• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Hard Problem of Gravity

Belz... said:
There you go, again, assuming that "consciousness" ceases to exist when you sleep.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's what he's assuming. I think he's just got so little idea what he means by the term that he shifts between definitions without even noticing.
 
Mercutio said:
You have spent your lifetime in a language community that speaks of "sensations", "images", "feelings", etc. as nouns. You can sense things; does that mean that there is a thing called a sensation, with its own existence? You can see things; do you see images of things? If you consider that you would rather doubt the thing than the image, and thus say that you cannot see a thing but only its image, one wonders how you see the image. Do you see an image of this image? Or an image of that image of the image? Our language treats processes as nouns, but that does not magically make them exist separately from the processes.

Looking at the computer screen, as per your example... the screen is termed the distal stimulus; its corresponding excitation of the retinal cone cells is a proximal stimulus. This bleaching of photopigments begins a chain of reactions, processed to some degree at each step, from the architecture of the retina itself to the multiple throughputs which respond differentially to edges, wavelengths, past associations, faces, motion, and a dozen or more separate characteristics. There is no place where an image exists.
Click to expand...

And why does this matter? Why do we assume that because an image exists, that it must exist in a particular place? We have no reason to suppose that it does.

It's also true that images are not projections on the back of the skull, but constructions. When we "see" a cat, we don't see an image exactly corresponding to the light coming in - we pick up enough clues to identify "cat", construct a cat in the configuration seen, and layer it with identifying marks. Things we know well can be seen in greater detail than things we don't. Does this mean that the image is in some sense not real? Of course not - in fact, it shows that the image has its own reality, quite seperate from the supposed "real thing" that it represents.

We can, through psychophysical testing, even demonstrate that what most of us think of as a rich tapestry of visual experience simply does not exist. It is illusory--there is something there, but what it is is not at all what we describe. One problem with consciousness researchers is that they tend to take our verbal descriptions of conscious awareness as bedrock (as Interesting Ian always did--does anyone remember the colored cube thread?), and sets the task as one of describing this fictional consciousness. When we fall short, as we must, our explanations are seen as inadequate or even denying basic human experience. No. We are describing and explaining what is there, and are under no obligation to describe what is not there. To trot out my old analogy again, it is enough to describe the rotation of the earth; we need not describe how the sun actually climbs a stationary sky in order to explain a sunrise. Our language speaks of sunrises and of minds; both are prescientific vocabulary. The things they refer to are real and meaningful, but we do not have to accept the historical explanation.
Click to expand...

I would certainly trust the direct experience of awareness as against the description of it. It's also not surprising that it is difficult for us to be aware of our awareness. We know that we are aware, but using our awareness to examine itself is clearly as difficult as looking at our retinas.
 
Darat said:
Again you try and change the point, in effect (whether conscious or not) you are simply trying to evade the fact that the evidence shows that your assertions are not correct.
Click to expand...

If you were to state exactly what you think the example proves, I might be better able to respond. So some scientist can use rat neural tissue to produce a Lego Mindstorms robot. So what does that prove?
 
PixyMisa said:
Funny, I thought you had an opinion on this matter. I guess not.
Click to expand...
Guess again

You don't know what you are talking about

The machine at your finger tips can increase your knowledge

This is not the thread to discuss the issue
 
PixyMisa said:
Really? I'll throw out all three copies of Hennessy and Patterson and let you tell me about it, shall I?
Click to expand...
Whatever floats your boat

You could, of course, try reading them first

PixyMisa said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Are you being obtuse on purpose?

This thread is called The Hard Problem of Gravity

It is not called The Easy Definition of what Constitutes a Computer
 
PixyMisa said:
AkuManiMani said:
I've already presented it. The very fact that ALL the significant operational functions of the biology take place at quantum scales [i.e. cellular and sub-cellular scales] is evidence enough to establish the plausibility of the hypothesis. In fact, given what is already known about the brain, is seems extremely implausible that QM scale processes would not have a cogent effect on the neurological function of the brain and organism as a whole.
Click to expand...

Not even remotely.

As Tegmark pointed out, the time scale of neural events is removed from that of quantum coherence by thirteen orders of magnitude.

Unless you can show real, hard, direct evidence, I'm very much afraid that Tegmark's thirteen orders of magnitude trumps your baseless speculation.
Click to expand...

First of all, I said that one of the main reasons why biological entities differ from mechanical entities, like cuckoo clocks, is that their functions and behavior are based upon atomic and molecular scale interactions. My inference wasn't specific to brain function but of all biological functions. These interactions operate within the realm of quantum mechanical effects. The thing is that the entire organism, from the atomic/molecular level up, is an ensemble of form and function. In other words, it is an instance of a single coherent whole which is exhibited in its overall behavior. For this reason their macroscale properties and behaviors defy classical deterministic prediction.


In physics, coherence is a property of waves, that enables stationary (i.e. temporally and spatially constant) interference. More generally, coherence describes all correlation properties between physical quantities of a wave.

When interfering, waves add together to one big wave or destruct each other to a lot of smaller waves, depending on their relative phase. Two waves are said to be coherent if they have a constant relative phase, which also implies that they have the same frequency. The degree of coherence is measured by the interference visibility, a measure of how perfectly the waves can cancel due to destructive interference.

[....]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_coherence#Quantum_coherence
Click to expand...

Coherence is not a property specific merely to subatomic entities but all wave phenomenon at any scale. All matter has particle and wave characteristics so macroscale coherence is not precluded.

Physicist are still working on how to translate quantum theory in such a way as to accurately describe macroscale events. From what I've read of QM, quantum coherence tends to not persist for very long because thermodynamics intervenes to disrupt it over larger scales.

It just so happens that living things have very distinct thermodynamic properties which distinguishes them from masses of ordinary, inanimate matter. They internally maintain a low entropy state which can [and almost certainly does] act as a kind of thermodynamic buffer to maintain coherence.

PixyMisa said:
It's physically impossible.
Click to expand...

Presumptuous, and wrong:

Quantum mechanics is a set of principles underlying the most fundamental known description of all physical systems at the microscopic scale (at the atomic level). Notable among these principles are both a dual wave-like and particle-like behavior of matter and radiation, and prediction of probabilities in situations where classical physics predicts certainties. Classical physics can be derived as a good approximation to quantum physics, typically in circumstances with large numbers of particles. Thus quantum phenomena are particularly relevant in systems whose dimensions are close to the atomic scale, such as molecules, atoms, electrons, protons and other subatomic particles. Exceptions exist for certain systems which exhibit quantum mechanical effects on macroscopic scale; superfluidity is one well-known example. Quantum theory provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation and stable electron orbits. It has also given insight into the workings of biological systems.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Click to expand...

One prominent example of QM at work in the realm of biology is in photosynthesis , on which you can find abundant peer-reviewed literature.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
There you go, again, assuming that "consciousness" ceases to exist when you sleep. I don't know about you, but a lot of stuff happens, that I'm quite aware of, when I sleep.
Click to expand...

You mean dreams, yes? Dreams are a form of conscious state. What I'm referring to is unconscious sleep; the period of time where your conscious awareness is shut off.

[Its interesting to note that when I working on a difficult problem I often wake up with a solution if I sleep on it. My guess is that it may have something to do w/ REM sleep :boggled:]
 
Pixy and Six7s, I think that you both know that this is a semantics issue, unless Six7s believes that there is no software which can preform computations(which I would highly doubt).

A computer can be defined a few different ways, latching onto one definition thereof, and calling someone out on a strict technicality based on that definition, may be a little lame. =p

Pixy isn't wrong.
 
AkuManiMani said:
Come with me. Join the Woo Side and together we will rule the internetz as stranger and acquaintance! You don't know the power!
Click to expand...

QM in relation to consciousness, is normally appealed to by moonbats who wish to discount deterministic behavior in favor of their own crackpottery(even though QM usually has absolutely nothing to do with their own theory).
 
Gate2501 said:
Pixy and Six7s, I think that you both know that this is a semantics issue, unless Six7s believes that there is no software which can preform computations(which I would highly doubt).

A computer can be defined a few different ways, latching onto one definition thereof, and calling someone out on a strict technicality based on that definition, may be a little lame. =p

Pixy isn't wrong.
Click to expand...

Software can't ever perform computation on its own. Hardware is always required. The form of the hardware is immaterial (except that it can't be immaterial).
 
Gate2501 said:
Pixy and Six7s, I think that you both know that this is a semantics issue, unless Six7s believes that there is no software which can preform computations(which I would highly doubt).

A computer can be defined a few different ways, latching onto one definition thereof, and calling someone out on a strict technicality based on that definition, may be a little lame. =p

Pixy isn't wrong.
Click to expand...

Yea. I actually agree w/ PixyMisa on this one. Sorry, Six7s :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom