Physicists investigate the structure of time, with implications for quantum mechanics and philosophy

February 1, 2016 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org report
Credit: Vera Kratochvil/public domain

(Phys.org)—Although in theory it may seem possible to divide time up into infinitely tiny intervals, the smallest physically meaningful interval of time is widely considered to be the Planck time, which is approximately 10-43 seconds. This ultimate limit means that it is not possible for two events to be separated by a time smaller than this.

But now in a new paper, physicists have proposed that the shortest physically meaningful length of time may actually be several orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time. In addition, the physicists have demonstrated that the existence of such a minimum time alters the basic equations of quantum mechanics, and as quantum mechanics describes all physical systems at a very small scale, this would change the description of all quantum mechanical systems.

The researchers, Mir Faizal at the University of Waterloo and University of Lethbridge in Canada, Mohammed M. Khalil at Alexandria University in Egypt, and Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge, have recently published a paper called "Time crystals from minimum time uncertainty" in The European Physical Journal C.

"It might be possible that, in the universe, the minimum time scale is actually much larger than the Planck time, and this can be directly tested experimentally," Faizal told Phys.org.

The Planck time is so short that no experiment has ever come close to examining it directly—the most precise tests can access a time interval down to about 10−17 seconds.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal of theoretical support for the existence of the Planck time from various approaches to , such as string theory, , and perturbative quantum gravity. Almost all of these approaches suggest that it is not possible to measure a length shorter than the Planck length, and by extension not possible to measure a time shorter than the Planck time, since the Planck time is defined as the time it takes light to travel a single unit of the Planck length in a vacuum.

Motivated by several recent theoretical studies, the scientists further delved into the question of the structure of time—in particular, the long-debated question of whether time is continuous or discrete.

"In our paper, we have proposed that time is discrete in nature, and we have also suggested ways to experimentally test this proposal," Faizal said.

One possible test involves measuring the rate of of a hydrogen atom. The modified quantum mechanical equation predicts a slightly different rate of spontaneous emission than that predicted by the unmodified equation, within a range of uncertainty. The proposed effects may also be observable in the decay rates of particles and of unstable nuclei.

Based on their theoretical analysis of the spontaneous emission of hydrogen, the researchers estimate that the minimum time may be orders of magnitude larger than the Planck time, but no greater than a certain amount, which is fixed by previous experiments. Future experiments could lower this bound on the minimum time or determine its exact value.

The scientists also suggest that the proposed changes to the basic equations of would modify the very definition of time. They explain that the structure of time can be thought of as a crystal structure, consisting of discrete, regularly repeating segments.

On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion.

"The physical universe is really like a movie/motion picture, in which a series of still images shown on a screen creates the illusion of moving images," Faizal said. "Thus, if this view is taken seriously, then our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."

"This proposal makes physical reality platonic in nature," he said, referring to Plato's argument that true reality exists independent of our senses. "However, unlike other theories of platonic idealism, our proposal can be experimentally tested and not just be argued for philosophically."

Explore further: Detection of mini black holes at the LHC could indicate parallel universes in extra dimensions

More information: Mir Faizal, et al. "Time crystals from minimum time uncertainty." The European Physical Journal C. DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3884-4. Also at arXiv:1501.03111 [physics.gen-ph]

Related Stories

Space-time theory may reconcile black hole conundrum

February 9, 2015

We've come a long way in 13.8 billion years; but despite our impressively extensive understanding of the Universe, there are still a few strings left untied. For one, there is the oft-cited disconnect between general relativity, ...

Looking at quantum gravity in a mirror

March 18, 2012

Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum physics are expected to merge at the Planck-scale of extremely high energies and on very short distances. At this scale, new phenomena could arise. However, the Planck-scale is so ...

Physicists investigate unusual form of quantum mechanics

December 8, 2015

(Phys.org)—In a new study, physicists at Penn State University have for the first time proposed a way to test a little-understood form of quantum mechanics called nonassociative quantum mechanics. So far, all other tests ...

Quantum foam

January 4, 2016

Quantum foam. It may sound like the name of a new craft beer, but it's something even more amazing.

Recommended for you

386 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
4 / 5 (24) Feb 01, 2016
the smallest physically meaningful interval of time is widely considered to be the Planck time

Uh, no? I was under the impression that everybody considered the Planck time to be an "interesting unit", but it wasn't believed to have any actual physical significance.

They explain that the structure of time can be thought of as a crystal structure, consisting of discrete, regularly repeating segments.

Given that attempts of discretizing space have generally shown that "crystal structure" approaches fail, why do they expect the same to work for time? Especially since they're so entangled...

On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of time as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion.

Yeah, whatever. As time goes on I'm more and more realizing that philosophy is just the ELI5 of science, with no separate accomplishments of its own.

Sorry, but I woke up earlier than normal today...
promile
Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2016
I agree with earlier comments.

Added to that are the supernova photon evidence that argues for relativity working continuously on scales below Planck scales in some sense. (A weak sense of how fluctuations would transform, as I remember it.)

Further if the work is supposed to play nice with string theory, that physics lack a physical embodiment of the Planck scale as well.

When testing was found to be the difference between science and philosophy (formerly "natural philosophy"), philosophy became opinionated belief mixed with a huge dollop of arrogance. They presume to describe how science works, which is eminently a science topic (which is why we have measurement theory, say), and moreover they fail so they occlude the topic. I'll take the ELI5 of science and raise you MSI of sophistry. (Yah, need coffee too.)
Bigbangcon
1.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2016
The most fundamental problem of "New Physics" since Albert Einstein is that is that it readopted the space and time concept of the early Greek idealism particularly of Zeno; as if these have "real" existence and physical attributes and one can assign quality, quantity, measure etc. determinant one does with tangible physical objects.

The fantastic and paradoxical nature of modern theoretical physics (like those of Zeno) lies in this abstract pre-supposition of the nature of space and time and now taken to even further abstraction by Einstein in his "spacetime" compounding. The theoretical physicists attempts to use brain-wrecking mathematics to assign physical meaning to such abstract entities can only end in tears: (Please see comments by "futurehuman") https://www.thegu...te-style
Bigbangcon
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2016
Later philosophers most notably, Leibniz, Kant and Hegel insisted that space and time has no physical or independent meaning without their relation to "matter in motion":

"Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind's nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally." I. Kant
NoStrings
3.6 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
He states: "The physical universe is really like a movie/motion picture, in which a series of still images shown on a screen creates the illusion of moving images," Faizal said. "Thus, if this view is taken seriously, then our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."

Special relativity shows that his statement a nonsensical one, because there are infinite number of reference frames that see any single event differently - specifically from the perspective of his "series of still images". Woups, you get "F" for relativity class, back to school to repeat a grade, Faizal.
promile
Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Andrew Palfreyman
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2016
I have a problem with this because of special relativity. The measured elapsed time between two (spacetime) events depends on the observer's velocity relative to those events' comoving frame. Since velocity can be continuously varied, how can an invariant quantum of time exist?

Perhaps the answer lies in the quantisation of velocity, which in turn relies on the quantisation of both space and time.
promile
Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
baudrunner
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2016
I'm not quite clear on the definition of Planck Time, as to whether it is not possible for two events to be separated by a time smaller than this, or that it represents the smallest possible interval between actual events in the physical world which are measurable. A unit value for the former can only ever be speculation.

I think in reality that time itself is a tool necessitated for by calculations of rates of change and the measurements of intervals. It is simply the continuous context for the perpetuation of existence. It's actually a variable, since each inertial frame of reference has its own time.
promile
Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
javjav
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2016
The measured elapsed time between two (spacetime) events depends on the observer's velocity... how can an invariant quantum of time exist?
Plank time it is defined in terms of universal constants (G, h, c), which are identical in any reference frame. Different observers may see that Plank time is bigger for the other observer, but none of them can measure smaller time on their local frame. This is because Plank time is related to the speed of causality. If one observer measure two events separated by plank time, the other observer can either measure a longer time between the two events or either two simultaneous events (with a certain degree of uncertainty), but never two events separated by smaller time than Plank time.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2016
... our conscious precipitation of physical reality based on continuous motion becomes an illusion produced by a discrete underlying mathematical structure."


It is not the first discovery at the quantum scale that our mind dependent a-priori intuitions have been exposed as an artificial synthesis of experience. What bothers me is the continued metaphysical conflation of such "forms of thought" like time and their physical definition. IOW, what is being discovered is not the true nature of Time, as if it exists as some unobservable metaphysical Reality,... but rather the failure and limits of that intuitions physical representation.

The way one would jusitify claiming an independent reality for Time, would be to observe it as a physical field or particle,..... not as a relative state of other physical systems.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2016
.... too many physicists don't even know the difference between an intuition of the subject and a property of the object,... and yet philosophy, that seeks validity of knowledge, is disparaged ? It appears that many would rather find it more satisfying to mix metaphysics or mathematical idealism with science, ...than basic epistemology with physics,... despite that it is valid knowledge that is ultimately sought.

Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2016
Interesting for the deformation parameter alpha that when measured using spontaneous emission of hydrogen, an upper bound for the value of alpha_0 is on the order of Avogadro's number – a number tied to the amount of a substance (atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, photons) expressed as a specific number of discrete elementary entities. Maybe alpha_0 is somehow related to something like, "one mole of discrete space-time"?

From the paper, "If such a deformation parameter exists, it would be universal for all processes."
24volts
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2016
Planck length cannot be the smallest measure of time simply because if it has a length then it also has fractions of a length. It doesn't matter how short it actually is.
ichisan
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
Time is abstract. It does not exist. Only change exists and time is derived from that. Why? Because a time dimension would make motion impossible. Why? Because a change in time implies a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is non-sensical. This is the reason that nothing moves in spacetime and why the great Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides (who taught Zeno and claimed that nothing changes) and called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens."

Live with it.
ichisan
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
The truth fucking hurts, don't it?
malapropism
3.9 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2016
Planck length cannot be the smallest measure of time simply because if it has a length then it also has fractions of a length. It doesn't matter how short it actually is.

While this might be, presumably, philosophically and/or mathematically true, I think that, in the comment from the article that the "physicists have proposed that the shortest physically meaningful length of time ...", probably the most significant (meaningful, if you will) word is "meaningful".
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2016
A's number is just the number of nucleons in a gram, so its value is conventional.
A's number is certainly related to standard atomic weight and the atomic mass unit. But note that it also works with charge because charge also seems to interact in discrete form: the total charge of 1 mole of electrons divided by the charge of a single electron equals A's number.
How many grams would be a "mole of spacetime". How many ncleons does it contain ?
According to this paper, the discrete interval of time (similarly to that of space, as worked out by others) depends on the amount of energy in it. From general relativity we know the geometry of spacetime certainly depends on the energy in it. Regardless, a mole of spacetime would have ~ 6.02 x 10^23 individual discrete intervals, right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 01, 2016
"Physicists investigate the structure of time, with implications for quantum mechanics and philosophy"

-Yeah you'll note that physicists are the ones successfully investigating this. The implications for philos is that it's even more obvious that theyre irrelevant.

And for all of you trying to use words to discuss this subject, you're just confusing yourselves. And you don't even know it.

Philos have given you the erroneous impression that physics can be conducted using words. They should be held accountable for this deception.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2016
It is not the first discovery at the quantum scale that our mind dependent a-priori intuitions have been exposed as an artificial synthesis of experience. What bothers me is the continued metaphysical conflation of
... blah blah BLAH blah blah.

You'll note how the philo strings undefinable words together to create some sort of bling in an effort to display a social status he and his cronies have never earned and don't deserve.

Get a real job philo.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 01, 2016
@Andrew Palfreyman and others. I think we have to careful to decide what we are talking about. If SR then it is clocks that measure the change or progression forward which we call time. The clocks themselves are not time. Or are we talking about Time as an entity in itself (there are some models around) where the arrow of Time (that which we measure in seconds) is a resultant of the fundamental 'ingredients'. Such models are consistent with mainstream science because what we measure is included so there is no conflict.
indio007
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2016
"On a more philosophical level, the argument that time is discrete suggests that our perception of time as something that is continuously flowing is just an illusion."

This is already know from saccadic masking

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Feb 02, 2016
I see it axiomatically false. First, we can discretize to any level, simply based upon a 4D space within a continuous set of mathematical spaces, allowing superposition of any point as a real set. To keep the time of events straight we use only a single dimension. As you may see it is a continuous space from +/- infinity in size and/or scale. Why would I attempt to make a measurement based upon a tool with these silly limitations? Rather use what the field represents. Then define objects at all levels. Note: pick a point ..

Imagine tweaking molecular structure.
PhysicsMatter
2 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2016
Those who hate philosophy now must acknowledge that time flowing continually is an illusion, what philosophers were saying for long time already from Plato to Kant. But it means that event time defines time flow and not time flow defines event time. I wonder where are in the mathematical models laws requiring that event starts in given integer time instance and not between two instances.

However you slice it, time and space are all illusions together with others categories are just tools to perceive objective reality as continuous or discrete and not an element of actual reality. Similarly to dualism which is about duality of perception, about irreconcilable dual conceptualization of phenomenon and not a characteristic of the reality.

The concept of time and objective reality is discussed here:
https://questforn...reality/
Benni
4 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2016
Those who hate philosophy ...

I stopped reading right there.


Hey there Stumpo, a little cranky are you not? Maybe ax'em will take the time to stop by & give you a high 5 to lift your spirits a bit.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ryan1981
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2016
So does this mean that spooky action at a distance is not instantaneous?

The current understanding of time I have (which is probably very limited) is that you can only measure time by means of comparison to a regular periodic occurrence. The higher the frequency of this periodic occurrence, the smaller the time intervals you can register. This automatically links our ability to measure small time intervals to the highest frequency we can acquire, but how can you prove that just because we don't have anything with a higher frequency that there is nothing in between 2 intervals?
Reg Mundy
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
Here we go round again! I did all this 50 years ago (see The Situation of Gravity). There is no escaping the argument that what we perceive as reality is the interpretation by our brains of external stimuli. Everything, including Time, is quantum, whether you consider it from a philosophical perspective or a physics perspective. As Ryan1981 says, we can only measure Time using events, which themselves are embedded in Time, therefore a meaningless exercise. All we are doing is using a chosen ruler to measure its own length! And the bad news is, there is no way of stepping outside Time to measure Time.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2016
How can you prove that ... ? - Ryan1981

Well it's like this ...

You boot your PlayStation and run some fantasy Math to derive a model that validates your pre-existing bias. Then you get together with likeminded gamers and present it as scientific evidence by posting a narrative that conforms to the accepted dogma.

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day,
Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way ..
javjav
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2016
How the Planck time can change, if it's " defined in terms of universal constants"?
It does not change, it has the same value in all reference frames. This is perfectly compatible with the time dilation effect for non local frames.
Not to say, the Planck time was never observed
That's true, but it does not come out of the blue. First, it was found there must be a limit for the speed of causality, or light speed would be infinite and our universe could not exist. This was made clear by Maxwell equations, then evolved in Relativity and QM. Think on the recursive propagation of EM waves: An electrical field creating a magnetic field which then creates a electrical field which then... All this happens at a certain rate, which depends on the value of the "c" constant. "c" does not come from light speed, but the speed of causality itself, light speed is just the consequence. Plank time is the time between these EM interactions, so nothing could be measured in the middle
bluehigh
not rated yet Feb 02, 2016
... And there is Time to kill today ...

bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2016
I like it when Lisa Zyga presents articles at Phys.org and possibly the most interesting choices of topic. Although I do wonder if she is laughing behind our backs.

Does anyone really believe that time can be quantised? Funny farm physics.

Thanks anyway Lisa. Good to see you are still with Phys.org, it's been a while.

Ryan1981
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2016
@Bluehigh, your comment makes no sense to me, why contribute this nonsense?

@javjav: Am I correct in understanding that what you are saying is that in order to measure smaller time intervals you would need a measurement that in some way would exceed the speed of light?
Benni
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
Lisa Z gets up in the morning needing something to do & comes up with nonsensical drivel like this:

Physicists investigate the structure of time, with implications for quantum mechanics and philosophy


bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2016
Ryan, Your comments are worthy of the frivolity they deserve. Sadly your limited intellect is unable to make sense of the bleeding obvious.

But hey, you wanna get nasty ... Bring it on.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016
If SR then it is clocks that measure the change or progression forward which we call time. The clocks themselves are not time.

That's correct. Einstein took an instrumentalist approach.

Or are we talking about Time as an entity in itself [..] where the arrow of Time (that which we measure in seconds) is a resultant of the fundamental 'ingredients'


This is a myth. There are no new fundamental ingredients or independent physical elements involved wrt the "arrow of time", that are not already known. This is merely a statistical result of already known physics. There is no additional physical entity discovered in that area of thermodynamics; no field or particle. It is merely another elaborate physical system like a clock.

And that is all that "measure of time" means; the relative congruence of one physical system to that of another. There is no time-field nor time-particle that is observable independently of that intuitions application.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2016
but how can you prove that just because we don't have anything with a higher frequency that there is nothing in between 2 intervals?


As I said obliquely, you can't.

It's common knowledge though, that you'll find bacon.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
Those who hate philosophy ...

I stopped reading right there.

And so that's where your understanding will stop as well.

There are branches of philosophy that are fundamental to science,... logic and validity and inherent limits of knowledge (epistemology). These are areas that are possible to investigate,... unlike metaphysical statements often made by physicists who should know better.

The mind is not omnipotent. It is just an emergent phenomenon from a biological blob, that itself operates not passively on account of physical laws like inanimate objects, but instead actively with its own emergent laws and means of synthesizing experience for the "understanding".

This fact places limits on what can be known of independent-reality (i.e. as Reality "actually" exists independently of the act of observation). The non-intuitive nature of QM is the physical discovery of what philosophers have known since Hume, Leibnitz, and Kant.

javjav
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2016
Am I correct in understanding that what you are saying is that in order to measure smaller time intervals you would need a measurement that in some way would exceed the speed of light?

No. What I am saying is that the speed of causality is not infinite, and it's value is implicit in c constant. Then, light speed being c is just a consequence of this deeper idea which is the speed of causality. To measure smaller time intervals you would need to use events that happens faster that the speed of causality, which is not possible "by definition". Saying that time is not quantised is like saying that the speed of causality is infinite, which is not what we observe (as per the EM radiation example)
gwrede
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2016
That there may be a shortest meaningful time, should not be confused with time itself being quantized.

Time can be continuous, and at the same time there can be a (Planck time or some other value) limit to our exploration of time and time related phenomena, just like the Planck length doesn't force length to be quantized.

Could it be that these people have spent too much time around their computers, which see both length and time as quantized?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
An electrical field creating a magnetic field which then creates a electrical field which then... All this happens at a certain rate, which depends on the value of the "c" constant. "c" does not come from light speed, but the speed of causality itself, light speed is just the consequence.


In point of fact you have it backwards,... In Maxwells equations, the constant c is instead derived from the permittivity and permeability of space (vacuum). These are constants not related to causality, but rather the ability for the vacuum to allow an electric field and magnetic field, respectively.

There is no known "speed of causality",... in fact when one measures the time it takes for a system to evolve, they are in fact merely making a comparison of the relative congruence of that system with another system defined to be time.

In QM the concept (and that's all it is) of causality fails to order quantum experience consistently.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2016
Your defined 'speed' of causality is limited by event 'observation' (C, EM rate propagation etc.)

However that in no way implies that change,or information propagation, is limited to subjective data acquisition. It's only not possible because you choose to 'see' it that way.

There's no logic that imposes a physical limit on a rate of change. Nor can you logically derive that a lack of quantisation of time leads to instantaneous change (infinite speed as has been so ignorantly mentioned).

In any case it's moot. You cen never know. It's not science. It's navel gazing.

Although I assure you, you'll find bacon in those gaps between your imaginary time crystals.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016

... what is being investigated in the above article is not the "nature of time" as an independent physical entity nor the "structure of time",... but instead merely the theoretical limits of representing time as a physical system, given the presupposed mathematical structure of the theory.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
In quantum delayed choice eraser experiments, where a quantum particle appears to "know the future", it reduces to a matter of interpretation whether to even maintain time as a coherent physical representation and to accept that the quantum entity is neither a particle nor a wave,... OR,... to maintain that the quantum enity is a particle and accept that it's behaviour defies our concept of time. In either logical case, our conceptual framework is exposed as an artificial one, a synthetic means of ordering experience.
Bigbangcon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2016
The "spacetime" of GR is a mathematical/geometrical construct and not a tangible physical or ontological entity and has nothing to do with "matter in motion" – the very basis of physics - of the concept and of the measurement of time and space!

"Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high". Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.
javjav
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2016
In point of fact you have it backwards,... In Maxwells equations, the constant c is instead derived from the permittivity and permeability of space (vacuum).
If we take c as the speed of causality, then Permittivity and permeability can be also derived from it. One thing is the order in which these constants were historically defined, but it does not mean that second one defined in history comes from the first one. It can be the opposite, as their values come from two different ways of measuring a same phenomena and both ways produce the same values.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
Those who hate philosophy now must acknowledge that time flowing continually is an illusion, what philosophers were saying for long time already from Plato to Kant
Then provide quotes where they said exactly this rather than some semblance of it, or something somewhat like it. And with only a little work I'll provide quotes saying the opposite, perhaps from these same philos.

They had no access to the EVIDENCE produced by the long succession of experiments and analysis that the above scientists above used to design their experimemts and reach their conclusions.

Philos were GUESSING. Any semblance to real science is merely luck and happenstance.

Philosophy isn't a discipline; it's fashion, entertainment, propaganda.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
There are branches of philosophy that are fundamental to science,... logic and validity
Philos sometimes do discover something useful. But when they do so they are doing so as scientists, not philos. They aren't confirming that science is a philosophy; they are abandoning philosophy in order to get something done.
and inherent limits of knowledge (epistemology)
Only scientists are capable of finding out what they can and cannot know. They do this by experimenting and analysing; not by sitting and thinking about it.

The above work is a good example of scientists redefining limits. No philo could have done it or even thought of doing it.

Were there any philos on the team in the above study? Any philo refs at the end of their paper? No.
unlike metaphysical statements often made by physicists who should know better
But philos continue to use this term. You yourself used it above.

Shouldn't you know better?
Reg Mundy
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
@TGoO
Philosophy isn't a discipline; it's fashion, entertainment, propaganda.

And Physics is?
Not as currently practised, with its constant invention of new imaginary things in order to maintain the consistency of establishment dogma, despite growing irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Can you step back from your prejudices and take an unbiased logical view of, say, Gravity Waves, and still tell me you think they exist? How about Dark Matter, Dark Energy? Wimps? That Higgs Boson "confers mass" on other particles? Gravitic Lensing?
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016
....In Maxwells equations, the constant c is instead derived from the permittivity and permeability of space (vacuum).
If we take c as the speed of causality, then Permittivity and permeability can be also derived from it. One thing is the order in which these constants were historically defined, but it does not mean that second one defined in history comes from the first one....


That is a reasonable point generally, however, in this case had Maxwell derived permittivity and permeability from c he would have required to state c as a postulate first, rather than derive it from permittivity and permeability of the vacuum from experimentally measurable effects. Since permittivity and permeability can be measured, there is no sense in deriving them from a postulates.

Now, Einstein DID postulate an upper limiting speed limit, but that only happens to coincide with c, not necessarily so (had photons mass),... in which to form SR.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2016
Can you step back from your prejudices and take an unbiased logical view of, say, Gravity Waves, and still tell me you think they exist? How about Dark Matter, Dark Energy? Wimps? That Higgs Boson "confers mass" on other particles? Gravitic Lensing?
How should I know? I'm not a physicist and don't know near enough to form an opinion.

And neither do you.

But I certainly respect their opinions.

Similarly I tend to believe them when they say that philosophy is dead.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016
@ghostofotto1923, ...yes, I know the distinction between philosophy and science. I did not ever say that science advances by philosophers. That is your strawman you never tire of having sex with.

A theoretician of physics just "sits there and thinks about it"... reflecting on experiments done by others, synthesizing a mathematical structure that will allow for predictions.

If such a physicist didn't care about "what it all means", which is to say, interpretations,.... then he wouldn't be a physicist, but instead merely a mathematician.

In point of fact, he does care though, and invariably assumes a philosophical context in which he works, that guide his theory development ,... be it a Realist one or Positivistic one. See the entire history of QM for example. It is also true that he is also liable of making metaphysical statements some philosophers would never utter.

Do you have a specific objection, other than the validity of philosophy of physics?
Ryan1981
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
@JavJav: Thanks for your elaboration. You have given me some more food for thought.
javjav
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2016
There's no logic that imposes a physical limit on a rate of change.
Yes there is a logic. It can be wrong, but there are real experiments pointing in that direction: EM interaction was one example, but this article contains a better one. Different values for time quantisation predict different results for Hydrogen spontaneous emission rate. And this experiment is getting coherent values with an upper limit to time granularity (well above Plank time). They will need to replicate this result for other cases, but it is pretty interesting.
Nor can you logically derive that a lack of quantisation of time leads to ... (infinite speed as has been so ignorantly mentioned)
What I said is this: if EM interaction could occur at an infinite rate then the speed of light would also be infinite.
It's not science. It's navel gazing.
The article is about all this, based on real observations on Hydrogen atoms. That's science, could it be that you are the ignorant?

promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016
There are branches of philosophy that are fundamental to science,... logic and validity and inherent limits of knowledge (epistemology). These are areas that are possible to investigate,... unlike metaphysical statements often made by physicists who should know better.

Only scientists are capable of finding out what they can and cannot know. They do this by experimenting and analysing


In his monumental and resounding text, "The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", the great John von Neumann, a scientist, analyzed quantum mechanics experimental findings in order to formulate a consistent mathematical basis for QM, making use of Hilbert space and Fourier analysis.

In this text, his analysis lead him to conclude that the mathematical object, the superposed wave-function, collapses in consciousness,... [where physical reality subject to laws of physics, meet emergent laws of thought, concepts.]

brianbalke
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
Just a quick filter criterion for everyone commenting: until the physicists can calculate the mass of the proton, which they fail at by almost an order of magnitude, any speculation regarding what occurs at energy scales 8 or more orders of magnitude greater than that are simply hot air.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016
... in this debate with DaSchnieb, I summarize von Neumann's argument referenced above. The point here, is that this is the point ["von Neumann's cut"] where physics ends and epistemology begins. In principle this (the mind) is investigable,... just requiring different fields of expertise.

I will also add that many physicists have concluded similar points made by me above, so I not sure what your objection really is (otto).
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
Heres a nice quote;

"The goal of philosophy should not be to continue to give vague and mysterious answers to difficult questions. The goal of philosophy should be to figure out how to hand over its factual questions to scientists, and its conceptual questions to computer programmers, so that these questions can be answered.
"The goal of philosophy should be to kill itself."
- See more at: http://commonsens...wKW.dpuf

-When scientific theories are superceded, scientists have in effect killed them. Science is continuously regenerating itself in light of new evidence.

Nothing in philosophy ever dies however. There is always a new gen ready to resurrect old schools and call them 'neo'.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2016
what a nonsense is this article.........time is only a mathematical parameter of motion in
http://link.sprin...i+amrit+
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
Heres an interesting quote from the same article on the futility of the philosophic approach by von neumann himself...

"After giving a talk on computers at Princeton in 1948, John von Neumann was met with an audience member who insisted that a "mere machine" could never really think. Von Neumann's immortal reply was:

""You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!"

"The problem with most philosophy is that it is imprecise, and this leads to centuries of confusion. Do numbers exist? Depends what you mean by "exist." Is the God hypothesis simple? Depends what you mean by "simple." Can we choose our own actions? Depends what you mean by "can" and "choose.""

-Philos thrive on the vague and undefinable.

I will assume that von neumann believed he could design a machine to collapse the waveform all by itself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2016
I will assume that von neumann believed he could design a machine to collapse the waveform all by itself
-That is, as long as someone could give him a precise definition of what 'collapse' and 'waveform' meant.
Do you have a specific objection, other than the validity of philosophy of physics?
Can you provide precise defs for 'specific' and 'validity' and 'philosophy of physics' that von neumann would have found acceptable?

No you cant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2016
Even fellow philos will inform you of the futility of cooking word pasta.

"[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors." -Dan dennett

-Fun to eat I suppose but largely devoid of essential vitamins and minerals.
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2016
I'm thinking they have the wrong metaphor. The universe is not a movie for us to watch, with minds too slow to perceive the units of time flashing by. Instead, it is a large crowd of subatomic particles, each in its own reference frame, playing a turn-based game like D&D.

On each turn, every particle rolls the dice for something to happen or not happen. Emit? Revolve? Orbit? Decay? Move? Stop? The length of a turn is the same for all, but because of relativity they do not happen simultaneously, and every particle would "perceive" its neighbors' turns to be longer or shorter, depending on their relative motion.

So I don't buy the crystal metaphor, either. That would mean time is a thing independent of the motions and events of the particles. By that same coin, I guess I don't believe in space, either; it would just be an emergent property of the particles and their relationships.
RandhiMahatma
not rated yet Feb 02, 2016
we think of time as moving from a single point outwards only, where to look at time properly you will need to use multiple time points/ (points in space (time)), using the fastest thing we know of (light), and we have devised its speed in an account of how we perceive things. but if we forget about how fast we think and about light speed being the fastest posible thing and that any thing that is faster goes backwords through time, we get a more naked look at how time works traveling from one place to another over a very long distance. now if i was a particle of light traveling away from earth, everthing behind me would seem to stop, and everthing in front of me would seem to double in speed, if i still percieved time as a human being. moving towards another solar system at double the speed of light, in front of me my precieved time would seem to quadruple in speed, and behind me would seem to play in exactly the same speed as i normaly precieve thing standing still but backwards.
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 02, 2016
This crystalline structure are just the knots which esconse light, creating inertial and mass. There is no time the light simply returns to it's origins in the singularity every time cycle. Black holes are simply a macroscopic manifestation of this basic natural process
RandhiMahatma
not rated yet Feb 02, 2016
if we use p0 as the point from where we left to go to p1. and t0 as the time it took to get from one place to the other, and ls0 set as the speed of travel, and we forget that light even exists, we begin to see what, time space really looks like in what would appear to be a frozen time state, then we apply this to the universe and include electronic draw aka Gravity, the draw of electrons to larger proton bodies. and we +1 to everything above and it like we just pressed play on the universe, without the fog of light blinding us of clarity just like a foggy crystal.
RandhiMahatma
not rated yet Feb 02, 2016
but all in all i would only end up where i ended up exactly at the same time i would if i went the opposite direction..... blinded by the light torn up like a duche a runner in the night

\
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2016
That is, as long as someone could give him a precise definition of what 'collapse' and '[wavefunction]' meant.

They have precise meanings in quantum mechanics. Had you studied physics, you would have recognized those terms. Ironic is your complaint of the vagueness of philo terms, whilst not even recognizing science terms.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2016
That is, as long as someone could give him a precise definition of what 'collapse' and 'waveform' meant.

They have precise meanings in quantum mechanics.

The process of wave function collapse is not described by QM and is interpretation.


The context and reference was wrt von Neumann's book, "Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", in which he introduces state-reduction in Hilbert space. So yes it is described and is a part of that Hilbert space formulation.

I think you meant, it's not described in the deterministic evolution of the wavefunction via the Schrodinger equation. Yes, that's correct. It's an extra step and yes a matter of interpretation,... but the prevalent one and the one most in-line with actual experiment.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016
.... further there ARE objective-collapse theories which add terms to the Schrodinger equation which serve to model a physical collapse. These theories treat the wavefunction as a physical wave, and since the superposed wavefunction is not observable as such, and their predictions must conform to present experiment, they are also "interpretations",... as is the Bohm-deBroglie pilot wave theory, as is many-worlds theory, .... all proposing metaphysical entities in one form or other to escape the collapse postulate.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016
@Noumenon
Interpretation is interpretation. You can only go wrong if you believe too much in your interpretations.


That goes for any interpretation. In point of fact experiments reveal only one of a possible superposition of possibilities which the wavefunction represents. This is an experimental fact. The Copenhagen interpretation and Born rule adds no extra metaphysical baggage in an naive attempt at providing an "explanation", but instead follows the facts. Belief is not required as experimental evidence shows only one result,... while belief is required for things unobservable by definition.

promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
@Noumenon
That may all be so but wave function collapse is neither an experimental fact nor a theoretical prediction.


It is a mathematical prediction in objective-collapse theories, .... however sticking to mainstream, I never stated it was as prediction of mathematical theory. I stated that state-reduction is an element of the Hilbert space formulation. I agree that the Born rule is an extra layer of interpretation. Never stated otherwise. In practice the [square of] wavefunction is interpreted as a probability of obtaining a particular result.

I did not say collapse is an experimental fact (as I don't even regard the wavefunction as a physical wave),... What was said above was this: it is a experimental fact that only one of a superposition of possibilities is actually observed.

promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
@Noumenon
You stated that wave function collapse has precise meaning in QM.

Again, the context was wrt von Neumann's text in which he introduces state-reduction (the state-vector (wavefunction) is projected to a basis of Hilbert space upon a measurement.). So, yes it has a precise meaning there. The Born rule is a precise meaning.

My pov is that it is outside QM, it is an interpretation of QM.

It is not outside QM generally. It is outside the deterministic evolution of the wavefunction via the Schrodinger equation. For some interpretations, it is a key element in QM, for other interpretations it is rejected.

What is the time evolution from uncollapsed to collapsed? This is not the subject of any equation of QM.

Again, I never stated it was,... in fact I confirmed it does not occur in the Schrodinger equation , unless that equation is modified for objective collapse. The Born rule is a very ubiquitous interpretation in actual practice.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
.... when does collapse occur? Well, that is the measurement problem. You tell me, upon a measurement why is there an abrupt discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the [superposition] state-vector and actual singular result from measurement?

The interpretation that I favour (Copenhagen extension, consistent histories with decoherence) is positivistic in the sense of not adding additional layers of unobservable metaphysical entities.

promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2016
@Noumenon
Unless the Schrödinger equation is wrong or incomplete, don't modify it.


I'm not proposing that it should be modified, only pointing out that some theories predict collapse by adding terms to the Schrodinger equation,.. so that the Schrodinger equation does predict collapse in those theories.

There is no experimental reason for thinking the wavefunction is a physical thing, and every that it is not.

You tell me, upon a measurement why is there an abrupt discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the [superposition] state-vector and actual singular result from measurement?
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
@TGoO

... Gravity Waves, and still tell me you think they exist?

Very likely.
How about Dark Matter,

Likely
Dark Energy? Wimps? That Higgs Boson "confers mass" on other particles?

I have doubts.
Gravitic Lensing?

Experimental fact.

So, Gravitic Lensing is experimental fact, is it? You accept no other explanation? How about if I point out some fundamental problems with it. Do you understand basic optics? When light passes thru a lens towards an observer to form an image, photons passing thru the center of the lens do not deviate, photons passing near the center deviate slightly, and photons passing further out from the centre deviate MORE. For photons passing a massive object, assuming they are affected by gravity, those nearer deviate MORE and further out deviate LESS. Hence, light is scattered, and DOES NOT FORM AN IMAGE!
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2016
Requiring Intuitive understanding as a structural component of a theory of microscopic reality is an unreasonable and extra burden for science. In fact it would have been remarkable if our concepts and intuitions remained valid all 'the way down'. Already in GR we see failure of simultaneity, and that the physical representation of time 'runs away' from out intuition of time.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
javjav
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
You stated that wave function collapse has precise meaning in QM.
My pov is that it is outside QM, it is an interpretation of QM.
Exactly. That's the root of the problem. QM is a great model to describe reality, it can even represent phenomena that we don't understand and make predictions about it. But Entanglement, Delayed choice back in time, wave particle duality.. are not really understood. QM does not tell us how to interpret the results. This already happened in early 20th century. Breakthroughs from Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz..which produced accurate predictions but nobody knew how to interpret it, it also seemed to be impossible... until Einstein got it!. The necessary math was already in place, but his main achievement was to find an "understandable" interpretation. That is what we QM needs now. Finding the right QM interpretation is not a secondary aspect, it has to be the primary objective.
javjav
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1
Making new stuff is good but it is secondary objective. When fire was discovered they made nice stuff with it, but they didn't had any f.idea about what it was. Physics started when trying to understand it. Same happens to QM, we can use it for many things, but nobody really understand it. Remember what Schroedinger said about QM probability interpretation? "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it". And you can find similar quotes from Plank, Bohr, Feynman... but many of you are acting as if reality could be derived from QM, so you don't need any interpretation: reality follows QM rules, period. But is the opposite. The value of QM is in the capability to describe reality (which does only partially) and to provide a way to understand it (which barely does). Negating the need for a breakthrough on QM interpretation is absurd. Finally, talking about metaphysics is not out of topic, just see the article header "..implications for QM and philosphy"...
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2016

So, Gravitic Lensing is experimental fact, is it?

Correct.
You accept no other explanation?

I never said that.
... Do you understand basic optics?

I am an expert.
When light passes thru a lens towards an observer to form an image, photons passing thru the center of the lens do not deviate, photons passing near the center deviate slightly, and photons passing further out from the centre deviate MORE. For photons passing a massive object, assuming they are affected by gravity, those nearer deviate MORE and further out deviate LESS. Hence, light is scattered, and DOES NOT FORM AN IMAGE!

I see no "other explanation" in your post.
Your description of gravitational lensing is mistaken.

You are an expert? Then point out the logic flaw in my description of "lensing". Where is the mistake?
And I could give you several other "explanations" of the effect called GL.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
3 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2016
E = h * f, gives the minimal qunta of energy that the quntum oscilator can radiate or absorb in the form of electromagnetic wave with frequency f.

This minimum qunta is only theoretical and can not be measured, and because of this the Plank constant is also only theoretical.

Fundamental physics today is more philosophy than science, because the world is only partially knowable to us but, people have become unnecessarily proud to admit it. We use in our daily lives, engineering and research activity the effects of the physical laws, but do not understand their essence and what determines them to be such and not others. The philosophy is useless occupation. It is a tribune for the human vanity.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2016
If there was anyone recently that I might be interested in engaging in a serious discussion involving QM it certainly would not be the incarnation Phys1.

I'm still pondering some elements of proposed research posed by Mike Massen regarding QCD and photon interaction in opposite parallel paths.

Let's be clear, I don't much like Mad Muttering Mike. His linguistic techniques, arrogance and lack of humour annoy me.

However, as I say, it's likely that Mad Muttering Mike might be worth engaging in serious discussion regarding QM effects, unlike the pretenders and certainly not the mindless jabbering sock puppet Phys1.

In the meanwhile I'll just enjoy the banter. My ego doesn't need you, Phys1.
Reg Mundy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2016

I see no "other explanation" in your post.
Your description of gravitational lensing is mistaken.

You are an expert? Then point out the logic flaw in my description of "lensing". Where is the mistake?
And I could give you several other "explanations" of the effect called GL.

There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance. The resulting gradient of the phase shift implies a rotation of the wave front. The wave propagates as if attracted by gravity. The effect is twice as large as expected from Newton gravity if a mass hnu/c^2 is ascribed to the light.
Also read:
https://en.wikipe...nal_lens

So, "There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance." is there? What a load of crap. Do you realise what you are actually saying here? The further you go from the centre of mass, the greater the effect! You have an amazing mind......
javjav
3 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1
Reality (the tiny physical part of it) does _precisely_ follow QM rules
Not when you put enough mass/energy in a tiny place. Then it breaks. it does not work for something so fundamental as gravity. And it can only describe what happened "after" the big bang, only from a time when "all the fish was sold", which means that it is missing the most interesting part in the universe history. I agree it is still the best model that we have, but that can't be enough. And reality does not obey QM rules. First comes reality, QM theory is just a mathematical model to describe some aspects of the reality, and only in terms of probabilities. Sorry if this send me straight to your black list, but I believe that being humble about our knowledge is the only way to progress.

javjav
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
And that also goes for you @RegMundy. Obviously you don't understand Gravity lensing at all. So you should be less arrogant, just be a bit more humble and you will learn something today.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
javjav
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
please show me a viable experiment that is not accurately described by QM.
Here you have a few ones:

- Make a particle measurement and try to use QM to determine where all the information that was existing before the waveform collapse has gone. Or has it been destroyed? Was not this forbidden?

- Measure any fundamental constant and try to use QM to explain why it has that particular value and no other. (Is not this enough to prove that first comes reality, and then you derive QM rules from there and not the opposite? )

- Measure the space accelerated expansion and try to describe it with QM

- Measure the amount of matter and antimatter in the observable universe and try to explain the difference with QM

- Try to use QM to explain why all the observable universe follows a same arrow of time.

- Make a baby, measure the emergence of consciousness, and try to describe this phenomenon with QM.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2016
You tell me, upon a measurement why is there an abrupt discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the [superposition] state-vector and actual singular result from measurement?


Collapse appears to occur if the result of measurement is analysed in terms of the wave function of the system without inclusion of the measuring tool. The inclusion of the measurement tool leads to a more complex wave function in which the system and tool wave functions are entangled…


You are describing decoherence. You used the correct word "appears", however, in point of fact, decoherence does not cause wavefunction collapse (because the Schrodinger equation does not), nor does it solve the measurement problem. It does not explain why a particular experimental result occurs as opposed to another as expressed in the wavefunction. In actual practice the Born probability interpretation of the wavefunction cannot be avoided, without adding metaphysical interpretations.
-->
javjav
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2016
@javjav
QM does not explain why the dinosaurs disappeared.

Yes it does. In fact it is an easy case to explain with QM, providing knowledge of the initial conditions.
Nor where they are now ?

Dinosaurs are split in particles all around us (except @promile , who is still alive). No information is lost.

My first examples were purely related to QM domain, and you don't answer.

Some examples were just to remark that QM can only explain certain experiments but no others (you didn't specify). Although I recognise they were unnecessary at this point.

Finally, the example of consciousness should also be fully related to QM field, much more than you think, as per our experimental measurements you should only need a network of interactions between EM waves to create it.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2016
<----

I provided a link above where I summarize von "Neumann's cut" [search the name of the text], and the fact that decoherence is included in that analysis.

Decoherence explains mathematically the appearence of the emergence of macroscopic reality [which we already knew must occur], …it explains through loss of coherence of phase terms, which are responsible for quantum interference effects. It does not have anything to say about specific results being obtain [..]. There is no 'collapse of the wavefunction' in decoherence, since the mathematical structure in which Zeh formulated contains no such mechanism.

You appear to know this, so It's the 'rest of the story' that I'm asking about.
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2016

So, "There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance." is there? What a load of crap. Do you realise what you are actually saying here? The further you go from the centre of mass, the greater the effect! You have an amazing mind......

I did not say that.
It is too bad that you are unable to understand my explanation.
Either it is "crap" or you simply lack the skills and the will.
Physics is not for everyone. It takes a big, consistent, long effort to master it.
Give it up.

Yes, you did say that! Are you now claiming a schitzophrenic episode when another part of you said it, but not you? Somebody stole your password and pretended to be you? What?
Your explanation consists of saying "phase delay due to gravity". What is not to understand about that? Please explain!
For somebody who claims to be an expert on Optics, your suggestion that I "give it up" is frivolous to say the least.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2016
That is what we QM needs now. Finding the right QM interpretation is not a secondary aspect, it has to be the primary objective.

Correct, and is why it annoys me when people disparage interpretations as "just being interpretations". It is the primary objective in physics to understand. My point here is that an analysis of how we think, our concepts and hard-wired intuitions, is investigable in principal, while metaphysical interpretations, those that propose unobservable physical entities, are not in principal investigable. We have research the point where physical reality subject to laws of physics, meet emergent laws of thought.

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - Stephen Hawking
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2016
..consciousness should also be fully related to QM field, [..] you should only need a network of interactions between EM waves to create it.


The brain, ,,,the physical basis of the emergent mind and consciousness, ,,,would in principal be just like any other experimental apparatus, subject to the laws of nature.

The difference is that the mind is not passive. It is active with it's own ways of ordering experience. There are "forms of thought" that, given the nature of mind and the fact that it evolved to order experience at in macoscopic realm, ... are in effect necessary conditions for experience to be possible.

We MUST subject experience to concepts of time, space, causality, determinism, separability, simultaneity, counterfactuality, etc.... if understanding is to be "intuitive". This is why QM is not intuitive,... our concepts break down at that scale. We didn't evolve to synthesize quantum reality.

--->
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2016
please show me a viable experiment that is not accurately described by QM
It's easy, for example the double slit experiment. Most physical skippies don't perceive absolutely any problem with it,

Zeph, you get a 5 just for using the word "skippies"...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2016
- Make a baby, measure the emergence of consciousness, and try to describe this phenomenon with QM.

I LOVE this one...
Simple answer - the consciousness was always there to a lesser or greater degree...
Just not developed to OUR definition.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016

@Noumenon
The problem with interpretations is that they are unfalsifiable.
I thought that was pretty obvious.


That is strictly true, if one confines oneself within the realm of QM and does not venture further to the equally obvious element involved, the mind. What is missing is an algebra of thought to interface with theory, that acts to conform an otherwise formless reality to our conceptual framework, if not regressive.

Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Jorden, Pauli, and von Neumann took the approach they did,.... interpreting the wavefunction as probability, rejecting it as physical wave, accepting wavefunction collapse, rejecting unobservable scaffolding to save intuition,.. because this was the most direct and cleanest [metaphysics being "dirty"], interpretation of the experimental facts and mathematical conditions.

Now, nearly one hundred years later, the experimental evidence continues to refute a Realist perspective, with measurement-problem unresolved.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
..consciousness should also be fully related to QM field, [..] you should only need a network of interactions between EM waves to create it.


Interesting. Roger Penrose makes interesting arguments that consciousness [mind] is not "computable",... that quatum interference effects are somehow maintained despite noisy decoherence in the brain, and that QM is operationally necessary for the emergence of consciousness.

If we can understand how the mind works we can understand understanding quantitatively, and only then perhaps the measurement-problem,.... but I suspect there is some recursiveness here....

EDIT: "We have [reached] the point where physical reality subject to laws of physics, meet emergent laws of thought."
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2016
You should take a look at Ballentine's book


Thank you for the recommendation. I've read that he rejects some aspects of von Neumann's standard approach, (projection postulate), without substituting with an equivalently useful element. Why do you recommend this one?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
They have precise meanings in quantum mechanics. Had you studied physics, you would have recognized those terms. Ironic is your complaint of the vagueness of philo terms, whilst not even recognizing science terms
Of course they do and of course I know what they are referring to, which is why I used them.

Physicists have very precise defs for them. Philos do not, which is what von neumanm, the author of the article I cited (who is a philo) and dennett, were referring to.

Words are not tools for discussing physics except when used in discussion with other physicists who know the math that they represent.

What's with the 'whilst' business? You're not Anglo are you? More posturing for the audience eh?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
John von Neumann was a physicist who wrote a standard text, who was the first to formulate a complete mathematical foundation for quantum mechanics. You have been told this.

I'm not interested in debating the validity or otherwise of philosophy wrt science, especially given your repeated, even though corrected, false accusationary style of presumptions wrt my knowledge, without feeling any obligation to display your own, nor even substantive interest in the subject.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
Because it is the best approach to QM that I know.
No unnecessary interpretations so no paradoxes.
I agree that we should undo the mysteries of QM but we have to restrict ourselves to what we know.


Yes, and as important, to what we CAN know in principle . This is the positivistic approach (as opposed to realist).

All approaches to QM involve unavoidable interpretation in one form or other.....

"....None of the confusion [in particular story] would have occurred were it not for the habit of associating a wave function with an individual electron instead of an ensemble. It goes to show that questions of interpretation in QM are not devoid of practical utility." - Ballentine

Ballentine makes use of the ensemble interpretation, and finds use in interpretation generally , as indeed he must because it is unavoidable.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2016
@Noumenon
I am not a positivist but I think without a lead you can not advance beyond the ensemble interpretation because the odds are against you.


Singles systems are not deterministic though.

What do you mean by you're "not a positivist"?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
""After giving a talk on computers at Princeton in 1948, John von Neumann was met with an audience member who insisted that a "mere machine" could never really think. Von Neumann's immortal reply was:

"You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!""

-quoted by the ghostofotto1923


-So, von Neumann (with the benefit of already being a conscious thinking subject), proposes to fix the machine every time one points out something it can't do? An actually thinking machine would in principal be able to fix itself.

Or,….
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
-Or given your ironically vague generalization about the supposed vagueness of "philos" [without ever addressing a specific point made], …is the point that von Neumann indicated this….. "the only real limitations on making 'machines that think' are our own limitations in not knowing exactly what "thinking" consists of" [your link left this off from their original source].

Sounds familiar to points made by me wrt QM and epistemology.

Aren't you a strong-A.I. proponent? What about the vagueness of strong-A.I. believing they can make an thinking machine without having a precise understanding of the thing they purport to produce?

How the mind works will not be discovered by A.I.-dorks, I can assure you of that at least.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1,

What do you mean by you're "not a positivist"? Do you mean that you believe that QM describes reality as it exists independent of mind dependent observation? This would be a realist stance, and is in fact an interpretation. Further, it is refuted by experiment.....

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [mind] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - Bernard d'Espagnat
promile
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
javjav
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2016
What do you know about the QM description of a H atom that you do't understand ?
In my particular case, what the article is saying about the quantisation of time. This is from the article:
"The modified quantum mechanical equation predicts a slightly different rate of spontaneous emission than that predicted by the unmodified equation".
This article from the university guys is about this, they propose experiments which results would be different depending on space and time quantisation. I think it is a pretty interesting idea. So please guys, could we go back into the article that we are discussing for a moment?

Or about an electron in a box?
Electrons shouldn't kill cats. That's wrong.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2016
All predictions of QM are accurately reproduced experimentally
and I don't care much for d'Espagnat.

I tried to read one of his books one time. Because somebody here (it might have been Nouneman-Skippy or JohnPringle-Skippy) said I should so I would not be so stupid. Well I don't mind admitting that I did not finish him. Or admitting that I was even more stupid after reading a hundred pages or so than I was before I started him.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1,

What do you mean by you're "not a positivist"? Do you mean that you believe that QM describes reality as it exists independent of mind dependent observation? This would be a realist stance, and is in fact an interpretation. Further, it is refuted by experiment.....

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [mind] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - Bernard d'Espagnat

All predictions of QM are accurately reproduced experimentally ...

I've stated as much many times here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2016
-So, von Neumann (with the benefit of already being a conscious thinking subject), proposes to fix the machine every time one points out something it can't do?
I think he was talking about different machines for different things.
An actually thinking machine would in principal be able to fix itself
Can you fix yourself? I guess you're claiming to be unconscious (nonconscious? Soulless?)

I concur.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2016
what do you mean you're not a positivist??!¿
I think he means that, like most scientists, he doesn't much care about whatever -ism philos want to classify him as.

You're -isms are only relevant to other philos. Nobody else really gives a shit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2016
How the mind works will not be discovered by A.I.-dorks, I can assure you of that at least
There you go again. The word 'mind' is undefinable. It means nothing. Please stop using it. Please get your colleagues to stop using it.
LifeBasedLogic
Feb 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
Or about an electron in a box?
Electrons shouldn't kill cats. That's wrong.

Why not? They kill people...
And... If it's a cat in a box with radioactive material, it's neutron decay that does the deed...
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2016
All predictions of QM are accurately reproduced experimentally
and I don't care much for d'Espagnat.

I tried to read one of his books one time. Because somebody here (it might have been Nouneman-Skippy or JohnPringle-Skippy) said I should so I would not be so stupid. Well I don't mind admitting that I did not finish him. Or admitting that I was even more stupid after reading a hundred pages or so than I was before I started him.


I would not have recommended you read it.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2016
The word 'mind' is undefinable. It means nothing.

That sounds rather definitive. Yet philosophical. But you'll never get me to believe there's an empty shoe box behind your forehead that you pulled that out of.
DoctorAlex
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
M.Faizal and co-authors make a statement, that the consequences of their approach, namely additional term in the nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation, can be tested experimentally and they suggest an estimation from known data for their hypothetitical term. First of all, any comparison with ex.data of suggested small terms in nonrelativistic equation is absolutely useless without account of relativistic effects, which would be much larger. Thus before making statements about possible experimental check the authors should perform a study for Hydrogen atom within QED.
Second, their additional term would certainly change the spectrum of Hydrogen atom, and the most precision test would be comparison of 1s-2s transition frequency theory vs experiment. Again, accuarte account of QED corrections is need to speak about any serious proof of the consept.
Finally, the paper is written on obviously low level. It is a shame for EPJ C for publishing such low quality papers.
Reg Mundy
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2016
___
Presently ignoring:
Benni bschott plasmarevenge cantdrive45 gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy
This list is updated continuously.

Wow, I'm totally gutted! He's added me to the list of anybody who points out the stupidity of some of his statements. If you consider our recent (and only) exchange, he makes a ridiculous statement which I point out, and this is his response? Good riddance....
javjav
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
The word 'mind' is undefinable.
I don't agree. The "what is the mind" problem should be studied in physics (the "what is the brain" is for biologists). And the QM implications are theoretically testable in a experiment, this is not metaphysics. It would consist in separating information processing and cognitive processes from the biological support, and see what happens:
- Find a patient in terminal state who wants to be volunteer
N= number of neurons.
- Substitute one neuron by an artificial neuron and artificial synaptic connections, assigning the same weight to each input/output (computer bits) as it was before. Do you still appreciate same cognitive results?
- Repeat N-1 times (use reasonable increments as to be practical)
- Do it for the N (last) neuron. Does it still work?
- If it fails at some point, repeat the experiment by using Qbits rather than bits and analog connections to avoid QM decoherence effects. Does it make a difference?
Reg Mundy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
@RM
Here is the rationale. You are a borderline crackpot that wouldn't know the difference between a log of wood and a physics textbook. When I explain some physics to you this is your reaction:
"Yes, you did say that! Are you now claiming a schitzophrenic episode when another part of you said it, but not you? Somebody stole your password and pretended to be you? What? "
Please point out which rule of behaviour you do _not_violate.

Hey, I thought you were ignoring me.....promises,promises!
I have just put you on my ignore list because you are a spoilt child, an irredeemable idiot, and not worth communicating with. When you make a stupid statement, and somebody points it out, you throw your toys out of your pram....
For example, I quote your post "There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance.". If it increases with distance, the further away from a mass you go, the more it affects you. This is patently nonsense.
javjav
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
I quote your post "There is a phase delay due to gravity, which increases inversely with distance.". If it increases with distance, the further away from a mass you go, the more it affects you. This is patently nonsense.
@RegMundy do you understand the difference between "inversely with distance"(what he said) and "with distance"(what you get)?

I suggest you change your username (ask that guy of the aether stuff how to do it, he does everyday...), and try a more humble approach from there. Writing insults you don't learn, for doing it you have to "read". In that way you may learn something rather than wasting others time. I can tell you that it works, I have learned several things from those guys you are criticising. And if you don't understand something you can simply ask about it, many of the people here don't mind to help others.

But by now, just read.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2016
Reg Mundy confused
.... problems with it. Do you understand basic optics?
Facile & inappropriate, NOT an issue of comparative optics, a space/time effect as described in Einstein's field equations & can be approximated by Pythagoras with Newton's gravitational (G) formula...

Reg Mundy says
... photons passing near the center deviate slightly, and photons passing further out from the centre deviate MORE
This is WHY you can't approach G lensing in same way as optics under your odd methodology !

One is refraction at (sharp) density transitions, other is (gradual) deflection across a G field ('of influence' if you like) & only appear similar hence metaphor but, that's primarily the simplistic description for those not in Physics !

Reg Mundy says
..light is scattered, and DOES NOT FORM AN IMAGE!
No, any scattering is due to combinations of collisions, absorption/re-emission with light in a G field re 'point' sources plainly none of that occurs, ie metaphor
DoctorAlex
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
I think that the paper of M. Faizal clearly demonstrates few tendencies. One is a general problem of decreasing of journal referees quality. It is surprising that such an obviously fake paper passed through serious referee.
Another tendency is a growing community of "science-fiction" physicists, who are badly educated in basics of physics. It seems that M.Faizal has never heard of Lorentz invariance, QED and their place in explaining things.
When it turns out that al these science-fiction ideas are simply school-level mistakes, the serious reseaches and their attempts to find new physics are also seriously compromised.
I believe that publication of M.Faizal paper in a serious journal and publicity it has got via popular cites is a shame and is a sign of serious problems with estimation of quality of scientific research even on basic level.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
The word 'mind' is undefinable. It means nothing.

It is quite literally the most manifest phenomena observable.

All observable phenomena are investigable in principal. It can be defined as the cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory. These a-priori cognitive faculties determine the form of experience [as explained above].

The word 'mind' is undefinable. It means nothing.


That sounds rather definitive. Yet philosophical.


He also denies that consciousness exists. He agrees with a philosopher about this (D. Dennett), despite proclaiming that philosophy is invalid generally. [btw, Dennett does not refute that consciousness is a phenomenon, in fact he attempts to explain that phenomenon via processes of the brain].

He performs experiments on himself, but only while he is sleeping.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
It is quite literally the most manifest phenomena (sic) observable
Nou goes on to quote from wiki.
https://en.wikipe...iki/Mind

-So let's pull a few more quotes from nou's source...

"A lengthy tradition of inquiries in philosophy, religion, psychology and cognitive science has sought to develop an understanding of what a mind is and what its distinguishing properties are."

-Huh. This doesn't seem very manifest to me (whatever not means by manifest)

What else...

"the mind–body problem, which considers whether mind is somehow separate from physical existence Well that's easy - It's not.
(dualism and idealism), or the mind is identical with the brain or some activity of the brain
-Note the subtle interjection of -ism words as if they are actually meant to clarify the question.

They dont.

So nou says that the mind is a well-defined something-or-other and then quotes an article which definitively says it is not.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
It's a sure bet that we can ask any philo, religionist, psychologist, or cognitive scientist what this 'mind' thing is, and they will all give you wildly conflicting answers. Of them all only the scientist has a chance of producing falsifiable answers because "All observable phenomena are investigable in principal", and only he has the proper tools and training to do so.

And while the scientist may use the word mind from time to time he is invariably thinking 'brain'.

Nou and his mystic heros prefer concepts like mind and consciousness because they invariably include an element of 'that which can never be defined', or meta-physicality, a realm through which he and his buds can forever roam without risk of capture and containment.

This is no accident - metaphysics was invented to replace the soul concept. They both exploit our animalistic terror of the cage and of death.

But obviously this is exactly why these words are undefinable and thus unscientific.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
There you go again, making false accusatory presumptions wrt what I think or know.

I'm an atheist, and don't believe in anything mystical. My posts serve to reject metaphysics in science, not promote it. I stated plainly enough above, that the mind is an emergent phenomenon from a physical brain,… so have never stated that the "mind is somehow separate from physical existence". The opposite in fact.

You invent strawman arguments as you go along, and deliberately misrepresent others opinion, despite that they have stated the exact opposite in this very thread. Dishonesty.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
He agrees with a philo about this
"Daniel Clement Dennett III (born March 28, 1942)[1][2] is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields related to evolutionary biology and cognitive science."

-Dennett is a scientist. He has written many books and papers on the subjects of mind and consciousness, trying to bridge the chasm between philosophy.

In one of his latest presentations, a TED talk entitled "consciousness is an illusion"
https://www.ted.c...guage=en

-he seems to have abandoned the philo side entirely. He gives many examples of how flawed our brains are and how easily they are fooled, and then suggests that these flaws are what give rise to the illusion of consciousness.

He concludes like the scientist he is by saying that more and better theories are needed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
I'm an atheist, and don't believe in anything mystical. My posts serve to reject metaphysics in science
You are a slave to your hobby. You say you reject the unphysical but you do so using words which clearly reference it. And you quote philos and scientists who are clearly mystics when discussing your favorite subjects.

'Metaphysician, know thyself.' Simply declaring that you are not something doesnt make it so.

I detect a significant cognitive disconnect. Better see a meta-doctor.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
only the scientist has a chance of producing falsifiable answers because "All observable phenomena are investigable in principal", and only he has the proper tools and training to do so.


You're the only one here trying to falsify a meaning for mind and consciousness.

As I said, "How the mind works will not be discovered by A.I.-dorks"….i.e.,… It will require many disciplines, from neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, physics, epistemology (philosophy), …..

It is quite literally the most manifest phenomena [plural form of phenomenon, so correct] observable.

Just because little is known about the phenomenon of consciousness, does not invalidate the attempt at understanding. If it did, science would not exist.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
You say you reject the unphysical but you do so using words which clearly reference it.

Patently false. I use words that you personally don't understand or deliberately misrepresent, without bothering to ask for clarification.

And you quote philos and scientists who are clearly mystics when discussing your favorite subjects.

You have called Roger Penrose, Eugene Wigner, d'Espagnat, etc,… "mystics", and therefore you have no credibility, as I reference mostly physicists, and physicists who are philosophers of physics [who reflect on what theory means]. I reference Kant and Hume,… but never any metaphysical aspects of their ideas. In fact Kant rejects metaphysics as a possible source for knowledge. You have been told this, but your dishonesty prevents you from learning anything new.

You should be taking notes as I post, but instead behave as a troll.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
I mean, look at this.
The "what is the mind" problem should be studied in physics (the "what is the brain" is for biologists).
You've heard of biophysics? Biology IS physics. Brain function is governed exclusively by physical laws.

By saying that the mind and physics are something which exists beyond biology is a way of saying that it contains non-physical or extra-physical elements.

Do you not see it? Physics = biology = brain. Using the word 'mind' implies there is something extra there.

This leaves you free to postulate that only a mystical phenomenon such as consciousness can collapse the waveform. And as ayn rand said, you can decide 'a priori' that humans are too imperfect and flawed and unworthy of experiencing the entirety of something.

You need to be a god to grok the noumenon.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
The "what is the mind" problem should be studied in physics (the "what is the brain" is for biologists).


You need to be a god to grok the noumenon.


I did not make that post,.... not that facts are important to you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2016
Patently false. I use words that you personally don't understand or deliberately misrepresent
I looked them up for. I quoted from your own reference. I've shown you that experts say they are impossible to define.
bothering to ask for clarification
Like I say I can ask 10 philos or 10 priests and get 20 entirely different answers.

And thear credentials would all be better than yours.
you called Penrose et al mystics
AGAIN, I didn't decide that. I've referenced many experts which use that term to describe facets of their work. The facets you yourself use to justify your own extrasensory proclivities.
kant and hume
Kant preferred faith to evidence. He was a defender of the church.

And hume was a racist. Perhaps his penchant for prejudice was what gave him the notion that he could discern the nature of the universe just by sitting and thinking about it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
I disagree. For example, there are no proteins in physics. They have physical properties but they also have chemical, biochemical and biological properties
What a strange thing to say.

Proteins are chemistry. Chemistry is governed by physical laws. Physical laws are physics.

Correct?
This sounds like the dead end that strict positivism leads to
I see you are also an -ism lover. Explains a lot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
I did not make that post,.... not that facts are important to you
You mean today don't you? I'm referring to the discussion we had some time ago re ayn rands hatred of kant. She described how kants ideas demeaned human potential in exactly the same way the church did.

You began to mutter about how you agreed with rands politics even though you loved kant too etc.

Remember?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
So, what is your point? I did not make the post that you quoted, today, nor at any time.

Do you have a coherent point of objection to something that was stated by me here?

You insist that philosophers are vague and yet at the same time, you can't help but to disparage thinkers with accusations like Kant, Hume, Penrose, Wigner, d'Espagnat, Pauli,... on account of some off-topic irrelevancy,...

"Hume is a racist", so this means what?,.. his analysis of causality is invalid?,... Penrose believes in Platonic mathematical idealism, so this means that he is not a preeminent physicists? B. d'Espagnat won the Templemen prize and may be a theist, so this means that his distinguished work in physics is now invalid?

Do you see how your arguments are all over the place, like a troll? It's hard to have a coherent discussion with you because you argue by proxy, accusations, and with ad hominems.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
I agree with Rand's political ideology, but not with her objectivism, nor with her misinformed opinion of Kant. I agree with Kant's transcendental deduction and implications for knowledge, his rejection of metaphysics as a source for knowledge, his noumenon / phenomenal distinction, and his a-priori synthetic / analytic distinction, but not his theism.....

The fact is you're are just tossing things you found via internet proxy against the wall to see what sticks. I expect you to explain what it is I stated that you object to, and why. I am capable of learning new things, but not by being attacked in a vague way.

Listing other people who don't agree with Kant, Hume, etc, is not itself a counter argument, as I can also list people who do. WHY.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
In one of his latest presentations, a TED talk entitled "consciousness is an illusion".


This sounds like the dead end that strict positivism leads to.
How is consciousness an illusion ?


Obviously we lose consciousness when we sleep and is equated with self-awareness, so it IS an investigable phenomenon, and it would be patently absurd to deny that much.

They probably only mean that the notion that consciousness is like akin to the soul as a separate 'thing' apart from the working of the physical brain, is an illusion. To this I would agree. However, this does not mean that it is not an actual phenomenon emergent from a physical basis.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
@Noumenon
I am not a positivist but I think without a lead you can not advance beyond the ensemble interpretation because the odds are against you.


Singles systems are not deterministic though....

I meant to add....

Einstein originally proposed the ensemble interpretation of the probabilistic element in QM, not out of practical utility, but because he denied indeterminism, and appears to have desired to obscure the intrinsic probabilistic nature of quantum phenomenon in the statistics of ensembles.

Given your reference though, Ballentine shows that it is a useful interpretation, so you're certainly not wrong.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
ou insist that philosophers are vague and yet at the same time, you can't help but to disparage thinkers with accusations like Kant, Hume, Penrose, Wigner, d'Espagnat, Pauli,... on account of some off-topic irrelevancy,...
They are not off-topic. Trying to discuss science using indefinable and esoteric philo terms is off-topic. It's little different from the god lovers who come here and try to do the same thing.

Philo arguments are unassailable, like trying to climb a whipped cream mountain. A sugarless whipped cream mountain.

And so one is left with attacking the structure of the arguments themselves, the source of their hopeless ambiguity, and by extension the entire discipline.

Hume was a racist. He must have had in his mind a philo rationalization for that sort of prejudgment. In retrospect we can see that there is no logical explanation for that sort of thinking, and so we can suspect that the rest of his philosophy was similarly tainted.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2016
Biology IS physics
I disagree. For example, there are no proteins in physics. They have physical properties but they also have chemical, biochemical and biological properties.
I disdisagree. Please see "Introduction to protein folding for physicists."

Everything is physics. Even nothing is physics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
Evidence tells us that there is no basis for racism except our penchant for tribalism. Others in humes time rejected it but he did not.

Obviously he reached that conclusion in the framework of his particular theories of logic which were not based on evidence, but on cultural tradition.

The idea that one could discern the nature of the universe via deep thought or prayer or whatever, rather than a painstaking analysis of evidence, is also a bankrupt cultural predisposition.

And the discipline of philosophy is established, and thrives, on exactly that predisposition.

Plato formalized that notion, thereby legitimizing religion and philosophy. Aristotle emphasized evidence and causality and gave us science.

They both knew that humans would never surrender the former and so gave it an intellectual basis on par with the latter, so that it could be tailored to serve.

They fooled most of the people most of the time. But I doubt they intended this farce to endure.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
Obviously we lose consciousness when we sleep and is equated with self-awareness, so it IS an investigable phenomenon
Jesus. You don't even know what consciousness is supposed to be.

"Sleep is just one of many types of consciousness we experience, and sleep itself comprises several states of consciousness. ..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
even nothing is physics
-Which is what krauss tried to tell albert the philo who apparently had no idea what he was talking about.

"Krauss responded in an interview published in The Atlantic calling Albert "moronic" and dismissing the philosophy of science as worthless."

-Hear hear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
I agree with Rand's political ideology, but not with her objectivism, nor with her misinformed opinion of Kant
Misinformed. Ayn rand. Right.

And just who would have informed her correctly? You and your crack team of kantians who obviously have the only true and right -ism that ever was?

Or perhaps you're a neo, in which case you could meet with a bunch of neo-randites and set them straight mano-a-mano?

I understand this sort if dialectic can get rather... messy.

What a joke.
javjav
1 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
"...what is the brain" is for biologists).
You've heard of biophysics?
Ghotto, I agree with most of your opinions. But the way you manipulate my post is wrong. I said "Biologists" to abbreviate, the details you mention are true, but totally unnecessary for my explanation.
By saying that the mind and physics are something which exists beyond biology is a way of saying that it contains non-physical or extra-physical elements.
I said the opposite. I said that mind study belong to physics. You also obviated the experiment I described, which illustrates what I say. I proposed to study consciousness strictly as a physical phenomena, but you try to make it look the opposite. If we can make it artificially (which is not known) then we can separate "mind" from "biology" to study it better, also checking for QM implications. It is not utopic, first stages are already in place, the BlueBrain project being an example. https://en.wikipe..._Project
javjav
1 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
The same goes for the experiment that I said. I had to condense it in few lines, but the idea is perfectly understandable. Obviously these experiments will need to simplify a lot of aspects, but nothing indicates that you need a complete human brain for consciousness to emerge. Just a basic model could work. I don't want to go into discussions how simple needs to be an "animal" to have some demonstrable consciousness, but if consciousness is a pure physical phenomena (and I agree with you on this) it must be obtainable without the need for naturally born creatures, and that will give us a much better tool to make a phisycs model to describe what it is, to understand it, and to develop powerful technologies.
javjav
1 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
For better understanding, please read "Natural Biology" wherever I said "Biology". There is going to be a point that we will need to differentiate between naturally occurring live from artificially induced, and all this is about it.
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
@RegMundy do you understand the difference between "inversely with distance"(what he said) and "with distance"(what you get)?

I suggest you change your username (ask that guy of the aether stuff how to do it, he does everyday...), and try a more humble approach from there. Writing insults you don't learn, for doing it you have to "read". In that way you may learn something rather than wasting others time. I can tell you that it works, I have learned several things from those guys you are criticising. And if you don't understand something you can simply ask about it, many of the people here don't mind to help others.

But by now, just read.

Do you know the difference between "increase" (what he said) and no increase? Anyway, the model for GL is fundamentally flawed. So why don't you "just read"?
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
@MM
Reg Mundy says
... photons passing near the center deviate slightly, and photons passing further out from the centre deviate MORE
This is WHY you can't approach G lensing in same way as optics under your odd methodology !

One is refraction at (sharp) density transitions, other is (gradual) deflection across a G field ('of influence' if you like) & only appear similar hence metaphor but, that's primarily the simplistic description for those not in Physics !

Reg Mundy says
..light is scattered, and DOES NOT FORM AN IMAGE!
No, any scattering is due to combinations of collisions, absorption/re-emission with light in a G field re 'point' sources plainly none of that occurs, ie metaphor
I see your intellect is not improving with the passage of time..Scattering due to collisions, etc., is NOTHING to do with this exchange, another of your red herrings.
No matter how you cut it, light must be bent more further from the centre of mass thus the model is incorrect.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
Reg Mundy says
I see your intellect is not improving with the passage of time..Scattering due to collisions, etc., is NOTHING to do with this exchange, another of your red herrings
Feeble personal attacks again, a genuine credible graduate of Pure Maths would NOT write like this & not refuse Math !

Reg Mundy claims
No matter how you cut it, light must be bent more further from the centre of mass thus the model is incorrect
Why "must" it, please articulate clearly ?

Gravitational field drops as inverse square, we are NOT talking optics at all ie you cannot & should NOT apply optics in *any* respect of refraction here, can't you see that :P ?

PLEASE Note !

Fact that evidence confirms this (Eg earliest observation by Eddington & others) refutes your urging it "must" ie it just Doesnt !

Why, do think please ?

What does that tell us about your 'intellect' in particular along with your ease to make personal attacks when you can't explain *any* of your Math ?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2016
Mike,

I've edited your comment so as to drop your dummy spit.

----

Hi Reg,

"Gravitational field drops as inverse square, we are NOT talking optics at all ie you cannot & should NOT apply optics in *any* respect of refraction here"

----

Much better.

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2016
bluehigh evidently idle hypocrite says
I've edited your comment so as to drop your dummy spit
If you were genuine, evenhanded, intelligent & free of idle prejudice you would/should observe I asked a question ie
"What does that tell us about your 'intellect' in particular along with your ease to make personal attacks when you can't explain *any* of your Math ?"

Which is in direct response to his ugly personal attack where Reg Mundy says:- "I see your intellect is not improving.."

You fail as fair 'policeman' re Reg Mundy as his is attack-claim yet I only ask Question ?

Had you *any* presence of mind to observe the history (earlier too), I only ask politely Eg Reg in the first place re Physics but was met with ugly attack !

So bluehigh, you're either hypocrite or incompetent not bothering to check fact re Reg's initial tone before adding prejudice also completely devoid of Physics !

At least bluehigh, why didn't U interpret his point & articulate it better ?
Benni
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2016
@MM
___
Cranks to be ignored:
Benni plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya
Pariahs to be ignored: bschott
This list is updated continuously.


You forgot RealityCheck? Or was that intentional?
Ryan1981
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2016
@promile, thanks for the meal but why the exercise? My first post stated 2 valid questions which have not been answered.

The way i see it, if time is quantized, the spooky action at a distance can't be instantaneous since that would violate this statement. So which one is right?

Second, in my view you can't prove something if you don't have the means to verify it. Math might indicate the truth but without verification it will remain a theory.
promile
Feb 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ryan1981
1.8 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2016
@Promile, I do not understand what you mean with limited speed of force or how this is related to entanglement. When I look up the entanglement effect I am referring to on wikipedia I get: "According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly"

This means to me that an infinitely short amount of time has passed giving me the impression that time is continuous. Maybe there is such a thing as a response in t=0 after which the next step in time would be whatever lenght of time the minimum time size possible would be?
promile
Feb 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2016
Ghotto, I agree with most of your opinions. But the way you manipulate my post is wrong. I said "Biologists" to abbreviate, the details you mention are true, but totally unnecessary for my explanation
You tried to justify the term 'mind' by somehow tying it with physics.

Science has no need for indefinable words, whatever the branch.

BTW I thought phys said this. Are you or he a sockpuppet?
consciousness is a pure physical phenomena (and I agree with you on this)
I didn't say this. I said the word is undefinable and the phenomenon, however manifested, is an illusion.

We are way too complex for our own good. Some of our delusions are ubiquitous. This by doesn't make them real.
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2016
@MM
It is amazing to read RM criticising _other_ people's intellect.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Oh Dear, Oh Dear! You PROMISED to ignore me, but here you go again.! Your promises are about as good as your logic, neither are worth a light (or beam if you prefer it). Now, PLEASE either put me on your ignore list or reply to my perfectly logical arguments with LOGICAL arguments of your own.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2016
mole is short for grammolecule, a contraction of two words, each of which has no meaning in relation to spacetime.

Tell me where you think the number comes from. Not the constant, which has units of mol^(-1), but the number, which is dimensionless.
viko_mx
not rated yet Feb 06, 2016
The time have no structure unlike the vacuum of cosmic space. This is one of absolutes which serve as absolute reference point for the speed of different physical interactions. Professional science does not give a true contribution to human knowledge. As lawyers do not give a real contribution to justice. They must eat and do carrier.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
... As lawyers do not give a real contribution to justice.

At LAST!!
You've said something I agree with!
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2016
@Otto

I'm still not understanding your point here. No one here is saying 'consciousness' or 'mind' are things unto themselves (like "soul"). Science makes use of place-holder terms all the time. These terms are meant only to stand for observable phenomena, with the implication being that that phenomenon can in principal be described by physical or emergent laws.

Here is Newton on the term gravity ....

"I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses" - Newton

Because Newton did not understand what gravity "IS" does not mean he couldn't formulate scientific theory of its observable effects, nor did it mean "gravity" as a phenomenon, was an illusion.

....
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
..... so consciousness and mind are not illusions As Phenomena. They are "illusions" only to the extent that they are Emergent phenomena, ... from more fundamental laws. [I was careful to use the word 'emergent' above].

Is colour an illusion? Colour actually does not exist in objects. Colour only exists in your mind. It exists no where else in reality. Your mind Produces the experience of colour upon sensing various frequencies of EM,... but there is no physical "colour" in that fundamental force of nature except only by definition.

In this sense, you could say colour is an "illusion", because it is emergent from physical laws, but in itself does not exist as an independent reality,.... yet at the same time, the 'experience of colour' is a real phenomenon that is subject to scientific investigation.

Science investigates only phenomena. Some phenomena are emergent from physical laws, while other non-emergent phenomena are simply accepted, and their effects described.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
.... no one knows how our impression of "colour" comes about, how it is produced in the brain. No one knows how our impression of self-awareness comes about. How does this phenomena emerge from a neural network? It's not enough to understand the mechanics of neurons and synapses, for then you're too deep in the trees to understand the forrest.

Some strong-A.I. proponents believe that consciousness will simply manifest from computation on a parallel network, as if by magic. Essential understanding is missing.
javjav
1 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2016
@Ghotto: BTW I thought phys said this. Are you or he a sockpuppet?
. No, see above, he also criticized my posts, that funny comment about the dinosaurs..
I said the word is undefinable and the phenomenon, however manifested, is an illusion.
The "mind" term is well defined. The "mind" is the set of cognitive faculties of the brain. And if it is an "illusion" it would still be a definable term with a physical reality. The wave function of a system where this "illusion" exist can never be the same as in a system where it is not.

Finally, my differentiation between Biologists and Physicists was in terms of specialities that are needed to explain this phenomena. You showed me I didn't express correctly, thanks, but I rectified: "Natural Biology" and "Quantum Biology" is the right differentiation in this context. I am not inventing those terms, here an interesting video about QM implications in cognitive processes https://www.youtu...EsYDlXJk
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
...And then the final frontier will be the mind. We can only hope that understanding it will not lead to some sort of recursion of thought ;)

javjav
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2016
Some strong-A.I. proponents believe that consciousness will simply manifest from computation on a parallel network
. It could be that, but it could be not enough. Neural networks in current computers can not represent quantum effects. The digitalization of information is done trough decoherence, and also each stage of digital processing storing results in digital bits. So quantum computers may be necessary for this. [speculation start] To me it looks like abstract thinking should be easier to produce with the help of quantum superposition. At the end of the day, if this powerful tool is available in nature and we can use it in quantum computing, then I don't see why evolution would not make use of it also. [speculation end]
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
@phys
I disagree. For example, there are no proteins in physics.

But physics determine how proteins develop...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
I'm still not understanding your point here
Well no - you think consciousness disappears when we sleep. You dont know the difference between conscious and consciousness.

And before you say anything more just google the words together and have experts explain it to you.
No one here is saying 'consciousness' or 'mind' are things unto themselves (like "soul")
Oh I think if I bothered to search the thread I would find at least a few instances of that very thing.
science makes use of place-holder terms all the time.
Sure. They have 'brain' for one. Also sensory awareness, thought, and cognition.
These terms are meant only to stand for observable phenomena
What observable phenomena are you talking about? Provide succinct definitions for mind and consciousness that scientists, priests, philos, and psychologists agree on. Cite repeatable experiments that scientists have done on the mind.

Everybody agrees what the brain is and where it is to be found.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
"The very word mind is like the word sky to astronomers." -Huber

"... there is no longer any need to appeal to such a naive term, with its faint smack of folk psychology."

-And it seems the preponderance of authors I find on the Web who are desperately against this are the clergymen, psychologists, and philos who have the most to lose when these non-words disappear.

You call them placeholders. Indeed - they are holding a place for the divine, the mystical, and the philosophical in light of increasing confidence that scientific inquiry will eventually exclude them completely.

And it most certainly will.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
The "mind" term is well defined
NO its NOT. I already addressed this above.
https://en.wikipe...iki/Mind

-The wiki article, no doubt written and edited by philos and soft scientists, starts out with what appears to be a conclusive declaration.

But this is followed by a lot of 'some think' and 'others argue that' and a whole lot of meaningless philo words and philo name-droppings.

And I cited scholars above who think that consciousness and mind are obsolete, antiquated, useless, etc.
but I rectified: "Natural Biology" and "Quantum Biology" is the right differentiation in this context
-So? This does not make the term mind definable or useful.

Sure these pros might use it in the same way that astronomers will say they point their scopes into the sky, or how Einstein used the word god while not believing in it.

A little poetry can grab the attention and set the tone. Degrasse Tyson likes the words wonder and mystery for the same reasons.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2016
@Phys1:
I think listing the people one ignores is a good idea.
Since physorg staff will not moderate this site I've put my peronal list of ignore candidates (including reasons) online. Might save a bit of space in comments to just post a link.
If there's any interest I would pool candidates from others as a quick reference for new posters.

https://docs.goog...=sharing
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
I was careful to use the term emergent
If you're using this word in the philo sense, it is meaningless and so has no place here.

"In philosophy, emergence typically[?] refers to emergentism[an -ism???] 'Almost all accounts'[-almost??? Accounts???] of emergentism include a form of epistemic[no def] or ontological[no def] irreducibility[no def in this context] to the lower levels..."

-And if you're trying to apply it scientifically, you're doing it wrongly.

"For instance, the phenomenon life as studied in biology is commonly perceived as an emergent property of interacting molecules as studied in chemistry, whose phenomena reflect interactions among elementary particles, modeled in particle physics" (this incident lying resolves the physics/biology issue)

By using emergence you imply that 'mind' emerging from functions of the brain, is a given.

Non-sequitur.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
BTW

"The term "emergent" was coined by philosopher G. H. Lewes[figures] who wrote:

"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces..." (guess he never heard of synergy)
Since physorg staff will not moderate this site I've put my peronal list of ignore candidates (including reasons) online
Wow. Pretty soon you'll be talking to yourself.

Which is pretty much what you do already isn't it?

Just explain how 'no insurance company' means 'insured as required by law'.

-Incidentally, 'incident lying' above is spellcheck for 'Incidently'
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
I made it clear enough in context what 'emergent' means on several occasions above. I don't think you read my posts, as what you quoted above is what I said,.... that the mind is an emergent phenomenon from biological processes (my very first use of 'emergent' in this thread!). I further mentioned emergent laws in reference to 'arrow of time', and how the mind processes sense experience,... i.e. colour.

Everybody agrees what the brain is and where it is to be found.

And everyone consciously agrees on that by using their minds.
javjav
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
"Natural Biology" and "Quantum Biology" is the right differentiation in this context
-So? This does not make the term mind definable or useful.
No. That distinction was my answer to your other argument about differentiating between biology and physics.

In regards to the "mind" term, come on it is not so complex: "brain" is the organ, "mind" is the function. In the same sense, "eye" is the organ, "vision" is the function. According to your arguments, vision is not definable. But it is. And my distinction make sense in this context: Natural Biologists study both eye and vision, but are not specialised in QM effects. That is the speciality od Quantum biologists. They study the implications of QM in vision, like the example of some birds sensing earth magnetic field trough vision by using entangled electrons (I posted a link about it). Similarly, Quantum biology can study if there are QM aspects involved on the brain function (the mind).
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
Otto's A.D.D. extends the length of threads when they could have been more interesting.

What everyone understands as 'mind', our cognitive faculties or 'laws of thought', are an emergent phenomenon from more basic neurobiological processes which are themselves laws which are emergent from physical laws. Cognitive science in interdisciplinary for a reason.

To borrow Augustines quote on Time,... [Consciousness?] If no one asks me, I know what it is [as it is de facto the most immediate experience possible]. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know."

That the present state of knowledge is limited does not render the phenomenon an illusion.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
Read my earlier post re emergence of life.

The word mind describes nothing which can be addressed scientifically.

"Quantum biology refers to applications of quantum mechanics and theoretical chemistry to biological objects and problems. Many biological processes involve the conversion of energy into forms that are usable for chemical transformations and are quantum mechanical in nature."

-This has nothing to do with 'mind'. You are just throwing terms around that you are not familiar with.
QM aspects involved on the brain function (the mind)
So you are saying that there is a thing called the mind which is the obvious result of QM aspects of brain functions?

How would you know this?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
Laws of thought
"The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is often considered to be based. The formulation and clarification of such rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy and logic. Generally they are taken as laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc. However such classical ideas are often questioned or rejected in more recent developments, such as Intuitionistic logic and Fuzzy Logic."

-Classical... questioned... rejected... in light of actual scientific investigation of brain function.

You should be careful not to rely on the philo terms you learned in your youth which science has only recently rendered worthless.
what everyone understands
I provided you with quotes from at least one pro who thinks that the term is useless.

How do you reconcile that with 'everyone'? What is it about his sky analogy that you do not find enlightening?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
To borrow Augustines quote on Time,... [Consciousness?] If no one asks me, I know what it is [as it is de facto the most immediate experience possible]. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
Uh he died 2 millenia ago. Bet he never heard the term evolutionary psychology.

Have you?

"Evolutionary psychology (EP) is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
I made it clear enough in context what 'emergent' means on several occasions above
Saying it doesn't make it so.

You can't look at a thing called the mind and discern that it comes from the functioning and interaction of smaller parts, as you can 'life'.

You need to provide a concrete, scientific example of where repeatable scientific experiments have resulted in the discovery of a succinctly definable thing called the mind....

Or that different experiments have started with a thing called the mind and have then discerned the function of various parts of the brain from it.

Or, you have to show that when one scientist is talking about a thing he calls the mind, he is talking about exactly the same thing as another scientist using the same term.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
You copy/paste phrases out of context and run them through your internet blender to feed yourself more confusion....

From your own source,...

"Modern logicians, in almost unanimous disagreement with Boole [use of "forms of thought" as an algebra of logic], take this expression to be a misnomer; none of the above propositions classed under "laws of thought" are explicitly about thought per se, a mental phenomenon studied by psychology, nor do they involve explicit reference to a thinker or knower as would be the case in pragmatics or in epistemology. The distinction between psychology (as a study of mental phenomena) and logic (as a study of valid inference) is widely accepted."

I was not referring to aximatic rules anywhere here.

I have no interest in debating whether or not mind exists, albeit you're putting up a good case that of that lack of yours.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
I don't know which source you are talking about. And your excerpt doesn't seem to have much to do with the discussion.

Dennett has a similar sentiment about mind;

"The philosopher of cognitive science Daniel Dennett, for example, argues there is no such thing as a narrative center called the "mind", but that instead there is simply a collection of sensory inputs and outputs: different kinds of "software" running in parallel."
you copy/paste phrases out of context
Is this some excuse for why you don't reference pronouncements like 'everyone understands' what the mind is?

I haven't changed the meaning of any excerpt I've posted here. Please provide an example.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
I have no interest in debating whether or not mind exists
-Because I think I've made it sufficiently clear you don't know what you are talking about.

You've yet to explain why you think consciousness, whatever THAT is, stops when we fall asleep.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
I have already made clear above that I don't believe there is an independent-entity that should be associated with the term "mind".

When Dennett says "My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors.",.... he is NOT saying he really rejects philosophy as a field of study, but rather 'standard terminology'**. He is after all a "cognitive scientists specializing in philosophy of mind". Further, he does not reject that mind is a phenomenon. His entire research is centered around understanding it. He only rejects that it is an independent-entity. So do I, by stating repeatedly that it is Emergent !!!

**the history of science consists of development terminology.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2016
I don't know which source you are talking about. And your excerpt doesn't seem to have much to do with the discussion.


Your criticism of my phrase "laws of thought" was what was wrong as demonstrated. You quoted wiki,... same page where I got my quote....

Laws of thought

"The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules ...


You've yet to explain why you think consciousness, whatever THAT is, stops when we fall asleep.

In that state we are not conscious of some experiences that we are when awake, for example, time. You're now denying conscious(ness) stops during sleep, but claimed it doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist not stop?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2016
Dennett has a similar sentiment about mind;

"The philosopher of cognitive science Daniel Dennett, for example, argues there is no such thing as a narrative center called the "mind", but that instead there is simply a collection of sensory inputs and outputs: different kinds of "software" running in parallel."


He does NOT deny that mind as a phenomenon exists. He only rejects the notion that it is an independent controlling entity,.... IOW he believes (as I do) that ultimately at core, the mind is explainable through the physical processes of the brain.

However, just as biological phenomena evolves with its own emergent laws that can't be explained directly from the collisions of atoms, likewise, imo, the mind "as software" (though I don't agree with that analogy), can't be explained purely from the mechanics of neurobiological processes.

Perhaps had you spent some time understanding ones posts it would save you from having to manufacture disagreements.

javjav
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2016
QM aspects involved on the brain function (the mind)
So you are saying that there is a thing called the mind which is the obvious result of QM aspects of brain functions?
It is not obvious. But it may be possible that QM effects play an important role on consciousness. And it is theoretically testable.
How would you know this?
I answered to this: Try first with a classical neuronal network (classical bits). If it fails then try with a neuronal network using qbits. I don't say it will work. I say that it worth trying. The technology is not ready, but we already have designs for the building blocks (a network of qbits that can emulate the function of a neuron) and it is a question to find how to build them and how to scale manufacturing to such a huge complexity. Maybe a classical network can do it (work in progress BTW). Or may be it will fail even with a quantum network. But it is going to be doable, it is going to be built, and we are going to know it
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
No one here is saying 'consciousness' or 'mind' are things unto themselves (like "soul")

Oh I think if I bothered to search the thread I would find at least a few instances of that very thing.

You don't even bother to check if your counter-point is the counter-point to anything actually stated here?

If you want to make a stand-a-lone point, that's fine,.. but don't make it appear that others posters stated things that they did not.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2016
I don't say it will work. I say that it worth trying. The technology is not ready, but we already have designs for the building blocks (a network of qbits that can emulate the function of a neuron) and it is a question to find how to build them and how to scale manufacturing to such a huge complexity.

I don't think you would need to wait for a quantum computer to try this. While a classical *hardware* neural network cannot simulate a quantum affected neuron network a *software* neural network (which is basically what all of the NNs we have are) can. Quantum effects are describable/simulatable in software.
The brain is dependent on the substrate/hardware it 'runs' on. A software representation of a brain is not dependent on its substrate because it can include a (software) simulation of a different substrate.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
How does the impression of "blueness" or "pain" come about on account of a network arrangement of synaptic firings? I don't think the essential problem is the particular physical substrate,( though whether quantum effects are involved is an interesting question.)

javjav
1 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2016
You don't even bother to check if your counter-point is the counter-point to anything actually stated here?

If you want to make a stand-a-lone point, that's fine,.. but don't make it appear that others posters stated things that they did not.
Totally agree with this, I feel my posts are used in that exact way. Ghotto is a smart guy and very useful in this forum, but it is a pity that he needs to project his counter-points in others in order to express his ideas. I don't mind if he do it with my posts if he need it, but this is limiting his potential.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
His misrepresentations and accusationary style of posting causes me to waste time defending myself rather than engaging in substantive discussion. What's more egregious is that he doesn't bother asking for clarification for phrases used or terms used, as in truth he has little to no interest in the subject posted.
javjav
1 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2016
Quantum effects are describable/simulatable in software.
. Not all of them. Maybe a classical neural network is enough, but we don't know. Software can apply QM equations to inputs, but the problem is in the inputs themselves. When you get EM input from a live synaptic you are forcing its decoherence, you are choosing one particular solution. From that point, the result is totally determined. This does not look like consciousness to me. How do you model a "dialog with yourself" with software?. You don't have a wave function of a brain system, what you have is many independent systems. It may happen that it is not necessary. But if quantum superposition is available in nature and it is so powerful tool for information processing, why natural selection is going to "refuse" to use it when selecting apes based on their capability to process information?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2016
One objection (pointed our by those who oppose R. Penrose notion that quantum effects are operative in the emergence of consciousness, & as pointed out above),.... is the effect of decoherence in a 'noisy' brain. The decoherence rate is extremely fast for anything approaching mesoscopic objects. Penrose argues for at least one possible way that entanglement could be isolated from decoherence long enough,... known as Orchestrated objective-reduction. I mentioned objective-reduction above in the context of wavefunction collapse.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2016
Quantum effects are describable/simulatable in software.
Not all of them

Saying that unknown quantum effects may be part of consciousness isn't useful. The quantum effects we know of can be described and simulated.

I don't buy the quantum-effects argument (at least not the version proposed by Penrose) because the orders of magnitude between where quantum effects play a role and even the single release of neurotransmitters from a single vesicle in the cellular body of a neuron are so huge that any quantum effects would have averaged out. Much more so when one considers the entirety of all goings-ons in a neuron.

When you get EM input from a live synaptic you are forcing its decoherence, you are choosing one particular solution.

Neurons aren't quantummechanical systems comparable to low temperature assemblages of a few thousand (or even million) atoms like a BEC. They are warm and HUGE by comparison.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2016
From that point, the result is totally determined. This does not look like consciousness to me.

You are forgetting that there are random things happening all over the place. Yes: a cascade of neuronal connections is susceptible to minute changes in initial conditions. But only when those conditions are borderline. For the most part our brain is one that is predetermined (as shown by any number of tests where the brain state as measured by fMRI already precedes what the person becomes aware of consciously)

Our brain is not evolved for consciousness but for plastic pattern reconition. Consciousness is just a side effect of being able to feed the output of a pattern recognition task back as an input.

How do you model a "dialog with yourself" with software?

Just like that: Feed part of the output back as the input.

why natural selection is going to "refuse" to use it

Because it's too unstable. Survival needs stable capabilities.
LifeBasedLogic
Feb 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2016
PS. Never been banned here and only down vote people for twisting stuff to hide the real truth...

Considering you've only been on here 3 days, it'd be tuff. I mean look at Zeph...
Who, BTW, Does have some decent input when not going off on AWT...

Now, the discussion on the article was proceeding nice and civilized and unpersonal. Can we keep it that way please?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
You are forgetting that there are random things happening all over the place.

Not a big believer in random in a closed set - not even a BIG set like a neuron...
Yes: a cascade of neuronal connections is susceptible to minute changes in initial conditions.

Or anywhere along the cascade.
But only when those conditions are borderline.

What do you mean by borderline? Somewhere at the very beginning it has to be binary...
Consciousness is just a side effect of being able to feed the output of a pattern recognition task back as an input.

Nicely put...;-)

Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2016
antialias_physorg offered
How do you model a "dialog with yourself" with software?

Just like that: Feed part of the output back as the input
Indeed & heart of "feedback control systems" which have proved immense value in dealing with probabilistic variance, noise, perturbation etc :-)

Maybe antialias_physorg is offering electronic engineering perspective of "Infinite impulse response filter" easily modeled in software & been crafted in early days via purely analog systems - which similarly betray occasional wild perturbations when no input is present

Just like life forms showing evidence of irrationality seemingly without cause but, when studied Eg humans in psychiatric environment indicate their internal dialog played a substantive part in them "going mad"

In humans/mammals & down to insects throughout - neurons have same essential properties as "adaptive probability machines" primarily focuses on; Food/Shelter/Sex - subject to order variance :P
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2016
LifeBasedLogic replying to antialias_physorgbetrayed his low level of maturity with
I think I will own this place now, if I choose to.
And if I do, you will be the first person banned for enticing lies and harassment.
take care
PS. Never been banned here and only down vote people for twisting stuff to hide the real truth...Oh, that's you 100%
What specific truth, how articulated, you still haven't addressed my questions to you whether as LifeBasedLogic or as DavidW ?

Why can't you clearly & concisely state your position & instead of wanting to appear like a religiously motivated crank who make idle repetitive incoherent phrases like "life is important to life ?

Can you lift your game please, not twist linguistics & instead articulate intelligently please ?

Why are you here, it can't be Science communication, its not useful commentary, nothing to offer enlightening dialectic or thought provoking paradigms, your only interest seems to be to obfuscate & muddy ?
javjav
1 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2016
Consciousness is just a side effect of being able to feed the output of a pattern recognition task back as an input.

Nicely put...;-)

I agree. A complex idea well synthesized in few words. Interesting, plausible, but yet to be proven.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2016
... from a live synaptic you are forcing its decoherence, you are choosing one particular solution.

Neurons aren't quantummechanical systems comparable to low temperature assemblages of a few thousand (or even million) atoms like a BEC. They are warm and HUGE by comparison.


That in itself does not rule out the possibility that the brain makes use of quantum effects. Experiments with mesoscopic scaled objects [mentioned above] are only relatively recently being investigated. It's a matter of, if nature has evolved a way to keep quantum effects isolated long enough. Btw, Penrose proposes that quantum coherence occurs inside neurons, not at the scale of neurons.

It is a matter for investigation, as there is no theoretical limits on the size of a system that can be described as a superposition of states as long as that system is isolated against decoherence.

javjav
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2016
Saying that unknown quantum effects may be part of consciousness isn't useful.
I didn't say "unknown quantum effects", I was talking about "unknown implications of known quantum effects" in brain functions. There is a difference. At room temperature entanglement is not stable, but others effects are available. Delayed double slit experiment can be made at room temperature, also quantum tunnelling. It may be possible that software and simulation alone could simulate it (at the very end, ADN is just a software that can develop a brain) but to write your own software you would need a deeper understanding of how the brain works, not only QM but also chemical reactions that produce emotions and feelings and so. Meanwhile, building independent "hardware" neurons that can substitute natural ones with no lose of information or functions give you more chances to succeed, just because you don't need all the knowledge. You build it to study it and get that knowledge. Then do the simulator
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Consciousness is just a side effect of being able to feed the output of a pattern recognition task back as an input.

Nicely put...;-)

I agree. A complex idea well synthesized in few words. Interesting, plausible, but yet to be proven.


I flatly don't agree, and would caution against pulling convenient analogies off the shelf for cursory hand-waving. One can modify Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment to become such a servo system using patterns, with equivalent null results.

Also, servo systems work not by sending output to input,.... as by definition this is recursive,... but rather they send output 'to a something' that is effected by a different 'something', which then is fed back as input.

This maybe how memories are refreshed and kept long term, but I would expect self-awareness to come about in some as yet unknown way. How does "blueness" arise?

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2016
but to write your own software you would need a deeper understanding of how the brain works


I agree, but it is an unfounded assumption that present understanding of relatively extremely simply man made ideas,.... software (linear or parallel), servo systems,.... could be the substrate for consciousness.

The entire strong-A.I. field is based on the hapenstance availability of computers, not on any substantive understanding of how the mind manifests from the physical brain.

Yes, you can simulate a red rose,.... but it still requires a mind, to Produce its "redness" as an experience, as the simulation does not due so. At best, a simulation can only fool an observer, as in a Turing test. The Turing test was never meant to validate knowledge of mind.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Consciousness is a model of world in the broadest sense.
It is a simulation of the world in our brains.


Yes, Good point. Imo, the underlying reality is "conceptually formless" and that given the nature of mind, ...how it processes sensory input, how it synthesizes experience (semi-autonomously), ....it (the mind) in effect adds it's own conceptual structure (impression of "redness", time, space, etc) as emergent laws of the understanding. QM imo, has exposed this conceptual structure as an artificial synthetic (i.e. simulation).

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - Stephen Hawking
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2016
PS. Never been banned here

Thanks for the correction David. I removed the x from "Multibanned" and gave you one for Sockpuppetry instead. Better?

only down vote people for twisting stuff to hide the real truth...
Oh, that's you 100%.

That's the definition of ragevoting, isn't it? So that x stays.
https://docs.goog...it#gid=0

(BTW anyone else is welcome to suggest candidates for the list)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2016
I was talking about "unknown implications of known quantum effects" in brain functions. There is a difference.

I agree. But I still don't think it is useful to claim that quantum effects are responsible to any degree due to unknown implications. The same argument could be made for:
"unknown implications of radioactive decay" in brain functions. Or "unknown implications of gravitational effects in brain functions". Neither of which seem any more or less plausible than unknown implications of quantum effects.

I suggest we should model known stuff first and see how far we get (our neural networks aren't nearly complex enough to model those, currently). When we have exhausted those possibilities and consciousness hasn't turned up then we might look to quantum effects.

But my money is on that we'll make something conscious before then. There's already some very promising avenues being explored.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
...Continued... the above relates to QM because Schrodinger developed his equation as an eigenvalue problem; Even though there are many operators possible, only those that when applied to the eigenfunction (Ψ) produce non-complex eigenvalues, are mathematical representations of the macroscopic experimental apparatus. But, there are many possible operators, and thus many possible unobservable quantum states.

The macroscopic experimental apparatus, which must conform to our intuitive understanding, are represented by these Hermitian operators which are effectively limiting,.... as if the [formless] underlying quantum reality is made to conform to constraints imposed by the macroscopic experimental apparatus designed by mind.

Another way of saying this referencing Hilbert space formulation,... is that the state-vector (wavefunction) is projected onto a Hilbert space basis,... which themselves are a representation space conditioned on the experimental apparatus design.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2016
but to write your own software you would need a deeper understanding of how the brain works, not only QM but also chemical reactions that produce emotions and feelings and so.

Leaving QM aside the rest is being done as we speak (you can google for the relevant nurochemical neuron models). They're just pretty complex to model but not impossibly so. The tradeoff in NNs is always: "model few cells with complex behavior" or "model many cells with simple behavior". Since NNs are mostly done for task specific purposes the latter approach has been favored almost exclusively.
But the complex approach is being tried now that computing power is (barely) up to it for very small numbers of cells (e.g. simulating the 302 nerve cells of nematodes in the OpenWorm project...as you can see 302 is still a ways off from the several billions of neurons and trillions of connections needed for a human brain)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
This maybe how memories are refreshed and kept long term, but I would expect self-awareness to come about in some as yet unknown way. How does "blueness" arise?

By experiencing it (repetitively) and then being told (repetitively) what it is. It becomes an ingrained memory. Awareness is a LARGE collection of those ingrained memories.
The self part comes from the fact that you are remembering the observational perspective along with them. Since that is the first part of the experience, it becomes even more deeply seated than the actual event.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
By experiencing it (repetitively) and then being told (repetitively) what it is


But, the impression of "blueness" does not exist in independent reality. It is entirely produced in the mind. It exists no where else. That impression must be presupposed before our sensory experience of that particular band of EM, in order to recognize it as "blueness" to begin with. It is not a quality of the object, but rather a intuition of the subject.

The self part comes from the fact that you are remembering the observational....


This appears to be circular reasoning, since you used "the self part" and "you" in the same sentence. Who is the "you", but an unexplained observer? It is the "you" that is in need of explanation.

For example, in sleep we tend to semi-consciously 'fabricate a story' from seemingly random memories, albeit one memory likely triggers the next according to how they're stored,.... the question is who is the audience here?

javjav
1 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2016
Leaving QM aside the rest is being done as we speak
Not if you ask Quantum Biologists. If QM effects are used in the smell sense, or in bird brains during migrations (not demonstrated, but at least the best current explanations) then there can be more implications, as once evolution develops a technique it typically spreads a huge number of variations
...as you can see 302 is still a ways off from the several billions of neurons and trillions of connections needed for a human brain)
Still a very interesting project, even with few neurons, for 2 reasons:

-First, there are strong indications that consciousness is a progressive effect, proportional to brain complexity, but even a worm would have a little bit of it. We probably need much more to be measurable, but a basic usable model could be orders of magnitude smaller than human brain.

- Second, substituting (or connecting) small models in a real brain can also give us a fantastic tool for investigating it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2016
For example, in sleep we tend to semi-consciously 'fabricate a story' from seemingly random memories, albeit one memory likely triggers the next according to how they're stored,.... the question is who is the audience here?


Check out what mirror neurons do
https://en.wikipe...r_neuron

You can be the actor and the audience at the same time.

But, the impression of "blueness" does not exist in independent reality.

Neither does any other platonic ideal. But since (as already noted) we do not see reality but a reality filtered through our senses (i.e. we only ever perceive an abstraction) it is perfectly fine to put a name to one such abstraction (like "blueness", "love", etc.) and work with that.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
When we have exhausted those possibilities and consciousness hasn't turned up then we might look to quantum effects. [..] But my money is on that we'll make something conscious before then.


How will you know that it is conscious? How will it know that it is not conscious?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2016
How will you know that it is conscious? How will it know that it is not conscious?

Same way that you know that someone else is conscious.
(second question makes no sense: if it's not conscious it will not know - because consciousness is a prerequisite for knowing. )
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
But, the impression of "blueness" does not exist in independent reality.

But since (as already noted) we do not see reality but a reality filtered through our senses (i.e. we only ever perceive an abstraction) it is perfectly fine to put a name to one such abstraction (like "blueness", "love", etc.) and work with that.


That is correct, but, as a strong-A.I. advocate, you must explain operationally how the Impression itself of blueness manifests, ....in addition to how our conceptual structure synthesizes experience as "understanding". Not just representation of "blueness".

Strong-A.I. advocates rely on hope that simulation of evolution on an artificial subtrate network will produce consciousness. Simulation of neurons for example is not actually the physical substance involved,... it is just at core nothing more than moving numbers around.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2016
how the Impression itself of blueness manifests,

Just like in the brain. It's a stable pattern that gets activated when you see blue stuff. 'blue' is just like any other pattern (and which has been associated for you by learning from others that this is called 'blue'). Our brains are there for adaptive pattern matching (because adaptive pattern matching is hugely better from an energy consumption POV than having everything hard-wired)

"understanding" is one of those concepts that aren't yet mapped. Personally I think it can be traced to strong activations and seamless integration with unrelated patterns (which again makes for a strong activation)

it is just at core nothing more than moving numbers around.

Neurons are just moving chemicals and electrons around. So? The substrate isn't important to consciousness.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2016
One could simulate the growth of a vegetable on a computer, but such a simulation could not be eaten. Likewise, imo, a simulation will never be the thing simulated. If we had a full understanding of how the mind worked, it is likely we would have to make it the same way, in any case. How to simulate something without firstly understanding that thing?

How will you know that it is conscious? [2nd question just a convoluted version]

Same way that you know that someone else is conscious.

Turing test? That is limited to fooling an observer. Since in principle a simulation could do so without having consciousness, so it is an invalid test. It is not a measure of the understanding of consciousness .

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2016
Likewise, imo, a simulation will never be the thing simulated.

You realize consciousness is a simulation running on your brain?

You're confusing what a thing is with what a thing does. Consciousness is something the brain does. Being eaten is what a carrot is(for).

E.g.: There's many things that can be used for motion (legs, flippers, pseudopods, ..made of all kinds of materials). What these things DO is move. The same effect can be gotten at by many different structures/substrates. I see consciousness not so much different from that.

How to simulate something without firstly understanding that thing?

We do that all the time. Look at computer games and particle simulations. They can very well replicate stuff like mudslides, fire and snowstorms without having to have "a full theory off mudslides". Sometimes complex stuff is not complicated. It's just made of a LOT of simple things and their interactions.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
it is just at core nothing more than moving numbers around.


Neurons are just moving chemicals and electrons around. So? The substrate isn't important to consciousness.

My entire point above wrt strong-A.I. is that you're assuming that the substrate isn't important, without an understanding of how the mind is emergent from the physical brain.

There are physical and biological laws of nature involved here, not just patterns of symbols in a network. Blackholes are simulated but never damages the computers.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2016
@WG
By experiencing it (repetitively) and then being told (repetitively) what it is.

It seems to me that you are guessing.

Why would you say that? Merely examining my own "experience" with my grand kids...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2016
That is limited to fooling an observer. Since in principle a simulation could do so without having consciousness, so it is an invalid test.

No it is not

Proof: You have conversed with me a number of times over the years. You have never doubted that I am conscious (or expressed the opinion that I could be a bot). Not once.

But all you have of me are lines of text from which you judged whether I understood your comments (or not)

I passed the Turing test (YOUR Turing test) and you are very sure that I did not fool you with a preprogrammed bot.

you're assuming that the substrate isn't important

Until and unless someone can make a convincing argument that it is important: yes.

It's like assuming that the color of a car isn't important to how fast it runs. I'm not married to the idea, but without any indication towards it I'm not going to waste much thought on it.

There are physical and biological laws of nature involved here,

List them.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Likewise, imo, a simulation will never be the thing simulated.


You realize consciousness is a simulation running on your brain?

No, a simulation is to mimic some aspect of another in a different way. Imitate.

You're confusing what a thing is with what a thing does.


[I said above that the mind is a phenomenon that is emergent from the physical brain and not itself an independent 'thing']

The vegetable comment was only meant as an analogy, ....to point out that physical laws that govern emergent phenomenon are what differentiates that phenomenon from simulations, for otherwise it is an unfounded presumption that those physical laws are not intrinsically a prerequisite for that emergent phenomenon.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2016
But, the impression of "blueness" does not exist in independent reality.

It is a description that an observer has been conditioned to.
It is entirely produced in the mind. It exists no where else.

More better - in a collection of minds that have agreed to that description as acceptable.
That impression must be presupposed before our sensory experience of that particular band of EM, in order to recognize it as "blueness" to begin with.

Not an impression. Your eyes first see blue with no categorization of what it is.
Our brains do that to organize input - for future access...

The self part comes from the fact that you are remembering the observational....


This appears to be circular reasoning, since you used "the self part" and "you" in the same sentence. Who is the "you", but an unexplained observer? It is the "you" that is in need of explanation.

It is, indeed, circular. And that's because the whole process is about feedback.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2016
to point out that physical laws that govern emergent phenomenon are what differentiates that phenomenon from simulation

We have many simulations that show emergent phenomena (the aforementioned particle simulations, as well as any FEM or FDM simulation)

Neural nets don't simulate the mind. They simulate neurons. So it's quite possible that the emergent thing that the brain does (consciousness) will also arise as an emergent thing from such a simulation.

That's the thing I think you're missing, here. Neural nets are NOT simulations of consciousness. They are simulations of the substrate. Neural nets are not phenomenon (consciousness) simulators. They are substrate simulators trying to elicite the same emergent phenomenon.

for otherwise it is an unfounded presumption that those physical laws are not intrinsically a prerequisite for that emergent phenomenon

Again: List them-and why you think they are important and cannot be simulated.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2016
That is limited to fooling an observer. Since in principle a simulation could do so without having consciousness, so it is an invalid test.


No it is not

Proof: You have conversed with me a number of times over the years. You have never doubted that I am conscious (or expressed the opinion that I could be a bot). Not once.


What I doubt is that there is a bot presently in existence that could produce comments as interesting and enlightening, however, theoretically I could be mistaken. The point is, the standard of the Turing test is in deceiving an observer in a subjective way. I can imagine a simulation successfully fooling an observer,.... yet not be conscious.

Whereas, had cognitive science full knowledge of how the mind works, they would know how to quantify consciousness as an objective verification.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2016
I can imagine a simulation successfully fooling an observer,.... yet not be conscious.

Who else is going to judge its consciousness but an observer? Unless you have some magical 'consciousness litmus test' I don't think that's a particularly useful POV. "Consciousness" is a made up term like "blueness". So the people who made it up are the only ones who can judge.

You could, conceivably, put a bot in font of a mirror and see if it realizes it's interacting with itself (i.e. whether it eventually loses interest). That's another standard test of self awareness - but one that is easier to pass than a Turing test.

(Note: running two copies of a bot against each other doesn't count because that is like twins talking - not it talking to itself. You would have to feed it its own answers directly back as input. But that, too isn't really proof becuase there's people who are conscious but are just muttering to themsleves, too)
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
That impression must be presupposed before our sensory experience of that particular band of EM, in order to recognize it as "blueness" to begin with.


Not an impression. Your eyes first see blue with no categorization of what it is.


All the eye senses is electromagnetism. The eye sorts the frequencies, into separate impulses, which go to the brain as bioelectrical signals. No "blueness" yet. Only then, post eye, is the impression of "blueness" produced. Coulour does not exist outside the mind. It is produced by the mind.

This point is for AA as well,.... It is not about the label of "blueness" or agreed upon terms, but about the impression itself of colour. Look at something blue. Where does that vivid colour itself come from? To understand mind questions like this have to be answered, not theorized over.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Who knows how long primates have distinguished colour? Your grandkids may have learned the word "blue" from you but not the concept of "blueness". These are two very different things.

Somewhere along the line the concept of blueness was described. You must not have any or you wouldn't have made that statement. By telling them things like; water is blue, sky is blue, this block is blue, etc., conveys that a broad spectrum of things can be described as blue. Hence, initiating and reinforcing the conceptualization of "blueness"... Goes back to repetition...
My grandson once call our cat a T rex., because the fangs were similar...
His mom corrected him, of course. Which is what ALL moms do...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
All the eye senses is electromagnetism. The eye sorts the frequencies, into separate impulses, which go to the brain as bioelectrical signals. No "blueness" yet. Only then, post eye, is the impression of "blueness" produced. Coulour does not exist outside the mind. It is produced by the mind.

This point is for AA as well,.... It is not about the label of "blueness" or agreed upon terms, but about the impression itself of colour. Look at something blue. Where does that vivid colour itself come from? To understand mind questions like this have to be answered, not theorized over.

Not quite sure what you mean by impression. Blue or whatever color is the algorithm our brains have assigned to represent it. Color itself, is just another categorisable property...
The brain is nothing more that a categoriser and algorythm generator. It even categorizes THEM to generate an algorithm...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
@WG
I distinguish the concept of blueness from the word "blue".
Old world monkeys and apes have RGB vision too, so they distinguish the same colours as humans. You don't need language to know what is blue, you need trichromatic vision.

Apes might be just shy of the manic categizors humans are...:-)
They have the same senses we have, just not the requirement to rationalize it.
Is blue dangerous? Can you eat it? prob'ly not, so no need to waste energy dwelling on it...
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Neural nets don't simulate the mind. They simulate neurons. [...] That's the thing I think you're missing, here. Neural nets are NOT simulations of consciousness. They are simulations of the substrate.


A simulation on a simulation is twice removed from the phenomenon governed by physical laws.

...


Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
@WG
I distinguish the concept of blueness from the word "blue".
Old world monkeys and apes have RGB vision too, so they distinguish the same colours as humans. You don't need language to know what is blue, you need trichromatic vision.

Simple test. Describe blueness.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
@WG
These species have blue vision but do not use it ?
That does not make much sense.
Besides trichromatic vision is proven for chimpanzee's.
https://books.goo...;f=false

Blueness is a sub-categorizing descriptor. It also is a "word". No more of a concept than blue is.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
I can imagine a simulation successfully fooling an observer,.... yet not be conscious.

Who else is going to judge its consciousness but an observer?

That's the point. You must settle for subjectively fooling an observer. That is logically the limiting standard of the Turing test. Where as only knowledge of how the actual mind works, could validate the proper conditions for its emergence.

"Consciousness" is a made up term like "blueness". So the people who made it up are the only ones who can judge.

I'm not referring to words here. The impression (experience) of blueness is an observable phenomena, as is consciousness. In fact the most immediate and certain observable phenomena possible, as it is not external.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2016
your criticism of my phrases laws of thought
You knew full that that phrase is a standard philo one. You used it in the same way that you use most such phrases, to imply that you are privy to a whole realm of knowledge that us lesser mortals need to learn before we can question anything you say.

And when called on it you merely gave it your own def, not thinking anyone would know the difference.

You tried to do the same thing with emergent. You used it backwards, claiming that 'mind' is 'an emergent result of a physical brain. To apply emergence one needs to start with a real thing like life (the example I found) and then discover what it 'emerges' from.

You cite brain function and then say that 'mind' obviously emerges from it.

But mind exists in the same way that 'sky' does. One cannot characterize it or define it. The existence of life in contrast is well-defined.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2016
Where as only knowledge of how the actual mind works, could validate the proper conditions for its emergence
There is nothing which works which can be called the mind. You can't study anything called the mind scientifically and discover what it emerges from. You can only do this with the brain.

You use the word mind wrong. You use the word validate wrong. You use the word emergent embarrassingly wrong. You don't even know that phenomena is the plural of phenomenon.

Jesus.

This is what happens when one falls for the notion that word soup is a valid medium of scientific discourse.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2016
physical laws that govern emergent phenomenon are what differentiates that plhenomenon from simulations,...


Again: List them-and why you think they are important and cannot be simulated.


Thought experiment: lets say that we could determine in an instant the present state of every neuron/synapses etc in some real persons brain. We then enter this network of data into a biophysics (etc) simulation. We run the simulation for a period of time and present a hypothetical question to it and to the person.

Let me grant you even more (too much),.... lets say the simulation correctly predicted the actual person's response to the same question.

Now, strong-A.I. would maintain that the simulation is therefore thinking and is conscious,... while I maintain that, all you did was to calculate a prediction, and this does not of itself imply actual consciousness. Clearly the difference is between executing algorithms and actual substantive physical laws.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
@Otto,
You wrongly associated my phrase "forms of thought" to logic so that you could quote disagreement with it. My phrase does not refer to the branch of logic,.. it refers to epistemology. I then posted the following from the same source.....

"Modern logicians, in almost unanimous disagreement with Boole [use of "forms of thought" as an algebra of logic], take this expression to be a misnomer [as used by Boole]; none of the above propositions classed under "laws of thought" [by Boole] are explicitly about thought per se, a mental phenomenon studied by psychology, nor do they involve explicit reference to a thinker or knower as would be the case in pragmatics or in epistemology. The distinction between psychology (as a study of mental phenomena) and logic (as a study of valid inference) is widely accepted."

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Where as only knowledge of how the actual mind works, could validate the proper conditions for its emergence

There is nothing which works which can be called the mind. You can't study anything called the mind scientifically and discover what it emerges from. You can only do this with the brain.

I confirmed several times above that the mind is an emergent phenomena of the physical brain. Your trolling nature prevents you from acknowledging this fact.

....I think it is patently obvious that I know way more physics than you, and certainly know what emergent phenomena means, and also mind, and validate, and stated the different between phenomenon and phenomena though may have selected the wrong one at one point on my auto-type.

You are on ignore for being an dishonest and insulting troll.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Thought experiment: lets say that we could determine in an instant the present state of every neuron/synapses etc in some real persons brain. We then enter this network of data into a biophysics (etc) simulation. We run the simulation for a period of time and present a hypothetical question to it and to the person. ...lets say the simulation correctly predicted the actual person's response to the same question.

"Responds the same as.."?
Now, strong-A.I. would (say) that the simulation is therefore thinking and is conscious,... I maintain that, all you did was to calculate a prediction, and this does not of itself imply actual consciousness. Clearly the difference is between executing algorithms and actual substantive physical laws.

The sim is of the "hardware". If it handles the same data the same as real neurons would, then for all intents and purposes, it IS a brain. And, subsequently, thinking (which really is just algorithmic compare looping).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
@WG
I distinguish the concept of blueness from the word "blue".
Old world monkeys and apes have RGB vision too, so they distinguish the same colours as humans. You don't need language to know what is blue, you need trichromatic vision.

Simple test. Describe blueness.

Answer 1: With paint ?
Answer 2: Ask any chimpanzee.

New test.
Describe cantankerous contrarian...:-)
javjav
1 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2016
I have already defended that simulation could not be enough to produce consciousness, but now I want to say something in favour, as some of you are underestimating it. When first neural networks were programmed nobody expected too much, it was just speculation. But many neural network programmers (including me) were in fact surprised that they worked so well for abstract tasks like face recognition, a brain capability that nobody knew how to model at that time, we had the Werbos ideas and little more. It was like, "if the brain is doing it with this little things let's simulate a minimalistic model and see what happens". And we are talking about 25 years ago and extremely simplified synaptic simulations. So let's see what can they do a more complete model. At the very least we will know which brain functions can't be covered by simulation and put the problem at bay. In the very best case, it may reproduce another brain function that we don't understand today, the consciousness.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2016
The sim is of the "hardware". If it handles the same data the same as real neurons would, then for all intents and purposes, it IS a brain. And, subsequently, thinking (which really is just algorithmic compare looping).


I'm not denying that one could just state that it is so. In fact I'm suggesting that such flippant claims are unfounded presumptions.

What is common amongst strong-A.I. advocates ,....

- they "proclaim" that mind or consciousness "is simply...." as if they have it all worked out,.... despite the great profound mystery of the phenomenon, as Chalmers puts it, https://en.wikipe...ousness.

- they even deny as existing what is the most immediately observable phenomena and what does the observing, and self-awareness.

- they conflate simulation via software and calculation with actual substantive physical laws

- they rely on weak and subjective tests to validate their claims.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2016
- they tend to be in computer science rather than amongst the other interdisciplinary fields involved in cognitive science.

- they don't appear to even understand the profound nature of the problem,.. as responses to my colour impression problem shows
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
despite the great profound mystery of the phenomenon, as Chalmers puts it, https://en.wikipe...ousness.

Ahh... the hardwiring of sensory input?
- they even deny as existing what is the most immediately observable phenomena and what does the observing, and self-awareness.

skipping the self awareness thing for a sec, what is that most immediately observable phenomena?
- they conflate simulation via software and calculation with actual substantive physical laws

Which are? Just so I'm clear...
- they rely on weak and subjective tests to validate their claims.

What is subjective about an accurate simulation of neuronal structure and their interconnections? and then "turning the switch on" to let it run?
My view is that they have insufficient technique to correctly model at this point, is all.

RealityCheck
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Hi Guys. :)

My appointment for tomorrow was rescheduled for next fortnight, so I'm back two days early. This thread's side-discussions re brain-mind and color-perception, caught my immediate attention since it will be one of the final chapters in my A-Biogenesis and intelligence/intellect theory book. So here goes a couple of items which both 'sides' might be missing...

antialias has come the closest in stating the essential distinctions between brain and mind, and between incoming stimuli (be it light frequencies or time rates etc) and internal interpretation/pattern formatin for action (be it in immediate 'flight-or-fight; or in eat-or-not; or in mate-or-not etc contexts).

Everyone else, as the side-discussions proceeded, has made valuable contextual and side-issue associations/contributions in one way or another also.

However, the central understanding of what differentiates brain from mind as to origins/functionally etc still seems to be as far away as ever.

cont...
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
My link above failed , so I post a quote wrt 'the hard problem',....

".....the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does." - D. Chalmers

What is intellectually offensive of strong-A.I. is that rather than acknowledging the profound nature of the problem, they either deny that it exists, or proclaim outright that the experience of colour will be a side effect of executing algorithms.
RealityCheck
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
...cont

1) antialias's 'pattern recognition' observation did not go far enough when it comes to color/lightspectrum facility/processing in vision systems evolved for such 'advantages' in escape/hunting/mating etc. The system of CONTRAST and MOVEMENT detection is important, which is why the natural 'mixing/conflicting' colors which produce discordant and or extremely contrasting 'perceptions' are what has been evolved to be 'pattern recognized'. So the color blue is contrasted with green and red and yellow as the most 'primary effective RENDERING' parts of the incoming light spectrum stimuli. Hence our brains developed to 'enhance and amplify' these contrasting, conflicting INTERPLAY of shades and hues within/between these 'primary color rendering' modes which our vision system is optimized for. So antialias is closet to the reason and functional apparatus for why we 'see' and 'discern' colors as we do...as part of 'patter/contrast/motion' RENDERING system.

cont...
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
...cont

2) antialias has also come the closest to the crucial differences are between brain and mind. However, neither antialias nor anyone else (unless I missed somebody's posts in my quick readthrough) has actually explained what and wherein the 'brain' aspect 'resides' or is 'formed' as an 'emergent architecture' from a 'base architecture' called the brain/neuronal network per se. Consider: There are many 'near field' forces and interactions beyond the physical containment 'membranes' of the neuronal networks/cells. Then there is the electrochemical 'soup' which 'pervades' and bathes the brain itself. All these additiinal 'layers' of subtelty and interplay create a semi-FLUIDIC-HOLOGRAMMATIC basis which can be created and sustained (even when asleep) and can be RECOVERED (even after deep unconsciousness/coma) to more or less extent depending on whether any damage significantly compromized the brain and neurotransmitting system. It is the availability of...

...cont
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
@RealityCheck,... we don't receive colour as input. We only receive frequencies of EM to the eye system. The impression of colour is entirely produced in the brain. "Blueness" does not exist outside the mind, and only after the eye.

That is only one of many impressions that the brain produces, for which it is hard to imagine that executing code in simulating a neoral network, would likewise produce such experiences. It seems that active higher-level cognitive functions would not be accounted for in the simulation software.
RealityCheck
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
2) cont...

It is the availability of a certain CRITICAL MASS/DISTRIBUTION of such a 'subtle/higher level' NEAR-FIELD EFFECTS and DYNAMICS which allows the more 'rich' SIMULATION and REPRODUCTION of what is known as a SELF and a WORLD CONSTRUCT within which this SELF is the central controller/arbiter of what is 'good/bad/useful/useless etc etc. It is he constant 'update of this higher level simulation that is the MIND function (which is at root supported in the more GROSS and less subtle levels by the brain matter/neuronal/electrochemical etc raw materials which power/produce all the timing/hearing/vision/touch/smell/taste etc )and SYNTHESIZES all these things. The 'thought' processes involve both hard wired autonomic system (subconsciously) of the brain and the higher level constant overview of the self-in-world-construct context for its meaning/action potentials and responses etc.

This is not the place to explain in detail; and anyway, that's all I can say at present. :)
RealityCheck
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2016
Hi Noumenon. :)
,... we don't receive colour as input. We only receive frequencies of EM to the eye system. The impression of colour is entirely produced in the brain. "Blueness" does not exist outside the mind, and only after the eye. That is only one of many impressions that the brain produces, for which it is hard to imagine that executing code would likewise produce such experiences.
I never implied we did. It is the pattern-processing system in the brain-mind system which attributes meaning as to contrast values; and color-system means of quickly discerning between colors of primary stimuli frequencies/ranges. Note we do not have X-ray of Ultra-Violet system or Polarization system in our vision evolved in particular critical environments for human evolution. The natural primary color FREQUENCIES we CAN 'see' are what is input to the pattern/contrast recognition system which our biology converts 'color sense' for 'labeling' perceptional differences. Gotta go. :)
RealityCheck
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
IMPORTANT ERRATA for my third post above, which began with this paragraph:
2) antialias has also come the closest to the crucial differences are between brain and mind. However, neither antialias nor anyone else (unless I missed somebody's posts in my quick readthrough) has actually explained what and wherein the 'MIND' aspect 'resides' or is 'formed' as an 'emergent architecture' from a 'base architecture' called the brain/neuronal network per se.


Note that "'brain' aspect" should have read "'mind' aspect"...now corrected above. Thanks. :)

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
we don't receive color as input. We only receive frequencies of EM to the eye system.

Exactly.
The impression of color is entirely produced in the brain. "Blueness" doesn't exist outside the mind, and only after the eye.

Exact again. However, I wouldn't call it an impression. I'd call it an engram created by repeated experience.
That is only one of many impressions that the brain produces, for which it is hard to imagine that executing code in simulating a neural network, would likewise produce such experiences.

That memory engram is now a catalogued "pattern" available for use by other "mind" processes. Nothing against th word mind, mind you.:-)
active higher-level cognitive functions would not be accounted for in the simulation software.

Only if they miss integral steps in the engram building & retrieval process in their sim.
Thanks, RC, for your (valid) interesting input, but I'm not quite sure that's what noum was talking about.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2016
Just to be clear, Noum.
My questions are not meant as challenge of you. They are simply my way of insuring I have a clear understanding of what you are saying...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
Where does that vivid colour itself come from?

From the fact that we have receptors in the eyes that respond to that particular wavelength. This can be easily seen because we don't have a sense of "infraredness" or "gammarayness".

(General hint: when trying to understand why something is the way it is try to think about where it doesn't work (and why). This is why e.g. knowledge about the functioning of the body is mostly derived from observing sick people)

Where as only knowledge of how the actual mind works, could validate the proper conditions for its emergence.

See the above. Let's get an emergent mind working and then start breaking things at various places and see where consciousness is and where it isn't present (though I'd put good money on the fact that it's not as binary as that. I think everyone has experienced enough conscious, unconscious and some in-between state in their lives to validate this)
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
A simulation on a simulation is twice removed from the phenomenon governed by physical laws.

So? The mind is once removed (running on the physical brain). The number of layers in between don't mean that something is more or less feasible (or harder/easier for that matter...as any engineer will tell you. Sometimes it is a LOT easier if you have an additional layer in between. Especially if it's such a flexible layer as software)

That is only one of many impressions that the brain produces, for which it is hard to imagine that executing code in simulating a neoral network, would likewise produce such experiences. It seems that active higher-level cognitive functions would not be accounted for in the simulation software.

Currently they aren't because it isn't needed. NNs are used for specific tasks. Abstraction is rarely required. However the latest Go program does have a concept of 'winningness' of a move - which was not a preprogrammed trait.
bonyberg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
The way I see it Time does not exist at all. What we see as "time" is only a sequence of instants of a "now" that probably would span the entire universe, but at least to the extent of our light horizon. My idea is that the duration of this instant is no duration of "time", but instead a cyclic alteration of the physical size of the fabric of the universe. A universe-wide simultaneous oscillation of the fabric of the universe which might have originated with the big bang incident and which also keeps everything else in motion by resonance. In my opinion this oscillating fabric is where the energy that might have been induced by the big bang is stored.
In my world a timespan "orders of magnitude larger than the Planck time" is far too long and not really much different from the present space-time paradigm. I´d rather suggest a professional investigation of the scenario outlined on my homepage "Explaining Time".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
The way I see....

You are using circular reasoning (e.g. oscillations are a concept that is only relevant if there is time) and a lot of fuzzy gobbeldy-gook.

Scientese does not great insight make.
Ryan1981
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
@antialias_physorg

Thanks a lot for the list, sorry for feeding the trolls :P They are on ignore. Physorg really should hire a moderator, some of these comments can be quite offputting for new visitors :|
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2016
@Keen technical intellectuals prepared to pursue pending developments
might be worth taking an interest in this co, suffice to say I have had shares for a while
& continue to be on 'accumulate' for long term, so if you have some please sell to me asap :P
http://brainchipi...chnology
http://brainchipi...cations/

Latest ASX announcement
http://www.asx.co...f7d8.pdf

Commentary on an ASX trading forum
http://hotcopper..../asx/brn

Although I of interest & worthy of some $ exposure, I'm not 100% aligned with the technical approach re 'primitives' which, in respect of hardware based genetic algorithms, may be far more efficient at the type of learning processes expected. Eg PID, amps, buffers, feedback networks etc. Their approach is a few levels below that, if I have interpreted it correctly. They are due for a 3rd Milestone late this month or early next and given their US exposure though they're Australian have qudos :P
bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
Mike, cut back on the dosage of whatever your psychiatrist is prescribing, you are becoming incomprehensible.

The latest ASX Sharemarket game is still open for registration. Perhaps you would find it therapeutic as an outlet for your big time trader fantasies.

bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
* We cannot directly experience the reality outside our brain. *

> Nonsense

> that's exactly what brains are for. ( incl entire nervous system and sensory organs).

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
Physorg really should hire a moderator, some of these comments can be quite offputting for new visitors

When I first joined physorg was heavily moderated (you couldn't even type something like "WTF" without getting an admonishing email for profanity).

On the other hand it's understandable that moderation is really a luxury that only generates cost without any real (monetray) benefit.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
When you first joined physorg.com as it was known then, you were capable of reason, logic and open minded to alternative views.

Now you're a narrow minded old fool that dribbles.

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2016
bluehigh claims
.. you are becoming incomprehensible
Only to drunk uneducated or those intent on remaining willfully ignorant re importance of this line of progress

bluehigh slanted attack again
Perhaps you would find it therapeutic as an outlet for your big time trader fantasies
Never mentioned how much invested or made any suggestion I'm any "big" trader, in my circle I'm middle of the road

But, if you want to really know then be genuine, email commsecone at cba com or ph the tier 1 team & quote my name as here & with a release from me they will oblige re stats, I have no problem, provided you're honest :P

Unlike many, I don't focus on idle $ fantasy, instead key aspect of Science communications addressing mindless unsupportable claims of cranks & stalkers who've nil use here !

Have U courage to ask or only pursuing dumb claims or real ethics/manners to apologise when your immature attacks proven overwhelmingly False ?

Return to topic please !
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
Now you're a narrow minded old fool that dribbles.

Seems you are bothered by me, doesn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't brown-nose around my posts whenever you get a chance.
As long as you only have invective instead of argument you don't really expect me to take you seriously, do you?

bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016

Phys1 is surely a confused sock puppet. Maybe Stumpy, maybe Anti-Thinking, maybe nocents.

Such a worthless runt.

bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
Anti-Thinking, I guess it does bother a little. I wrote sometime ago that I believed you were a respected contributor. People change and in your case it's sad to see the degeneration of your mental capability. So yeah .. It's disappointing. It would be inspiring if you could find that spark you once had. In the meanwhile, reminders might get you to look at what you've lost.

If not you'll soon have nothing left to lose.

bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
Ooh .. Mad Mikes off again. No critisism allowed. Let's always be serious. Mad Mike the font of undeniable truth. Mad Muttering Mike ... Speaking through a fog of strange linguistic structure.

Mike, do you actually talk like you write?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
that I believed you were a respected contributor

Weeeerl....as you may have noticed: I don't particularly put a lot of value on what you believe or don't believe. It's not a coincidence that you're on my ignore list, after all (I put people on there for other reasons than the listed ones..including "willfully stupid").
I'm also not particularly invested in whether you are disappointed or not. If you need shining beacons and heroes then that's your problem (what do either have to do with science?).
I'm here for the science (porn) - plain and simple.

If you think I've 'lost' something then I guess you must have me confused with someone else. Otherwise do that thing that I asked you for: provide proof. If you can't stand what I post - put me on ignore.
bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
Lol, just proves my point. Wipe your chin.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
OK...let's take a look:

Your last posts did not contain a single argument, but instead contained these gems:

"Wipe your chin."
" Mad Muttering Mike "
"degeneration of your mental capability."
"Such a worthless runt.
"narrow minded old fool that dribbles"
"cut back on the dosage of whatever your psychiatrist is prescribing"
"drop your dummy spit"
"Sadly your limited intellect is unable to make sense"

(and these are just a small sample of posts from THIS thread).

Now bluehigh answer honestly: Does that sound to you like a paragon of scientific/logical posting? Or doesn't it rather sound like someone with Tourette syndrome?

bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
* We cannot directly experience the reality outside our brain. *

> Nonsense

> that's exactly what brains are for. ( incl entire nervous system and sensory organs).

--------

Now let's go back and watch you two degenerates descend into an attack on phys.org moderation, a list attacking several contributors and a complete lack of humility.

Tiresome hypocrisy.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2016
Where does that vivid colour itself come from?


From the fact that we have receptors in the eyes that respond to that particular wavelength. This can be easily seen because we don't have a sense of "infraredness" or "gammarayness".


It's responses like these that lead me to question whether you really appreciate the profundity of problem posed. I've already confirmed above that the eye "sorts" frequencies of EM. The questioned was not about our physical sensors. These are the "easy problems" outlined by Chalmers (wiki "hard problem). The "hard problems", for which strong-A.I. deliberately ignores or denies, or simply does not even recognize, .....is how does the mind produce these IMPRESSIONS of colour, sound, pain,... These are experienced phenomenon yet do not have a physical/ biological/ neurological explanation.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
a list attacking several contributors

Attacking? Really? You think I can't provide examples for each and every x in that list?

(As for 'contributers'....I wouldn't go so far as to call what they write contributions. Let's just call them 'AWGN generators')

descend into an attack on phys.org moderation

If you read my posts above you would have noticed that I even found an excusing reason why there isn't any moderation. Does that sound like an attack to you?
Surely I would prefer the overly harsh moderation of a few years ago to the complete lack of moderation currently - but that's up to the guys at physorg. It's their site and they can do with it as they damn well please. We are (non-paying!) guests, here.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2016
EDIT: ....These are experienced phenomenon yet do not have a physical/ biological/ neurological explanation .....

Of course, there is a physical/ biological/ neurological explanation to be had at core ultimately,.... however it is more likely emerget higher level laws not presently understood.
rpavellas
not rated yet Feb 08, 2016
Just because we humans think / believe / say there is "time", doesn't mean it is something real. The universe doesn't care what we think, I think. We just need to get a handle on that which we perceive surrounds us, and the more we can perceive, the scarier it gets. We desperately need to believe we can identify everything which may affect us. Read Gulliver's third adventure to Laputa, the Island in the Sky.
.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
he is NOT saying he really rejects philosophy as a field of study, but rather 'standard terminology'
He's saying that any philo who uses it, and any philosophy based on it, is unreliable because these terms are undefinable and thus 'worse than useless'.

This includes words like epistemology, and ontology, and emergent in the philo sense, and pretty much any -ism past present or future.

And also romantic poecy such as mind and consciousness and ding an sich and shadows on a cave wall

And also fun words like wrt and 'a priori' which are only for show.

There was an -ism back at the 20th century -help me out here- where philos tried to replace philo words with normal ones. Ring any bells?

They gave up, much like nebucchadnezzer gave up when he tried to remove the top few feet of soil from the euphrates valley.

It too had become hopelessly mucked up due to too much artificial enhancement.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
how long have primates experienced color
This sort of comment exposes a rather profound and basic lack of reflection.

"Most non-mammalian vertebrate species distinguish different colors at least as well as humans, and many species of birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians, and some invertebrates, have more than three cone types and probably superior color vision to humans."

-Answer - we inherited it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
Weeeerl....as you may have noticed: I don't particularly put a lot of value on what you believe or don't believe. It's not a coincidence that you're on my ignore list, after all (I put people on there for other reasons than the listed ones..including "willfully stupid").
I'm also not particularly invested in whether you are disappointed or not. If you need shining beacons and heroes then that's your problem (what do either have to do with science?)
-Is this why you sometimes tend to use absolutes (like 'no insurance company will insure a nuke) when it's flat out wrong?

Must be.
I'm here for the science (porn)
The thrills you get from posting hyperbole does not absolve you of the responsibility of checking whether it is actually true or not before you post it.

And you shouldnt be upset if someone calls you on it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
how long have primates experienced color

"Most non-mammalian vertebrate species distinguish different colors at least as well as humans, and many species of birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians, and some invertebrates, have more than three cone types and probably superior color vision to humans."

Animals that lack color vision, still experience it in shades of gray or sepia or...
varying frequencies of light, anyway...
And noum... I'm still not getting your meaning of "impression".
While a color (or whatever) might not necessarily be a thing directly instructed, it is still a learned (repetitively experienced) thing.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?

I wonder if there is a problem with framing it in this way. Our experience of color is (for now) inextricably linked to billions of years of evolution. Red doesn't JUST signify 400 to 484 THz. It signifies heat, danger, blood, flushing of the skin during excitement, and so on. It is associated with very primitive, powerful, cross-sensory relationships. So, it at least seems plausible that sensation of qualia would contain more information than the stimulus. If this is true, then perhaps different evolutionary paths lead to different qualia associated with the same kind of stimulus. However, it also means that we shouldn't just assume that the sensation of qualia is necessarily independent of the mind receiving the stimulus. Perhaps it only seems that way because a quale really represents a deceptively complex set of relationships.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
inextricably linked to billions of years of evolution.

intimately...I meant intimately. Damn head cold.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
You asked the question
Who knows how long primates have distinguished colour?
-And I answered it for you. If you didn't want someone to take issue with it then perhaps you should've phrased it differently.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
But, the impression of "blueness" does not exist in independent reality. It is entirely produced in the mind.

That is true for every concept and thought. Even mass, charge, energy are just concepts. Only through thought can our mind access objective reality.


Yes, and because of that fact, scientific realism, ....which purports to obtain knowledge of independent-reality as it exists in itself, independently of the mind,.... is untenable, and one is lead to positivism. Phenomenal reality has a component that is mind dependent, so we can not know objective reality as it exists in itself.

....
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
Yes, and because of that fact, scientific realism...is untenable, and one is lead to positivism. Phenomenal reality has a component that is mind dependent, so we can not know objective reality as it exists in itself.

Not necessarily. You are asserting, a priori, that the objective reality of the mind of one individual cannot be known by that of another individual. However, we really don't know if this is true.

It is quite possible that one day, we'll have a way of implanting the experiences and thoughts of one person into another. Assuming scientific realism (which might or might not be true), then all experience is attributable to specific firing patterns coupled with instructions for how to interpret those firing patterns. There is no theoretical reason (as far as I know) we could not make one brain experience another.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
But, the impression of "blueness" does not exist in independent reality. It is entirely produced in the mind. It exists no where else.

That is true for every concept and thought. Even mass, charge, energy are just concepts. Only through thought can our mind access objective reality.


The real point I wanted to make in response here, is that you touched on an important point ,.... indeed in physics non-reducible postulates are ubiquitous,... charge, mass, space, time, ....

Likewise Chalmers proposes that elements of conscious experience that he categorizes as the "hard problem",... qualia ("blueness"), should be postulated as fundamental features of reality, as well.

The does not mean that he thinks such phenomenology do not ultimately have a physical basis in the brain,... only that qualia may be irreducible.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
You are asserting, a priori, that the objective reality of the mind of one individual cannot be known by that of another individual.


I was referring more about knowledge of reality itself,... that knowledge is always in terms of mind-dependent concepts and intuitions. In QM the act of observation not only effects the outcome, but produces the conceptual form of the outcome, .... these are irreducible concepts. See Hawking quote above.

Perhaps what is missing, wrt quantum measurement-problem, are phenomenological postulates (ala Chalmers), or an 'algebra of propositions' (I touched on this a few days ago here),... to interface with at least, interpretation...

thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
I was referring more about knowledge of reality itself,... that knowledge is always in terms of mind-dependent concepts and intuitions.

I prefer the following definition: you have knowledge about A if your behavior is actively or passively affected by A's state. WRT QM, the state of a system follows very predictable rules. Hence, we are able to act on those rules.

I think that when people talk about intuition, they are really speaking of things that they are accustomed used to. Something is intuitive only because we have experience with it.

You see evidence of this from the peoples' tendency to regard electrostatic force as mysterious, but falling as not, or action at a distance as mysterious, but contact forces (which are mitigated by action at a distance) as not.

As for your Hawking quote, I agree, but this does not mean that we can't have an objective theory of the observer, which tells us how to experience NEW qualia.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
@Furlong, I don't think you read the entire thread above,… I will reiterate a few points I made in response….
I was referring more about knowledge of reality itself,... that knowledge is always in terms of mind-dependent concepts and intuitions.

...WRT QM, the state of a system follows very predictable rules. Hence, we are able to act on those rules.

Not entirely true. Science is only able to react to observations. There is a discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the description of the quantum system, and the indeterminism of the resultant conceptual-values that is the result of observation. In principal, this only allows one to make predictions of observations, which is to say, knowledge of our experience,… not knowledge of reality as it exists apart from experience.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016

I think that when people talk about intuition, they are really speaking of things that they are accustomed used to. Something is intuitive only because we have experience with it.


Yes, I concur. See my paragraph immediately preceding the Hawking quote. I mentioned that on account of the nature of mind [i.e. given our evolution at the macroscopic scale], our intuitions ["conceptual structure"] are "emergent laws of the understanding", that QM exposes as an artificial synthesis.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
As for your Hawking quote, I agree, but this does not mean that we can't have an objective theory of the observer, which tells us how to experience NEW qualia.

The term Objective as referenced by me above,…. is knowledge that is independent of the act of observation. Quantum observation shows resoundingly that this is impossible.

You may mean by 'objective', 'a scientific understanding or predictive knowledge'. To this, I have NOT claimed that we can't have such an understanding of how the mind works,…
….
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
My points above were to object to [in addition to the article/commenters speaking of Time as a thing] various claims made by strong-A.I. proponents that are not based on this missing understanding, ….but instead on the unfounded assumption that qualia [impressions of colour, sound, pain…] will manifest merely on the basis of simulation of a neural network. That they could produce consciousness without firstly understanding how that phenomenon manifests from the physical brain.

I have also, objected to claims that 'consciousness' and 'mind' are not scientifically investigable phenomenon, in this very thread [not that I expected you to read this entire monstrosity :)]

IOW, imo there is some missing understanding of mind both in the strong-A.I. camp and in the quantum measurement problem.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2016
@Furlong, I don't think you read the entire thread above,… I will reiterate a few points I made in response….

Haha. You're right. I skimmed it, because it is a beast of a conversation, though a refreshingly intellectual one.
I was referring more about knowledge of reality itself,... that knowledge is always in terms of mind-dependent concepts and intuitions.

Well, that's why I was offering the definition of knowledge I provided above. Sorry, if I did not make its purpose clear.

Anway, I think this is an anthropocentric way of looking at knowledge. After all, instincts represent a form of knowledge learned through evolution, and I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that they are mind-dependent (especially when some instincts aren't even housed in the brain).
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
…perhaps different evolutionary paths lead to different qualia associated with the same kind of stimulus. However, it also means that we shouldn't just assume that the sensation of qualia is necessarily independent of the mind receiving the stimulus.....


You are probably correct about WHY we evolved qualia. However, this was not Chalmers point, nor was it mine in quoting him, and neither he nor I suggest that qualia is independent of the mind.

It was not a matter of WHY, but HOW qualia is an Experienced-Phenomenon. Impressions like "redness" or "pain" seems inexplicable on the basis of physical laws, and even more so on the basis of simulation of physical laws on interlinked data. It seems inexplicable because there is a fundamental lack of understanding, typically not even acknowledged in strong-A.I.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2016
There is a discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the description of the quantum system, and the indeterminism of the resultant conceptual-values that is the result of observation.

This is up for debate, though. The entire universe is, presumably, one wave function. The entire mechanics of the universe thus takes place within the evolution of this wave function. A measurement is really just a part of the wave-function reacting to another part of the wave function. The only parts that are indeterminate are really just the boundary conditions.

In principal, this only allows one to make predictions of observations, which is to say, knowledge of our experience,… not knowledge of reality as it exists apart from experience.

Agreed. Our theories are only as good as our ability to test them. Some components of reality might forever be beyond our capacity to test them, as they do not manifest in our observations.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
There is a discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the description of the quantum system, and the indeterminism of the resultant conceptual-values that is the result of observation.


This is up for debate, though. The entire universe is, presumably, one wave function. The entire mechanics of the universe thus takes place within the evolution of this wave function. A measurement is really just a part of the wave-function reacting to another part of the wave function. The only parts that are indeterminate are really just the boundary conditions.


An evolving wavefunction of the universe is not useful for making predictions [of experience], and in any case leads back to the 'preferred basis problem' and the observer.

It is a matter of interpretation, however, the wavefunction does EFFECTIVELY collapse upon an observation.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
Some components of reality might forever be beyond our capacity to test them, as they do not manifest in our observations.


Yes,... or that we would have to postulate them instead as irreducible features of reality. Penrose may be correct that consciousness may not be reducible to computability. It may be that Chalmers is right also, that qualia are non-reducable and so should be postulated rather than explained.

I think von Neumann was right about the 'wavefunction collapse' occurring in the mind,... (as mentioned above)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2016


An evolving wavefunction of the universe is not useful for making predictions [of experience], and in any case leads back to the 'preferred basis problem' and the observer.

It is a matter of interpretation, however, the wavefunction does EFFECTIVELY collapse upon an observation.


But you could raise this argument with classical mechanics, too. After all, assuming a classical universe, it is impossible to predict what will happen in a neighborhood without knowing what is happening in the rest of the universe (and we are back to boundary conditions). Hence, you could say that what will happen in a neighborhood is EFFECTIVELY random.

That we cannot explain the origin of every single measurement we take is not a failure of science. It is a failure of our ability to be omnipotent.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
Anway, I think this is an anthropocentric way of looking at knowledge. After all, instincts represent a form of knowledge learned through evolution, and I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that they are mind-dependent (especially when some instincts aren't even housed in the brain).


All knowledge is de facto anthropocentric and mind-dependent, necessarily so. It is a truism. :)

I know what you mean though,... yes, even in the human brain there are autonomous synthesis of experience, that takes place prior to our consciousness. This point was put forward by Kant,... that such 'a-priori intuitions' ['forms of thought' as used by me above] are not learned From experience, but rather are conditions For experience to be possible to begin with.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
It is a matter of interpretation, however, the wavefunction does EFFECTIVELY collapse upon an observation.


But you could raise this argument with classical mechanics, too. After all, assuming a classical universe, it is impossible to predict what will happen in a neighborhood without knowing what is happening in the rest of the universe (and we are back to boundary conditions). Hence, you could say that what will happen in a neighborhood is EFFECTIVELY random.

That we cannot explain the origin of every single measurement we take is not a failure of science. It is a failure of our ability to be omnipotent.


That is a good point I cannot refute. Our lack of omnipotence may explain 'von Neumann's cut' [locating wavefunction collapse in consciousness] as an interface where Objective underlying reality subject to laws of physics, meet emergent laws and conditions of thought.

I will only add that decoherence does not cause collapse.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
You are asserting, a priori, that the objective reality of the mind of one individual cannot be known by that of another individual. However, we really don't know if this is true
I assume you're talking about this?

"Theory of mind... is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own."
Likewise Chalmers proposes that elements of conscious experience that he categorizes as the "hard problem",... qualia ("blueness")
You'll note that there are many critics of the notion of qualia.
https://en.wikipe...f_qualia

"definition breaks down when one tries to make a practical application of it...we can either make no use of it in the situation in question, or that the questions posed by the introduction of qualia are unanswerable..." dennett

-The same with mind.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
how does the mind produce these IMPRESSIONS of colour, sound, pain,... These are experienced phenomenon yet do not have a physical/ biological/ neurological explanation
Why do you decide 'a priori' that they wouldn't have such an explanation?

"The definition of qualia thus is governed by one's point of view, and that inevitably brings with it philosophical and neurophysiological presuppositions. The question, therefore, of what qualia can be raises profound issues in the philosophy of mind, since some materialists want to deny their existence altogether: on the other hand, if they are accepted, they cannot be easily accounted for as they raise the difficult problem of consciousness."

-Right. In other words they are not accessible scientifically. Without succinct defs you cannot use them to further explain anything.

You certainly cannot state conclusively that they 'evolved' if half the 'experts' are still arguing whether they exist or not.

Same with mind.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
Your buddy chalmers 'argues that if a system such as one of appropriately configured computer chips reproduces the functional organization of the brain, it will also reproduce the qualia associated with the brain.'

-Qualia seem to be an explanation of some sort of mental shorthand, that we determine redness without having to recall how we learned what redness was or why we are seeing redness at the present.

But a mature AI would have instant access to this info. Why would it have to limit it's access in order to make timely decisions?

If it needed 'qualia' it would not resemble ours. The need for a concept like qualia is only to express our cognitive limitations.

The same with mind.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
I will respond because you appeared to lay off the insults....

There are many critics of Dennett as well - very much expected given the nature of the topic.

how does the mind produce these IMPRESSIONS of colour, sound, pain,... These are experienced phenomenon yet do not have a physical/ biological/ neurological explanation

Why do you decide 'a priori' that they wouldn't have such an explanation?


I don't.

I subsequently posted an "EDIT" of that post to add the following…

"…there is a physical/ biological/ neurological explanation to be had at core ultimately,.... however it is more likely emergent higher level laws not presently understood."

....

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
Isn't it your stated contention that 'mind' and 'consciousness' are illusions or don't exist, or are meaningless terms?
Science investigates phenomena. Consciousness, mind, and qualia, are literally the most immediately observable phenomena possible. Therefore, consciousness and mind are in principal scientifically investigable.

People who deny their existence are only saying that they are emergent phenomenon. So is "life", but do they deny living things exist?

….the questions posed by the introduction of qualia are unanswerable..." dennett


Chalmers acknowledges this by proposing to Postulate qualia instead as features of reality,… IOW, he suggests that they may be scientifically irreducible,…. "unanswerable" in terms of physical laws. They may be emergent laws.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
Qualia seem to be an explanation of some sort of mental shorthand, that we determine redness without having to recall how we learned what redness was or why we are seeing redness at the present.

The brain/mind is registering electromagnetism, but why isn't such qualia experienced "in the dark" as Chalmers puts it? Why do we experience vivid colours at all?

But a mature AI would have instant access to this info. Why would it have to limit it's access in order to make timely decisions?

If it needed 'qualia' it would not resemble ours.


I think you are probably correct to this extent. AntiAlias stated the Strong-A.I. position that consciousness would manifest as a consequence of simulation.

Indeed, you are correct, the simulation would only register the detection of "redness" without any impression of qualia. My 'thought experiment' above was meant to make a similar point.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
Why do we experience vivid colours at all?
Because as was pointed out, colors conveyed valuable information to the species we evolved from. Perhaps it arose along with the evolution of flowers.

The tropics are a much more colorful place. Birds for instance rely on plumage colors to communicate all sorts of info. We learned to identify food and the animals which considered us food by their coloration.

Why is a baboons ass red? Ever ponder that?

Is it red for the same reason that a stoplight is red?

Perhaps.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
And here we have an example of the value of the internet.

"First of all, the callous swellings on the ass of baboons gives them a good surface to sit on. The red ass of the baboon is also a swelling that occurs in females around ovulation, so when they are most fertile. With a redder and more swollen ass, the males can tell that a female is ready to reproduce."

Perhaps green lights should be red instead.

But the inside of a baboons mouth is also red which signifies danger, as does blood. The inside of an engorged vagina is also red.

The color red is an attention-getter.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
People who deny their existence are only saying that they are emergent phenomenon
FIRST off the plural is phenomena. Why do you not know this??

And again you are using emergence wrong.

"emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities"

IOW you need to have a larger entity before you can investigate what smaller entities contribute to it.

We can investigate specific behaviors and responses and attribute them to certain areas of the brain. But we cannot use them to conclude that
Consciousness, mind, and qualia
are real things with succinctly defined characteristics.

And so you are way off base when you assert that these things
are literally the most immediately observable phenomena possible
-when even you yourself seem to accept that no one knows what they are.

Where do you get this conclusion from anyway? Do you have a ref expressing this sentiment?
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
Why do we experience vivid colours at all?

Because as was pointed out, colors conveyed valuable information to the species we evolved from. Perhaps it arose along with the evolution of flowers.


I don't mean 'what is the purpose...'. I already corrected the original misapprehension.

Our minds are not simply registering detection of a particular frequency of EM,... it is Producing a sensation of "redness". It's not a matter of just the mechanics of detection and storage,... but is beyond that into this "feeling of redness". This is actually very difficult to explain from biophysical laws.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
People who deny their existence are only saying that they are emergent phenomenon
FIRST off the plural is phenomena. Why do you not know this??

Of course I know the difference. Back to childish "accusations" already? I selected the wrong one from my auto-type on my phone as was explained.

And again you are using emergence wrong.


No, I am not. It's obvious that you had to look it up.

It does not necessarily have to do with larger or smaller. In fact it may have nothing to do with size at all. For example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is emergent from more fundamental laws,... there are biological laws that are emergent from more fundamental physics laws,.... the classical laws of physics are emergent from quantum laws,....



Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
We can investigate specific behaviors and responses and attribute them to certain areas of the brain. But we cannot use them to conclude that
Consciousness, mind, and qualia
are real things with succinctly defined characteristics.


Not from external observation perhaps (one observing the behavior of another),...

...but we are obviously capable of self-awareness,... and introspection (a form of observation) and can observe the qualia of "redness" and self-awareness as certain as any external phenomena.

You keep charging that I saying consciousness and mind are "things". I'm not.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2016
Fake "Mike_Masson" troll rates then hides under his desk like a coward, like among the other sock-puppet brigade. Not knowledgeable enough to discuss? Are you GhostofOtto's grandmother,... or just a corrupt know-nothing degenerate?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
Our minds are not simply registering detection of a particular frequency of EM
Well I can just as easily say that it is, and further state that the entire body of scientific evidence backs me up.
it is Producing a sensation of "redness"
A 'sensation' of 'redness'... would that sensation be preconscious fear at the subconscious connection your brain makes between red and the open mouth of a predator? Or desire from the resemblance to a vagina? Or hunger at the resemblance to sirloin? Or revulsion at tge resemblance to an apes butt?

Just because you may not be aware of these connections, this doesn't mean you have the right to romanticize them and declare that they can never be explained neurologically... physically.
This is actually very difficult to explain from biophysical laws
You have no idea if this is difficult or not. It hasn't been explained YET.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
you had to look it up
Well of COURSE I did. That is how I confirmed my suspicion that you were using it WRONGLY.

You're whole neokantian pseudoreligious postulations are wrong. You start with experimentally-derived theory (QM waveform collapse), attribute it to an undefinable and unsubstantiated trait (consciousness), based on an outrageous proclamation (that this trait is literally the most immediately observable phenomena possible) while at the same time admitting that it remains undefined and unsubstantiated... and from this you extrapolate the notion that kant was right when he said that humans can never know everything about a thing, as if it even RESEMBLED a scientific theory.

And you refer to it as 'emergent', as if all we had to do is wait until this truism emerges as fact some time in the future. But you dont accept that, per the def of the word, an emergent thing is where one starts in figuring out what factors lead to its emergence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
IOW your whole theory looks like this: science theorem = unsubstantiated postulation = outrageous proclamation = misunderstood process = science theorem.

And you misuse emergent wrongly in order to beg the question. You assert that consciousness and mind are inevitably 'emergent' from behaviors, thoughts, memories, and feelings that we are all familiar with.

That's just not true.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2016
I think I'll stop have discussions with posters that result in me being troll-rated.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
I think I'll stop have discussions with posters that result in me being troll-rated
I know - you prefer having discussions with people who are willing to join you in your little backyard wading pool where you can both splash each other with bankrupt notions of 18th century philos who could intuit QM uncertainty just by sitting there and blowing fart bubbles.

Don't worry. You've left a number of critical questions unanswered. Ive learned a lot as usual while you've learned... nothing.

You broach the subject again and I'll ask the same questions again along with all the new info I've learned. And you can keep on pretending you're right and I'm wrong just because I refuse to play ball and use flashy philo words which have proven to be 'worse than useless'.

Except perhaps as waterwings in ankle-deep philo gumbo.

Oh did I let the metaphor drop there at the end?

Sorry.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2016
This is actually very difficult to explain from biophysical laws

You have no idea if this is difficult or not. It hasn't been explained YET.

Well doesn't stand to reason, that if it hasn't been explained yet, then OBVIOUSLY it must be rather difficult.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2016
Our minds are not simply registering detection of a particular frequency of EM it is Producing a sensation of "redness"


A 'sensation' of 'redness'... would that sensation be preconscious fear at the subconscious connection your brain makes between red and the open mouth of a predator? …..

Again [for the 3rd time], I'm not at all in wonder at WHY we evolved with the impression of 'redness'. It is not an interesting question, nor the one that was ever presented by me.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2016

Just because you may not be aware of these connections, this doesn't mean you have the right to romanticize them and declare that they can never be explained neurologically... physically.


I have never stated that "they can never be explained" through investigable laws. I have made clear several times that 'consciousness' and 'qualia' are emergent phenomena from physical processes of the brain, and given that science de facto investigates phenomena, consciousness and qualia are therefore investigable.

In fact, it is YOU who is the one who implies that the phenomenon of consciousness and that of qualia (redness, sound, pain,..) are NOT investigable scientifically, by denying them as phenomena.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2016
You start with experimentally-derived theory (QM waveform collapse) [A], attribute it to an undefinable and unsubstantiated trait (consciousness) [B], based on an outrageous proclamation (that this trait [consciousness] is literally the most immediately observable phenomena possible [C]) while at the same time admitting that it remains undefined and unsubstantiated [D]... and from this you extrapolate the notion that kant was right when he said that humans can never know everything about a thing [E], ….


[A] I start with the non-intuitive nature of QM [de facto a epistemological problem], that the measurement-problem is at present an unresolved one. I offer an epistemological explanation that is in principal scientifically investigable, and oppose metaphysical explanations that are not.


Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2016
[B] I have referenced John von Neumann's text on QM to substantiate this point. Simply because a phenomena is at present ill understood, does not mean that it is unknowable. What is certain, and which you are not entitled to proclaim otherwise, is that consciousness and qualia are observed phenomena.
[C] Not only is this not "outrageous", but is in fact, simply a logical truism.
[D] Just because something is ill understood, at present, does not mean that it is not scientifically investigable.
[E] I have referenced a quote from Stephen Hawking to substantiate this point, as well.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
As explained above, the easy-problems are those that can in principal be explained Functionally,… the physical receptivity and sorting of frequencies of EM,… the physical detection of variations in air pressure and the subsequent series of electrochemical signals,… even the storage and retrieval of memories, etc… all explicable merely on the basis of functionality. This is what simulations do,… perform definable functions.

The hard-problems, are those concerning the PRODUCTION of qualia,… i.e. self-awareness, feeling of "redness", sounds, pain,…

I don't agree with those who deny qualia as investable phenomenon merely on account of present lack of definition or quantification,… as THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. Science investigates all observable phenomena; "Redness", through introspection and self-awareness, is an observable phenomenon. That is all that is ever meant by "observable" in science, …perception.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
"The sensation of color cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so" – Erwin Schrödinger [the 5th physicist that I have referenced here to substantiate my position]

Again, the salient distinction here is in the difference between Functionality and the Production of "feeling" or impression of qualia. It is difficult to understand how "redness" [and other a-priori intuitions] could be produced from Functions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
And none of your refs knew of developments in cognitive science or evolutionay psychology in the last 50 years.

Scientists routinely talk about what science knew at the time and then would proclaim that whatever lay beyond that was the realm of god. There is a well-known story to that effect which I can't recall.

You guys do the same thing which is why you had to invent metaphysics, the last refuge of the fallen priest.

Or scoundrel, same thing.

As I showed you there is no def of qualia. None for mind. Ditto for consciousness. An increasing number of scientists declare them archaic and useless in describing anything.

And no one has EVER conducted scientific experiments to discover if they exist or not, nor have they been used as elements in experiments in order to determine the nature of something else.

This is because it is impossible to do so given their mythic and lyrical nature.

They're not science theyre poetry.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2016
I'm not at all in wonder at WHY we evolved with the impression of 'redness'. It is not an interesting question
But in order to understand what you call redness is, it is the ONLY question.

It doesn't matter what you're interested in.

It doesn't matter what tickles your fancy.

What tickles you is talking shop with mutual philo buttrubbers and pretending that not ever discovering anything or explaining anything is the fault of the cosmos and not yours.

Meanwhile scientists are actually discovering and explaining things. And guys like you love to jump up and declare that dead philos already knew these things 200 years ago when it's obvious RUBBISH.

Kant has no access to the subsequent 2 centuries of evidence and experimentation that were NECESSARY to find those things out.

And trying to convince people that he didn't need that evidence, by just TALKING about it, is evidence of just how BANKRUPT your discipline has become.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2016
And none of your refs knew of developments in cognitive science or [evolutionary] psychology in the last 50 years.

Which have not produced an understanding of qualia and consciousness. You have even went further and stated that such knowledge is not possible.

You guys do the same thing which is why you had to invent metaphysics, the last refuge of the fallen priest. Or scoundrel, same thing.

You degenerate into argument quickly. Too much Jerry-Springer? I reject metaphysics as a source for knowledge as did Hume, Kant, Locke,…. And again with the religious connotations? I'm an atheist.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2016
As I showed you there is no def of qualia. None for mind. Ditto for consciousness. An increasing number of scientists declare them archaic and useless in describing anything.


There are likely more well known that recognize qualia as phenomena to be scientifically explained. Proponents of qualia. Critics_of_qualia. There are SOME who wrongly believe that undermining the question is an answer.

That we have experiences of qualia is a phenomena in need of scientific explanation.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2016
And no one has EVER conducted scientific experiments to discover if they exist or not, nor have they been used as elements in experiments in order to determine the nature of something else.


That is because such external approaches are deliberately designed to be counter to the nature of the phenomena,... therefore that argument is defective at the start. We experience the impression of "redness" and "sound", so we can validate through self-aware introspection that they are in fact experienced phenomena. Experienced phenomena are scientifically investigable in principal.

This is because it is impossible to do so given their mythic and lyrical nature.

You cannot deny the impressions of redness, or sounds. They are not myths. They are ill understood as impressions. They are observable phenomenon and as such are subject to the scientific method.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2016
I'm not at all in wonder at WHY we evolved with the impression of 'redness'.

But in order to understand what you call redness is, it is the ONLY question.


Wrong. The particular REASON why we evolved redness is entirely irrelevant to how such 'feelings-of-redness' manifest from biophysical laws. We see a small band of colours most useful for survival on account of that frequency-band reflecting off of objects of our relative size.

Biophysical laws explain how electrochemical-matter interacts by functional processes,…. so why the brain registers a particular frequency of light can be explained simply by describing that function, the movement of electrochemical-Matter. Whereas, it is not as simple for the "impressions-of-redness" as it is not itself simply electrochemical-matter moving around,…. but a "feeling" produced by the mind.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2016
You are NOT entitled to deny, simply by proclamation, that the experience of "redness" does not exist as an experienced phenomena to be investigated scientifically, no matter the present state of understanding.

If you want to state that 'qualia are illusions', then you are making a redundant point, as ALL phenomena is ultimately explainable via 'laws of nature', whether they be non-reducible laws or emergent laws.

Btw, all physical theory must make postulates, statements just accepted as fact without explanation as to why.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2016
You are NOT entitled to deny, simply by proclamation, that the experience of "redness" does not exist as an experienced phenomena to be investigated scientifically, no matter the present state of understanding
Well YOU are not entitled to declare that a thing exists without any evidence for it whatsoever.

Unless you have some evidence? Unless you can provide scientific experiments exploring the notion of 'redness' whatever that might be?
If you want to state that 'qualia are illusions', then you are making a redundant point
Yeah argue that with the experts I cited.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2016
The particular REASON why we evolved redness is entirely irrelevant to how such 'feelings-of-redness' manifest from biophysical laws
Evolutionay psychologists disagree. And only they are making inroads into understanding what sensory experience means and why it's there.
Whereas, it is not as simple for the "impressions-of-redness" as it is not itself simply electrochemical-matter moving around,…. but a "feeling" produced by the mind
uh huh. Just saying this does not make it so even if gens of dead philos, priests, and poets declared it as such.

To reiterate, the only way the 'experience of redness' as you call it is being scientifically explored is by cognitive scientists as well as behavioral and evolutionary psychologists.

You guys go stare at expressionist paintings and conclude that what you see is concrete evidence for metaphysics.

Falsify that please.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2016
I reject metaphysics as a source for knowledge as did Hume, Kant, Locke
Yeah this always tickles me. This is one of those idiot philo brainteasers.

Metaphysics can't be a source of knowledge but it exists. How do we know it exists if there is no knowledge of its existence?

Cue a spume of philobabble full of undefinable words, useless concepts, excitement and tittelation. Translation: gens of erudite philos have argued that it exists using similar such spumes. Ergo it must exist. But we can never know it exists because, according to kant, we are puny and hobbled and sinful. Etc.

It's easy to see why randites hate him.
And again with the religious connotations? I'm an atheist
Your dead heros had no trouble admitting the religious roots of their spiel. Why do you?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2016
Metaphysics can't be a source of knowledge but it exists. How do we know it exists if there is no knowledge of its existence?


"Metaphysics" exists as a word. I reference it as a word to delimit valid knowledge.

For example, when John Wheeler critiqued Everett's many-worlds interpretation of QM by saying 'it carries too much metaphysical baggage',... he was not referring to some ethereal world,... his point was only that the theory contained elements 'unobservable even in principal' which implies 'beyond physics'.

It was meant not in a positive sense, but rather as a pejorative. Likewise for my use of the term,... not 'amendable to scientific investigation'. That is all.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2016
And again with the religious connotations? I'm an atheist

Your dead heros had no trouble admitting the religious roots of their spiel. Why do you?


Why don't I what? I'm not religious at all. Why don't you accept what others tell you,... not convenient, doesn't fit your narrative?

More accusations? Did you know Issac Newton wrote far more on theology than he did on science? The moon still revolves around the sun and apples still fall from tress in any case as he described.

Kant's motivation for writting the Critique of Pure Reason, was not religion, but an analysis of knowledge,.... clearly given his conclusions. The book is about epistemology not religion. I have read two translations, have you read it yourself?

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2016
Well YOU are not entitled to declare that a thing exists without any evidence for it whatsoever. Unless you have some evidence? Unless you can provide scientific experiments exploring the notion of 'redness' whatever that might be?


We both have experienced the phenomena of "redness". You're feigning confusion of the impression of redness? That's not very scientific.

Denying a observable phenomena is not an explanation. All observable phenomena are in principle scientifically investigable .
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2016
The term "metaphysics" also denotes valid questions, in the sense that they are not illogical, though perhaps meaningless to the extent that they are not amendable to scientific investigation.

You're inventing the accusation that I'm referring to a "something" that is metaphysical,.... while had you been actually interested in the subject in question, you would have seen that I only refer to the term metaphysics which delimits knowledge,.... i.e. helps define valid knowledge. No not "limits knowledge", ...."delimits knowledge".

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Feb 17, 2016
Wow, so many comments. Don't have "time" to read them all. In my world, I imagine a 4D continuous mathematical isomorphic space occupied only by "+&-" particles and there fields. At a point in time, call it zero. Note any point in time may have any label. The 3 dimensions and each particle and field is defined based upon the history. I "assume" these "+&-" point charges are not created or destroyed. Pick the next point in time, any time. The closer you get to dt = 0+, then the more truth you reveal. Thought Newton showed us how to do that! So are you saying QM defines a discontinuous space? Really? What school teaches this s#it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2016
Metaphysics" exists as a word... to delimit valid knowledge... denotes valid questions, in the sense that they are not illogical, though perhaps meaningless to the extent that they are not amendable to scientific investigation
delimit... amendable... not illogical but meaningless...
https://youtu.be/w-_difGYJjU
when John Wheeler critiqued Everett's many-worlds interpretation of QM by saying 'it carries too much metaphysical baggage', he was not referring to some ethereal world his point was only that the theory contained elements 'unobservable even in principal' which implies 'beyond physics'
What are you doing here? You want people to believe 1) that there is an agreed-to def of the concept 2) that it just so happens to be YOUR def, and 3) you're sure that's what wheeler meant.

I think it's obvious he was using it in the popular non-philo way that even Hitchens equated with love and even your redness crap, which does indeed imply knowledge transfer.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2016
I made clear in what sense I use the term. I provided the example of John Wheeler because that is the sense in which I use the word. In fact that use is ubiquitous in science, as a perforative. Yet, you insist that people think otherwise,... as if I am referencing some spiritual world?

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Feb 24, 2016
I'm beginning to think all modern theoretical physicists are idiots. QM only looks at the possible fields when the potential and kinetic are defined correctly and there are a few unanswered questions, not particles. Think of two observers, One moving at velocity v and the other stationary. At a point in time, a wavelet passes them. One measures time T1 the other T2, why? Because one goes from start to finish faster. There is no space time bending crap. QM is discontinuous and reflects some definition of potential and kinetic; so, no discovery, your definition. So if you find something you did not expect, try using something more explicit!
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2016
EDIT: "that use is ubiquitous in science, as a [pejorative]. Yet, you insist that people think otherwise,... as if I am referencing some spiritual world? "
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Mar 11, 2016
Ok, Dr. E, the worlds smartest person is an idiot. Then you and I? A wavelet passes you how fast. Well how shall I measure it. OK, use the initial wavelength and the measured period. L/T, get it. Not frequency by wavelength, thats a freaking constant. Or by trying to ride it!

For time, why are we using an angular measure, why not a linear measure, better yet, a unitless measure. I like to partition space and time into a 4D space and use only wavelets, or wavelength and throw away units to simply locate the +&- 1's, i.e charges. That way I'm able to use any dimension I wish. The smaller the more accurate, each point in space then has a set of attributes. Think! Hmm, what will I see after 3 wavelengths, or a million, or ... Notice how neatly the fields fit about each particle. Don't forget the field about the particles has the velocity vector of the particle added. juz say'n. My problem is this defines an entirely new physics, i.e. our unitary space.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Mar 11, 2016
Oscillating radiation is from an oscillating charge. Why can't we reconstruct a visible image?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.