

If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will.

On July 04 2013 21:26 KingAce wrote:


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 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:

If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will.

On July 04 2013 21:59 xM(Z wrote:

why can't we choose a possibility in a probabilistic universe?

On July 04 2013 21:59 xM(Z wrote:

why can't we choose a possibility in a probabilistic universe?

On July 04 2013 21:59 xM(Z wrote:

why can't we choose a possibility in a probabilistic universe?

On July 04 2013 22:08 NukeD wrote:


Agreed if you take the stance that we are just a bunch of particles ruled by laws of physics, whether those are deterministic or randomness based.

However that is hardly the issue here, everyone here agrees on that for as much as i can tell.

The premise, or rather the question, is that we are NOT just a bunch of particles but more.

What I like to beileve in my little mind is that the smallest particle, the building block of the whole universe, is infact conciousness. Everything else is than build upon it, material particles, forces, laws of pysics etc. Im aware that this is a more religious perspective if anything, but it just seems so elegant to me.

On July 04 2013 22:14 lebowskiguy wrote:

probabilistic in physics means randomness, not choice among possibilities. If the brain worked with the laws of quantum mechanics that would mean that it is throwing dice to make decisions instead of being the direct result of all past events(determinism).

For example a potential killer would be a dice roller when he catches his wife on the act of sex with the neighbor , depending on the outcome he kills her or not, whereas the deterministic view would say that it is unavoidable that he kills her or not by everything that has happened in the universe until now.

There really is no model in physics to support the concept of free will (or of the soul for that matter)

On July 04 2013 22:14 lebowskiguy wrote:

probabilistic in physics means randomness, not choice among possibilities. If the brain worked with the laws of quantum mechanics that would mean that it is throwing dice to make decisions instead of being the direct result of all past events(determinism).

For example a potential killer would be a dice roller when he catches his wife on the act of sex with the neighbor , depending on the outcome he kills her or not, whereas the deterministic view would say that it is unavoidable that he kills her or not by everything that has happened in the universe until now.

There really is no model in physics to support the concept of free will (or of the soul for that matter)

On July 04 2013 22:23 lebowskiguy wrote:

a great deceased philosopher once suggested that the thoughts that seem more soothing or elegant should be the ones that a great mind doubts the most, because convenience or trying to avoid pain is what makes most people close their eyes in front of irrefutable and possibly hurtful misconceptions. Why should one avoid convenience? To become better!

On July 04 2013 22:24 NukeD wrote:

That doesnt really answer his question.

On July 04 2013 18:15 xM(Z wrote:

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!

On July 04 2013 22:32 NukeD wrote:


If anything determinism is easiest and most convenient way to go. Wouldnt you say? Nevertheless, its hard to tell if a concept of a soul or free will is closing or shutting more doors. You could be right when i think more about it :/

On July 04 2013 22:27 xM(Z wrote:

i get what you're saying but that doesn't really answer anything because i could just say that i disagree with your definition of dice, dice rolling ... i could say that i roll it and you can't, your physics can't prove otherwise.

edit: argnaergaerg, i should start to refresh more often

On July 04 2013 19:52 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:


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.