Let me summerise some basic known elements of the universe:

Cathegories:

1 mass/energy, space, time

2 laws, constants (passive)

3 ideas (active)

Generally it is supposed that ideas have no mass. How come that ideas (massless) can influence mass? (eg. some rivers were directed to more convenient direction based on the idea of convienience). Is not this massless element a major factor in physics which may totaly redirect the course of the universe? It seems that this element is carefully avoided in physics, its attention is more directed to eg. gravity while (undeniably) thinking is probably as influential as other forces which physics carefully studies. (I mean thinking not as psychology but as a force)

Originally posted by ProCop
Let me summerise some basic known elements of the universe:

Cathegories:

1 mass/energy, space, time

2 laws, constants (passive)

3 ideas (active)

Generally it is supposed that ideas have no mass. How come that ideas (massless) can influence mass?

....(I mean thinking not as psychology but as a force) That is why the laws of relativity were invented.
As you well pointed out, ideas have no mass and yet this non existing mass can redirect the course of the universe. And even re-direct rivers for conveniences.

If you noticed, in re-directing a river the non-existing mass “The idea” has not created a mass “the river”, it simply redirected it.

And in the example of re-directing the universe, ..that’s a bigger horse!
Wouldn’t be possible that “we” with our “Ideas” as been part of the “universe” are believing that we can re-direct the universe when most probably is the “Universe” whom is re-directing us??

....And force is not a mass but a byproduct of such.
;)

The idea” has not created a mass “the river”, it simply redirected it.

The same can be said of gravity:
Gravity has not created a mass “the river”, it simply directs it.

That is why the laws of relativity were invented.

The laws of relativity were not invented but discovered/described


....And force is not a mass but a byproduct of such.



Force is product of eg. a muscle, thinking directs it



And in the example of re-directing the universe, ..that’s a bigger horse!

You can direct the bigest horse with your smallest finger!

Mass is defined mechanically as the proportionality constant between force and acceleration. It is defined gravitationally to be the "charge" which is capable of producing a gravitational field.

You cannot apply a force to an idea, nor can you measure the acceleration of an idea. Nor can you see an idea, or shine light on an idea, or do any other physical experiment on an idea. Ideas are not physical things. The prospect of the "mass of an idea" is a stupid and meaningless one.

Since you seem to think massless things shouldn't be able to affect the world, I'd like you to think about photons; they are massless, yet they currently are imprinting images on your retina that are affecting your stupid and meaningless ideas.

If you'd like to go about redefining scientifically precise words like "mass," you'll get nothing but crap. You can't redefine a set of words and expect the relationships between those words to survive unharmed.

- Warren

You cannot apply a force to an idea, nor can you measure the acceleration of an idea. Nor can you see an idea, or shine light on an idea, or do any other physical experiment on an idea. Ideas are not physical things. The prospect of the "mass of an idea" is a stupid and meaningless one.

Ideas initiate processes in the universe which wouldn't otherwise happen. These initiations are still more powerfull. Mind's manipulation of the universe is an obvious fact. That you do not understand how it works doesn't mean it does not exist. Physics simply ignores the force which REALLY brought the Apollo to the moon, it only desribes carefully the materials (+fuel), processes and procedures how that could happen.

There are no horses in the motor of a car. They (horse power) are used to express how strong the motor is. The same can be used in connection mind/ideas. Mind has now the force comparable to a nuclear explosion on the planetary scale. It's influence on the universe is massive and irreversible but scientifcally undiscribed.

Originally posted by chroot
If you'd like to go about redefining scientifically precise words like "mass," you'll get nothing but crap. You can't redefine a set of words and expect the relationships between those words to survive unharmed.

Originally posted by chroot
If you'd like to go about redefining scientifically precise words like "mass," you'll get nothing but crap. You can't redefine a set of words and expect the relationships between those words to survive unharmed.

There is no scientifically precise world for "mind" in physics. The closest comparable concept/element in physics is "observer" which doesn't even come close to what I mean. Influence of the mind on the Universe was never meassured so I cannot really provide more specified scales of it. But it is obvious that you (suprisingly) undertand what I mean and try to nail me on a form foult. Try to go beond that.

Originally posted by ProCop
There is no scientifically precise world for "mind" in physics.
I wasn't talking about the word "mind." I was talking about mass, force, energy, and power -- words which you choose to simply redefine wildly whenever you feel so inclined, as you have done in this thread. I've played this game with you before -- it's like Whack-a-Mole. You make one statement, and it is refuted. You then announce that you meant something different by some word. You then make another statement, use the same word again, but give it a new, third definition. I can only assume that it goes on ad infinitum -- it's tiresome. There's really no sense in even talking to you, since you're so quick to just redefine words (and even entire concepts) so they fit your topic du jour.

One can't have any semblance of rational discourse with you, since you refuse to abide by the definitions shared by all of the rest of us on Planet Earth. You must realize somewhere in that thick, uneducated head of yours that the only reason words have any meaning at all is because people agree upon their meanings. Because your words have almost no real definitions, your sentences have no real meaning.
it is obvious that you (suprisingly) undertand what I mean and try to nail me on a form foult. Try to go beond that.
ProCop, I understand everything you say. You speak English (hence there is no language barrier) and have the abstract reasoning capacity of a three-year old (hence there is no intellectual barrier). Frankly, sometimes I wonder how a person with such deficiency in abstract reasoning skills is even competent to operate a computer system. No, it isn't that I don't understand your points. It is that your points are most often incoherent and illogical.

Your point with this post is basically this:

It is remarkable that ideas, which are not physical objects, can be applied by human hands and muscles to create congruent physical objects.

This is a remarkable fact: the concept of the color orange can lead an artist to mix orange paint and paint an orange painting. Something which isn't physical can be manifested in physical form by a suitably inclined human being.

However interesting this topic may be, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the physical quantities of mass, force, energy, or power -- unless, of course, you do your little trick of making up new definitions for those words, specifically so they fit into your sentences.

I'm tired of your characteristic blending of scientific, philosophical, and common language, and I suspect that many other people feel similarly. "Ideas" make an interesting topic, one that I would not mind discussing. However interesting they are, F = dp/dt does not apply to them, and the discussion does not belong in a physics forum. Give that bit up.

- Warren

Since you seem to think massless things shouldn't be able to affect the world, I'd like you to think about photons; they are massless, yet they currently are imprinting images on your retina that are affecting your stupid and meaningless ideas.
[/B]

Photons are massless? I thought, since mass and energy are equivalent, and photons have/are energy...

EDIT: Make that matter and energy...

It is an intersting thing to consider at least. If you take matter and energy as equivalent, and recall that all matter is recycled, we're all made of star-vomit, the cells of our body die and divide and are replaced all the time, blah blah blah... It is amazing that we form clumps of matter and energy capable of ideas, which do indeed affect other clumps of matter and energy.

What you really need to decide is: Are our minds simply acts of charge and chemicals, or are we more than that? I believe someone started a thread about it today...

It is an intersting thing to consider at least. If you take matter and energy as equivalent, and recall that all matter is recycled, we're all made of star-vomit, the cells of our body die and divide and are replaced all the time, blah blah blah... It is amazing that we form clumps of matter and energy capable of ideas, which do indeed affect other clumps of matter and energy.

I think (a working) idea that the development of the mind may have broken the causality (determinism) in some processes in the universe. You can have some determined (cause/result) development from the first moment of the Big Bang to the moment of an awakening of an inteligence with a free mind which can take over (at least in some form) the cause roll in the further developmen of the Universe. The cause of my tonight's program was not determined in the big bang as some other events of this evening (in the (rest?) of the Universe) seem to to have been decided so long ago. The idea of re-processing the matter is very interesting. It may mean (as someone ever suggested here (sciforum) that (if there are a chain of big bangs), they may be all different and so all (possible) will actually happen.) (Mind is then the cause that the BBs differ, without the mind they would have been identical.)

Seems that you regard ideas as something completely unpredictable. From my perspective, they are not. I would prefer to see them as a reaction to problems found in usually deterministic circumstances, however complex they may be. Therefore, the leap to a new idea i would not see as something extra-ordinary, but more of a logical step in someone's line of thinking.

Yet, since i'm not an expert in any of the fields involved, i'm only speculating here.

Seems that you regard ideas as something completely unpredictable. From my perspective, they are not. I would prefer to see them as a reaction to problems found in usually deterministic circumstances, however complex they may be. Therefore, the leap to a new idea i would not see as something extra-ordinary, but more of a logical step in someone's line of thinking.

Good point. Ideas are not completely unpredictable. There is some constraint on ideas, by the reality on/of which they reflect/are reflections of. There are well different possibilities. The choice of a special possibility/scenario is not (fully) predictable. Eg. the choise of the next US president, may influence many physical processes in the physical world. But the choice is not predetermined, it is based on free will of the American people. I think the universe lost its predictability with the advent of mind.

and it are those same physical influences the elected US president will set in motion that will help to determine the result of the next election.

At least, i do hope that the citizens of the US do choose their leader based on some rational reason and not on the basis of some impulsive whim... or... uhm... well... looking at recent US presidents, it doesn't make my case very strong, now does it?

Originally posted by Adam
Photons are massless? I thought, since mass and energy are equivalent, and photons have/are energy...

EDIT: Make that matter and energy...
Photons have momentum and energy, but no rest mass.

- Warren

Oh yes, forgot that bit.

The causalitiy in/of processes/happenings in the universe is a matter of importance in physics. Your attempt to disregard the influence which mind has on/in these processes comes from a MIND set you propose to be the only right one: you consider the universe as a model, in which the influence of mind is eliminated. Only the forces which you can detect in the model count. You try to replace the "real thing" with this model and it irritates you that I do not redily accept your vieuw.

The universe includes the mind. It is an element in it. There is an interaction between the mass and the mind. Mind moves/directs the muscles of my hand to a purpouse which it defines. It is an initiator of major changes in the material world. It is the cause of the DvD player, (it was convenient for the mind to be placed in such surroundings as to coordinate the forces of the universe in such a way that it produced the DvD) the DvD wasn't created by the universe spontaneusly. (Thats the problem of your model) I can understand that it was/is difficult to create such a model, and that you feel uncomfortable with my pushing in element (mind) which makes your model uncomplete. But try to cope with that in a different way. You made already a step in this direction by introducing on this Physics Forum a thread about inhancing the study of physics by involving pornography. (<a href=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15117>Motivating physics</a>) Now you suggest that I drop my subject as it is non complaient with the topic here. I propose that mind is as strong element in physics as pornography (undenyably) is in development of visual technology.

Mind is at the begining of some massive rearangements in the universe and it is a force which should be reckoned with in Physics.

<font color="red">Moderator note: I've just had to delete some useless posts from this thread. Keep it civil, people.</font>


On topic:

Procop, you are essentially talking about the philosophical issue known as the "mind/body problem". Is the mind separate from the physical universe, or is it just another part of the universe? In particular, is the mind a product only of the brain, or is it something with a separate existence?

If the mind is solely a product of the brain, then ideas result from physical processes in the brain in the same way that everything else is a physical process. When an idea sends a rocket to the moon it is ultimately caused by physical arrangements of electrical signals in a physical system (the brain).

If, on the other hand, the mind is separate from the physical universe, then other problems arise. What is the mechanism by which a non-physical thing can affect something physical (like a brain or a body)?

This is well-trodden ground in philosophy.

I was not adressing the nature of the mind (mind/body) but its role in the processes within the universe. Mind is an active element in these processes (whatever its nature may be). Ideas have no mass because you can put them on the paper and the paper wil not be any hevier than the paper + used ink. Though, also these written ideas (which are massless and not a part of any living brain (no mind/body problem)) are excersicing influence on the physical world. Look at what Einsteins writings have caused...

Further more some "inteligent" processes are now handled by the computer, which also produses "ideas" which influence physical processes (some computers can even learn from mistakes which appeared in these processes). Oh, oh, oh while I have hoped to avoid (mind/body) problem I stumbled into even a bigger one (software/hardware)... (Somebody here claimed that you meet your fate on the way to avoid it....how true!)

The point is that ideas only act via a physical medium - usually a brain. There's still a physical connection between an idea and its implementation. Ideas aren't mysterious things which pop up out of nowhere.

The point is that ideas only act via a physical medium - usually a brain. There's still a physical connection between an idea and its implementation. Ideas aren't mysterious things which pop up out of nowhere

The hanging bridge (of sorts) was "invented" by somebody who saw a spin web of that form. So the idea of the bridge came from the "physical world" and didn't just "pop up" It's a ping-pong match between the universe and the mind, and the mind is wining it because it returns more balls then it receives.

Originally posted by ProCop
Generally it is supposed that ideas have no mass. How come that ideas (massless) can influence mass? This entire topic is pretty nutty. But I'd like to point out that photons have no mass, and yet it is possible for them in interact with things that do. Run your hand through a 10 kW laser beam to see just how much something that is massless can influence something that has mass.

<i>...the mind is wining it because it returns more balls then it receives.</i>

Does it? What makes you think that?

This entire topic is pretty nutty. But I'd like to point out that photons have no mass, and yet it is possible for them in interact with things that do. Run your hand through a 10 kW laser beam to see just how much something that is massless can influence something that has mass.

Yes, photons can influence matter(was already pointed uit on the previous page by Chroot). Further are ideas dependent on the mass of other object to be transferred from mind to mind etc. It is possible that ideas are products of matter, but if this is so, than matter must also have an " instinct" which drives it into the direction of thinking. (It is hard to believe that the organisation of the matter such as to produce thinking would happen randomly. If this is so than there is no great difference between the mind and the computer, they are then only stages in the devolopment of the matter, the mind then being an underdeveloped mechanism, temporary stage (idealistic period) in the development of matter because in this "idealistic" period the matter allowed the mind to entertain also ideas which are generally not coinciding with the instinct ot the matter. ( In other words the mind is a temporary byproduct of matter (needed to produce the computer) and is mortal only because its inmortality would disconvenient the matter).

...the mind is wining it because it returns more balls then it receives.

Does it? What makes you think that?


Generaly it is supposed that the universe as such is not conscious ot itself. It's happenning follows the valid laws of nature in its development. Also the brain is (mainly) product of such causality under the natural laws. But at some point the brain/mind got out of this casual process (probably due to the prints of the animal feet on the ground: mind realised that an entitiy can be represented by an abstract sign) and abstract thinking developed. This thinking doesn't have to obey the natural laws (in concepts) and therefore it can rearrange the natural world. The Earth is more and more "rearanged" and natural processes are manipulated (eg. genetic technologies). Mind looks at its surroundings not with the mentality how can I adjust to these surroundings , but with the mentality these surrounding must be adjusted in such and such way. The Earth is now largely colonised, the space will follow....

The balls go like this: eg. the nature sayes 'you cannot fly'..., you cannot see in the dark...., you cannot breath under the water.. mind answers let me think a moment, yes, I can do all these things....and even more.

Procop:

<i>Also the brain is (mainly) product of such causality under the natural laws.</i>

Only "mainly"? What else affected the development of brains other than natural laws?

<i>But at some point the brain/mind got out of this casual process (probably due to the prints of the animal feet on the ground: mind realised that an entitiy can be represented by an abstract sign) and abstract thinking developed.</i>

The development of the brain was not acausal. We can trace the evolution of brains from the first single-celled creature right through to human beings. I say the development of abstract thinking was caused by development of the brain. It was not independent.

<i>This thinking doesn't have to obey the natural laws (in concepts) and therefore it can rearrange the natural world.</i>

We think with our brains. Our brains obey natural laws. Therefore, our thoughts are also restricted by natural laws. That doesn't mean we can't imagine breaking natural laws; we do that all the time. But those thoughts themselves don't come from nothing. They come from chemical and electrical patterns in our brains, which are natural physical processes. If you think there is more to mind than brain, again, I ask why you think that.

We think with our brains. Our brains obey natural laws. Therefore, our thoughts are also restricted by natural laws. That doesn't mean we can't imagine breaking natural laws; we do that all the time. But those thoughts themselves don't come from nothing. They come from chemical and electrical patterns in our brains, which are natural physical processes. If you think there is more to mind than brain, again, I ask why you think that.

Brain = "mechanisms" + "electrodes" +"processors"+"memory"+etc (stupid machine which runs and runs) all over the world the same because causual (caused by natural laws and following them blindly)

Mind = "operator of the brain" +"selector of input"+"maker of (moral) judgements" + "artist" + etc (inteligent and learning) different in different parts of the world because not causual, based on the freedom of choice (uses natural laws to its own purpose).

Procop:

When you put somebody in an MRI machine and ask them to perform a specific task (e.g. mentally rotating shapes on a screen to match a given shape) certain parts of the brain are activated, and you can see that. The same parts of the brain are activated in different people for the same tasks.

I say that all the functions of the brain, including intelligence, artist ability, social judgement and so on are just that: functions of the brain. There's just no need for some "external" force. What's more, there's no evidence for such a thing either. Is there?

I say that all the functions of the brain, including intelligence, artist ability, social judgement and so on are just that: functions of the brain. There's just no need for some "external" force. What's more, there's no evidence for such a thing either. Is there?

Some indirect evidence may be found. Eg., why the "functions of the brain" work differently for different people (different cultures), all must be (proximately) the same if produced by (biologically) the same functions. Look at eg. christianity, (offer the other cheek - that's mind above the matter/immediate intererest of the brain (of survival)). Mind decides what to do, not the instinct.
Speculatively, if you clone a human it will have biologically identical brain, but a different mind because brain is a biological structure while mind is a composition of of more elements (interaction with other minds can change the mind, not the brain). I can go as far with you as to state that mind is created by and dependent on the brain (conerning its existence) but its "functioning" is independent of the brain (eg. mind is more influenced by other minds then by the biology/functions of the brain in which it resides.)

Procop:

<i>Some indirect evidence may be found. Eg., why the "functions of the brain" work differently for different people (different cultures), all must be (proximately) the same if produced by (biologically) the same functions.</i>

I have a list of several hundred behaviours and characteristics common to all humans. (It's not online so I can't post it here.) Essentially, the brain structure common to all humans leads to commonailities in behaviour and predisposition.

<i>Speculatively, if you clone a human it will have biologically identical brain, but a different mind because brain is a biological structure while mind is a composition of of more elements...</i>

We already have cloned humans. They are called identical twins. They share exactly the same genes, just as clones would. Yet their brains are different. Why? Because they have slightly different environments, and that affects the way the brain develops.

<i>eg. mind is more influenced by other minds then by the biology/functions of the brain in which it resides.</i>

How is it influenced by other minds? If through the senses, then that sense data must pass through the brain. I say that any changes on a mind due to the influences of other minds are nothing more than changes in the brain due to processing of sensory data.

Unless you're thinking of ESP? The problem there is that, like the disconnected mind, there is simply no evidence that it exists.

How is it influenced by other minds? If through the senses, then that sense data must pass through the brain. I say that any changes on a mind due to the influences of other minds are nothing more than changes in the brain due to processing of sensory data.

Ideas of others cannot be processed as sensory data:

1 mind produces an idea (eg.: "space of the universe is curved" - not a sensory info, because the sences do not experience the space as curved)

2 mind orders the stupid brain to write the text of the idea: brain can only follow the command of the mind (brain being not able to underestand enything of language)

3 the brain orders the muscles to put this idea (in writing) on a paper

4 other person reads the paper after you are dead: the sensor detectible information letters are forwarded through the eyes, brain to the mind which "understand" the signs.

(Please notice that ideas have no mass whatsoever and therefore are not accessible to the senses: only meaningless signs/letters are registered by sences - only mind can process/understand them)

5 even after you were completely burned in a crematorium the ideas/"shadows" of your mind remain. Mind is therefore "detachable" from the brain and exists as a separate entity (which is for an active functioning dependable on the brain).

Procop:

<i>1 mind produces an idea (eg.: "space of the universe is curved" - not a sensory info, because the sences do not experience the space as curved)</i>

When I think of curved space, I have a visual picture in mind. Without senses, I wouldn't have any concept of what a curve was.

<i>2 mind orders the stupid brain to write the text of the idea: brain can only follow the command of the mind (brain being not able to underestand enything of language)</i>

In some accidents where part of the brain is damaged, ability to use language is lost, but everything else stays the same. Has the destruction of that part of the brain destroyed the ability of the mind to use lanuage as well? If so, why? If not, why can't a person use language without that part of their brain?

<i>(Please notice that ideas have no mass whatsoever and therefore are not accessible to the senses: only meaningless signs/letters are registered by sences - only mind can process/understand them)</i>

The computer in front of you can process signs and symbols. Does it have a mind? If not, what's the difference between a computer and a human which gives us a mind whilst denying one to computers?

<i>5 even after you were completely burned in a crematorium the ideas/"shadows" of your mind remain.</i>

Where do these shadows remain? What can they do after destruction of the brain?

Where do these shadows remain? What can they do after destruction of the brain?

Consider eg. the idea of Marxism. It has shaken the world after Marx's death.

When I think of curved space, I have a visual picture in mind. Without senses, I wouldn't have any concept of what a curve was.

Even blind people can think about space (and curves) : it did not come into their mind through senses but through the mind and the ideas of other minds.

The computer in front of you can process signs and symbols. Does it have a mind? If not, what's the difference between a computer and a human which gives us a mind whilst denying one to computers?

Computer doesn't have a mind (yet) because it has no freedom to choose the alternatives outside of (simple) logic (it wouldn turn the second cheek) (it is not able to develop/understand christianity)

Procop:

<i>Consider eg. the idea of Marxism. It has shaken the world after Marx's death.</i>

Yes. But all the people who have supported it have learnt about it via their senses and their brains.

<i>Even blind people can think about space (and curves) : it did not come into their mind through senses but through the mind and the ideas of other minds.</i>

No, they learnt about curves through touch - another sense.

<i>Computer doesn't have a mind (yet) because it has no freedom to choose the alternatives outside of (simple) logic (it wouldn turn the second cheek) (it is not able to develop/understand christianity)</i>

Why do you think humans have the freedom to choose alternatives outside of logic?

What is required for understanding of something like Christianity? And why won't a computer ever be able to fulfil those requirements, in your opinion? (Please, don't say "a soul" - that would be circular.)

Yes. But all the people who have supported it have learnt about it via their senses and their brains.

Your senses register only the signs on the paper and the sequence of signs (senses only see signs but not understand them) compare computerised process: you scan a text (=senses) let it process to assess what it is (a string) compare it to known languages, (eg. it is an English text) (=brain). Mind comes as last in this process (=computer operator) Only it can consider the idea.

Why do you think humans have the freedom to choose alternatives outside of logic?

Because they do. Look at eg. old testament: "tooth for tooth", it's logical approach, "turn the other cheek" is illogical (you must and should defend yourself) By not defending yourself (not out of cowardice) you beat the natural law and its logic to great advancement of the mankind (personal opinion).

What is required for understanding of something like Christianity? And why won't a computer ever be able to fulfil those requirements, in your opinion? (Please, don't say "a soul" - that would be circular.)

Logic alone is not capable of understanding/producing Christianity because Christianity is based not (only) on logic but some other requirements. Eg. Beauty (absolute order within the concept), Symbolism (freedom of individuals to personalize very general vieuw) etc. (these and such "surroundings" make it possible to leave the logic behind and still not get lost, because you are still held within the concept (by its symbols and beauty) Computer cannot operate like that. If you tell it to let logic go it would destroy itself as the first act.

Procop:

<i>Your senses register only the signs on the paper and the sequence of signs (senses only see signs but not understand them) compare computerised process: you scan a text (=senses) let it process to assess what it is (a string) compare it to known languages, (eg. it is an English text) (=brain). Mind comes as last in this process (=computer operator) Only it can consider the idea.</i>

I'd like to ask you a question. Suppose you go to a doctor because you are ill. The doctor asks you a series of questions about symptoms and perhaps runs some tests to find out how your body is going (blood pressure, heart rate etc.) At the end of the process, she makes a diagnosis of your illness based on all the data. My question is: does this process require "mind"?

<i>Logic alone is not capable of understanding/producing Christianity because Christianity is based not (only) on logic but some other requirements. Eg. Beauty (absolute order within the concept), Symbolism (freedom of individuals to personalize very general vieuw) etc. (these and such "surroundings" make it possible to leave the logic behind and still not get lost, because you are still held within the concept (by its symbols and beauty) Computer cannot operate like that.</i>

There are already computer programs which can generate art and appreciate certain types of beauty. Many programs manipulate symbols of all kinds. You seem to be saying that beauty, choice and symbolism are somehow "illogical". I don't see why.

You seem to be saying that beauty, choice and symbolism are somehow "illogical". I don't see why.

They are not really illogical, but they translate the problem into the highest sphere of mind, the sphere of "association".


Tooth for tooth (logic)
Here you enter the "dimension" of violence. Within this dimension the blow into your face can be answered only with an other blow into your opponets face. This will go on till one of you are dead.


Turn the other cheek (association)
A blow into your face can be assotiated in abstraction with general violence. Its oposite-in-assotiation is non-violence. You add a new "dimension" non-violence" to the "universe of the moment". Your opponent may do whatever possible to drag you in his "dimension" but you stay in yours. He cannot approach you in your different dimension unless he comes in your dimension of non-violence (he must leave the dimension of violence to approach you: Ghandi won India that way).

This way of thinking is not based on sensory data. Only mind is capable of cathegorising the elements and operate on the bases of assotiation. In the realm of mind logic is well valid and used but it is not the only decisive element. For as far I know computer is incapable of association. (Prolog-AI recognise well patterns but cannot associate them - as far as I know)



I'd like to ask you a question. Suppose you go to a doctor because you are ill. The doctor asks you a series of questions about symptoms and perhaps runs some tests to find out how your body is going (blood pressure, heart rate etc.) At the end of the process, she makes a diagnosis of your illness based on all the data. My question is: does this process require "mind"?


Not necessarily, because this all can be done on a computerised expert system. Mind of the doctor comes in when a data is presented wich doesn't fall into any known pattern. Than the doctor can associate: actual happening: a doctor noticed that by a certain lung ailment the patient always had a bird in his appartment. Up till the moment the doctor realised this association it had no diagnostic relevance for him.

Procop:

Your "tooth for a tooth" vs. "turn the other cheek" argument is nicely countered by game theory. Game theory is a very logical, mathematical analysis of this problem (among others). If you're interested, look on the internet for "prisoner's dilemma".

On computers and association, try searching for "neural network". Computers are certainly capable of association - something the human brain is very good at. Again, it seems to me that there is nothing the brain can't do but which a hypothetical disembodied mind can.

(Prolog-AI recognise well patterns but cannot associate them - as far as I know)

To be able to recognise a pattern, associative skills are needed: you associate a specific output value, given a specific input. The trick is to be able to associate with more and more noise introduced in the input. Even current day AI systems are doing this reasonably well, if trained well on a specific domain.

There is a problem of scale though, a human can host about 100 billion neurons (!) in the brain and from each neuron can spawn 1,000 to 10,000 synapses to other neurons. That makes quite an impressive network, far beyond the reach of the current state of technology.

To be able to recognise a pattern, associative skills are needed: you associate a specific output value, given a specific input. The trick is to be able to associate with more and more noise introduced in the input. Even current day AI systems are doing this reasonably well, if trained well on a specific domain.

OK. Machines can associate but consider eg a computerised poetry generator: It wil output foneticaly correct rhytmicaly correct end even relevant rhimes (supposing sufficiently informative input) but it wouldn't be art (I am affraid). The reason for that will be that that he cannot associate with the element/state of being a human being. Mind interacts frequently with this fact (and related emotions). My point was that mind brought the universe out of causality, because it can act without a cause. (I cannot believe that my thinking was predetemined at the Big Bang. It seem that not many share this view - but I can live with that.)

How do you define art, ProCop?

I have personally written aritificially intelligent systems that are capable of "listening" to the works of a musician, say, Beethoven, and recognizing the important qualities, such as tonality patterns, volume envelopes, rhythmic phrases, and so on. Note that the system was neural; it was not programmed to do anything specific. (i.e. it had no domain knowledge.) It was programmed to be able to associate a new piece of music with its most likely composer, that's all. It was given many examples to listen to, and its weight matrix was refined over the course of many such listenings until it was able to properly recognize all of the examples. Amazingly, after this training period, the network was able to properly identify the composer of pieces it had never heard before.

In fact, it's not really possible to know exactly why the weight matrix of my network was capable of discerning Bach from Beethoven, but surely enough it was. This system won me my first international science fair grand award, in my sophomore year of high school.

The next year, I made the system operate "backwards." I supplied some random seeds, and had a (modified) network operate backwards, producing patterns that were then used directly to construct harmonies and voicings and rhythmic structures and so on.

The surprising part of it was that trained musicians (a panel of band teachers in my school district) were able to say quite conclusively that a given computer-generated piece "sure did sound like Bach" or was "definitely Beethovenesque."

Were the works of Beethoven and Bach not already well known in their entirety, I don't think I would have had much trouble convincing someone that the computer-generated pieces were indeed written by those great composers. This project won my second international science fair grand award, in my junior year of high school.

So ProCop, clearly, it is not true that only humans are capable of producing what other humans would call "art." Art is a subjective term. My computer-generated pieces, by many peoples' reckoning, were just as much "art" as were their human-generated peers. It just happens that Bach and Beethoven had some slightly different patterns in their brains, which led them to write their music in their distinct styles.

The more we study the brain, the more we realize it is just a machine -- a fantastically complex and intricate machine -- but just a machine, nonetheless. There is no "life force" that somehow sets it apart from any other physical machine.

- Warren

wow chroot. that s cool as hell. and in high school, no less! impressive.

Wow, chroot, that's cool.

I'm currently working on a broadbased AI program myself. Unlike expert systems, my program won't be limited to a specific field.

Hopefully, it'll be finished soon so that I can take my rightfull place as the most powerful man in the world. :)

Tom

So ProCop, clearly, it is not true that only humans are capable of producing what other humans would call "art." Art is a subjective term. My computer-generated pieces, by many peoples' reckoning, were just as much "art" as were their human-generated peers. It just happens that Bach and Beethoven had some slightly different patterns in their brains, which led them to write their music in their distinct styles.

The programs you described probably copied some patterns of the composer and did some rearangements so that a sort of "new" piece was presented. I never heard a computer composition that would be of its own, not a " variation" on some real composer. If it is as good, why do we not have a succesful computer-created hit?



The more we study the brain, the more we realize it is just a machine -- a fantastically complex and intricate machine -- but just a machine, nonetheless. There is no "life force" that somehow sets it apart from any other physical machine.

Yeah I see what’s trendy around here: Christianity is a bad chosen strategy in a tit for tat game, art is easily produced by a machine, it seems I won’t be able to prove my point unless I provide a miracle, something unexplainable by natural laws and still evidently existing. For a moment I thougth I could put the universe forward as a miracle, but no, around here it would be considered a cheap trick….

Originally posted by ProCop
The programs you described probably copied some patterns of the composer and did some rearangements so that a sort of "new" piece was presented. I never heard a computer composition that would be of its own, not a " variation" on some real composer. If it is as good, why do we not have a succesful computer-created hit?
How many composers have created compositions that are truly independent of preceding composers? Mmm? Name one.
Yeah I see what’s trendy around here: Christianity is a bad chosen strategy in a tit for tat game, art is easily produced by a machine, it seems I won’t be able to prove my point unless I provide a miracle, something unexplainable by natural laws and still evidently existing. For a moment I thougth I could put the universe forward as a miracle, but no, around here it would be considered a cheap trick….
Yes, your point that the brain is "miraculous" would need to be backed up my "miraculous" evidence. You have thus far presented none.

- Warren

Yes, your point that the brain is "miraculous" would need to be backed up my "miraculous" evidence. You have thus far presented none.

Well I have presented some indirect evidence. Mind can eg. be an item which principally resides in an another dimension. In the USA click test was made, where volunteers had to click the mouse when they felt like it. The brains of these volunteers were closely electronically observed. It came out that some time before they felt the impuls to click the mouse an impuls went through their brain (the wish to click came later). It can be then that the mind is controlled "out of sight of the human brain".



How many composers have created compositions that are truly independent of preceding composers? Mmm? Name one.

Janacek?

It came out that some time before they felt the impuls to click the mouse an impuls went through their brain (the wish to click came later). It can be then that the mind is controlled "out of sight of the human brain".

I am not sure that i can follow your path of reasoning. The impuls they measured could be the result of neurons firing in the brain, which in turn could lead to the firing of neurons responsible for moving the finger and echoing the wish in the "consciouness" (i am a bit uncomfortable using this term, as i can hardly define consciousness). As far as i can see, it does not necessarily introduce an entity outside that of the brain.

As far as i can see, it does not necessarily introduce an entity outside that of the brain.

Well it was just a speculation: the impuls to click was registered electronically before the person got the wish. My question is then: If I do not primarily think mine thougths what is it that does think my thoughts before I start to think them. If my thougts were determined in the Big Bang (an entity outside of the brain?) then it my be that I "get the wish" to click because I only follow the mechnic trail of the totally determinate universe.

Originally posted by ProCop
Well I have presented some indirect evidence. Mind can eg. be an item which principally resides in an another dimension. In the USA click test was made, where volunteers had to click the mouse when they felt like it. The brains of these volunteers were closely electronically observed. It came out that some time before they felt the impuls to click the mouse an impuls went through their brain (the wish to click came later). It can be then that the mind is controlled "out of sight of the human brain".
This might be the dumbest "evidence" you've ever brought to the table. So the fact that a person's brain is responsible for making their fingers push a button is evidence that the brain is some supernatural engine driven by supernatural forces?

There are many systems which display such random behavior, ProCop -- atomic nuclei, turbulent fluid flows, Foucault pendula, simple waterwheels driven by precisely regulated fluid flows, you name it. None of these systems require (or even suggest) some spooky supernatural force.

- Warren

If I do not primarily think mine thougths what is it that does think my thoughts before I start to think them

I would argue that nothing thinks your thoughts before you do. They need not to exist before your brain can think of them. What you do need for a thought seems to be a certain collection of neurons, which are made active thanks to a specific situation.

If my thougts were determined in the Big Bang (an entity outside of the brain?) then it my be that I "get the wish" to click because I only follow the mechnic trail of the totally determinate universe.

Whether or not the universe is determinable i can not answer. Perhaps, this is more thoroughly covered in the thread absolute randomness, is it possible? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13426)

This might be the dumbest "evidence" you've ever brought to the table. So the fact that a person's brain is responsible for making their fingers push a button is evidence that the brain is some supernatural engine driven by supernatural forces?

Dumb ideas do not appall me at all (as you may have noticed). Let me bring in some metaphysics. eg. Plato: There is a realm of ideas, and this world (the universe) is a projection of these ideas. (the science takes the opposite vieuw: there is an universe and science translates it into ideas/concepts/maths (to understand it)). So both approaches recognise the existence of both "realms" ("ideas" and "reality") The brain principally "translates" the reality into ideas/concepts/maths because its mental part operates on that level. The ideas behind the reality exist independent of it (if there was not the real physical world, there still would be a theorethical possibility of such a world). (eg. the Theory of Relativity" is not an ïnvention but a description of the behaviour of the universe. If this theory is true than it has already existed in reality and Einstain discovered it)The ideas in the brain can then be a relection of this conceptual universe in interaction with the real thing. Therefore I am not speaking over some "suppernatural engine" by introducing the klick test because something happens in the brain (outside the part of the brain which the person controls) and then an idea comes: "let's klick". So there is a concept of the universe, it "lives" according to this concept, and physics attempts to discover this concept. Science's basic input is observation, while art's is inspiration. But it is only on the scale of dominance that observation and inspiration work like that. Both play significant role in both science and art.

(By the way, computer didn't produce a "hit" in music because you cannot program inspiration in AI. Computer's sphere of significance is in observation and clasification of observation: your program "observed" the way Bethoven and Brahms composed their music and on basis of this observation produced something similair - its a copy-machine and nothing more.)

Originally posted by ProCop
(By the way, computer didn't produce a "hit" in music because you cannot program inspiration in AI. Computer's sphere of significance is in observation and clasification of observation: your program "observed" the way Bethoven and Brahms composed their music and on basis of this observation produced something similair - its a copy-machine and nothing more.)
Who says a computer can't innovate? You continue to press these ideas that you have -- and they're wrong. You haven't even begun to understand artificial intelligence, yet you believe you know all the answers.

In my music network, I could have applied some temperature and altered the weight matrix a bit. Out would come some type of music that resembles no known composer. How is this not innovation?

Genetic algorithms have been applied to many, many kinds of problems. The solutions created by the algorithms are often so bizarre (and sometimes so elegant) that no human had ever come close to a similar solution. How is this not innovation?

The bottom line is that you can't quantify a concept like "innovation" or "inspiration" and use it in an argument. Computers can produce music for you that you've never heard, and art that you've never seen. If no one told you, you wouldn't be able to tell that the music and art was made by a machine, not by a person. There is no fundamental difference. This is proof that there is no merit in any proposition about "innovation" or "inspiration."

You continue to assert that brains and physical machines are different -- yet you've provided nothing but opinions to support that claim. On the other hand, I have produced specific examples that demonstrate how machines can pass for brains.

Why do you continue to hold to your little pet theory? What justification do you have, other than your heart-felt and deep-seated opinions?

- Warren

On this theme, any of you catch the new SciAm? The reason I ask is because they have an article in there about genetic algorithms that, for the most part, is just pretty cusory.

However, they have a table in there of patented inventions by humans that have been found again by genetic algorithms.

As the article claims, it may not by a Turing test, but these results show that GAs are passing the test for intelligence required by the U.S. patent.


And if ever we were in the infancy of something.....

As the article claims, it may not by a Turing test, but these results show that GAs are passing the test for intelligence required by the U.S. patent.

Impressive! But still far from writing the equivalent of Beethoven' s 9th symphony. But isn't it that these GA produse a great number of possible sollutions, and this is then compared to the db of pattents (and a small % found?). ( Because computers can produce bilions of possibilities in a second - it would take the human mind to sort it out - in other words these GA "pattents" would they have been recognised as inventions <b> before</b> the comparition with the DB of patents?)

What justification do you have, other than your heart-felt and deep-seated opinions?


I am doing nothing else than trying to compare objects and concepts. EG. by US Mensa Society a list of one hondred most inteligent people through out the history was made (based on judging the way of reasoning inventivity and so on) The first place got Goethe, and Einstain wasn't in the first ten. So my bringing in a broader perspective is based on broader horizont which I apply in my thinking. For me eg. Shakespeare was as inteligent and innovative as Einstain and his ideas ware as pervasive into the way we live as the insights from science. Both matter for me. I would like to know the coordinates of the universe as much as I want to understant a "good life" a manner to live, an answer about the meaning of life. (George Stainer said that the answer on the question about the sense of a person's existence the person answers by the story of his/her life. I want my answer to be as close as possible to what I am - and not what I could or should be in the eyes of others.)

You're right, it's no Beethoven's 9th. But I know I couldn't write Beethoven's 9th and I've heard the darn thing! Beethoven is a pretty high bar. I'd be happy if those programs could write "This Land is Your Land." (No offense to Mr. Guthrie.)


The main hurdles at the moment are computer power and methods of programming. While it's yet to be shown that an amazing piece of art can be produced, we've barely scratched the surface on these kind of things. (Note: I would also try to define what you'd accept as proof as a creative act; but that's neither here nor there.)



Originally posted by ProCop
But isn't it that these GA produse a great number of possible sollutions, and this is then compared to the db of pattents (and a small % found?).


Well, yes and no. In the process, they do produce a lot of possible solutions, but then those solutions are paired down without human influence until an good solution is found. It's not that different than a human trying out diferent ideas, the programs can just do it faster and more extensively.

(Well, there is a human influence in that humans decide what it means to be good. But in a sense, this is only necessary for getting the program to produce something useful to us. If the goal was randomly chosen, the GA would still (probably) produce a solution.)



I'm not saying AI is here. I'm just saying that these kind of things look really promising.

Well, yes and no. In the process, they do produce a lot of possible solutions, but then those solutions are paired down without human influence until an good solution is found. It's not that different than a human trying out diferent ideas, the programs can just do it faster and more extensively.

Well it is very different from about 10 years ago. Than the computers had a valuation mark for the quality of input(source). If the quality of the input source was very low (less 10% answers right) it was put on status "ignore". The "self-thinking" programs of "then" put their own input (meaning the conclusions the programs themselves made) on this non-thrustworthy status and it got still in the AI. Glad to hear that it's moving again.

The "self-thinking" programs of "then" put their own input (meaning the conclusions the programs themselves made) on this non-thrustworthy status

That only makes perfect sense... i do not trust myself either ;)

chroot:

How would you rate your self-awareness, and why? I only ask be you're quite intriguing to me, almost something of an enigma. I see you seem to share some of the analytical aspects of thinking. Yet, you seem to lack, and even contrast, what I consider to be the most important drives. You seem to delite in the accumulation of knowledge, but defer the perfection of understanding. It would seem you take pleasure in complexities, but miss the beauty of their simplicity? Why do you do the things that you do? If you take pleasure in music, why? An what is the pleasure of it? You seem to embrace the utilization of the application of logic, but detest the prinicples of reason. How are these things? What is the purpose of your thought? An by what are actions justified?

Don't mean to side track the topic, but I see these as things you need to address to yourself if you're to offer anything competent to the "discussions".

Originally posted by Binary
How would you rate your self-awareness, and why? ... but I see these as things you need to address to yourself if you're to offer anything competent to the "discussions".
I defer the perfection of understanding? I detest the principles of reason?

When did I start soliciting personal counseling from mental patients like you? I suppose I should find it flattering that you're fixated enough on me to psychoanalyze me. Just the same, I'd rather you keep your opinions of my "faults" to yourself.

- Warren

Making a conceptual picture of the universe may be difficult job even for the suppercomputers of tomorrow: the problem is, do the systems which we use to describe the universe and its elements have enough mental/abstract space/capacity for such a description? (Eg . concepts as infinity, probability, curved space, black holes etc.) There may be a relation between the curved space, curved mental space and curved sign systems. If the universe is closed in its unescapable curved space, then our mind can be closed in an unescapable domain of sign systems (eg. language, maths, etc). Are these systems qualified to conceptualise the physical world. - Sometimes, looking into the space in the night far from the lights of the city I have a range of states-of-minds/feelings which would make me ridiculous if I tried to describe them in eg. language. Maybe it's the sign systems (thus not the mind) who keep us away from more knowledge about the physical world. It may be that the mind is capable of much deeper insights, but doesnt have a conceptual tool/sign system to do so. That's possibly the next frontier.

Originally posted by ProCop
Let me summerise some basic known elements of the universe:

Cathegories:

1 mass/energy, space, time
2 laws, constants (passive)
3 ideas (active)


You ignored 'matter'. Mass/Energy are a properties of matter.
Ideas are not fundamental -- you need to step back further. The appearance of 'ideas' subsumes a whole framework of Mind, which has no current explanation what-so-ever. The best we can do is say that complex systems lead to 'emergent' properties, but this isn't saying much at all.


Generally it is supposed that ideas have no mass. How come that ideas (massless) can influence mass? (eg. some rivers were directed to more convenient direction based on the idea of convienience). Is not this massless element a major factor in physics which may totaly redirect the course of the universe? It seems that this element is carefully avoided in physics, its attention is more directed to eg. gravity while (undeniably) thinking is probably as influential as other forces which physics carefully studies. (I mean thinking not as psychology but as a force)

You are speculating on the properties of a speculative (possibly un-provable) concept. The existence of 'thought' must first be proven to be correct by some form of independent experiment -- I can think of none besides the infamous assertion "I think therefore I am" (Descartes). But we are treading philosophical ground here that is based on logical inference and the assumption that "I think" -- of which we haven't proven the existence of "I" nor that this I "thinks". Next, the difference between this level of 'thought' and the processing that takes place in the hardwiring of the brain needs to be established or differentiated. In all honesty, you have to begin at the assumption that we are reactionary and that there is no "free will" per se -- i.e., meat machines. You can't physically provide evidence for "free will". (Doesn't mean I don't believe in a soul or free will, but there isn't any physical evidence to unify these types of things at this point in time). On the opposite end, there is really no independent proof for the existence of the physical universe (think about that for a second).
:eek:

Originally posted by ProCop
[B]Making a conceptual picture of the universe may be difficult job even for the suppercomputers of tomorrow: the problem is, do the systems which we use to describe the universe and its elements have enough mental/abstract space/capacity for such a description? ...

Alright, before you go off in speculation; have you read any of the (at least 'general') stuff by Godel? or Turing? :eek:

You are speculating on the properties of a speculative (possibly un-provable) concept. The existence of 'thought' must first be proven to be correct by some form of independent experiment -- I can think of none besides the infamous assertion "I think therefore I am" (Descartes).

I can easily prove thought exists: I can translate my thoughts into a computer program and let the computer program move objects eg. print something. The software which I make does contain my ideas (it is not heavier than the paper+inkt (prove that the ideas are mass-less)) and can move matter (if I program it print "A" it wil print "A".


In all honesty, you have to begin at the assumption that we are reactionary and that there is no "free will" per se -- i.e., meat machines. You can't physically provide evidence for "free will". (Doesn't mean I don't believe in a soul or free will, but there isn't any physical evidence to unify these types of things at this point in time).

Existence/possibility of free will can be easily coupled with the possibility of randomness. If there is true randommnes then there is free will. You can again test probability concepts on a computer and these will probably not prove but indicate that true randomness is possible, thus free will too.

On the opposite end, there is really no independent proof for the existence of the physical universe (think about that for a second).

What you believe to exists, exists. Many people belive in physical universe.

Originally posted by ProCop
Good point. Ideas are not completely unpredictable. There is some constraint on ideas, by the reality on/of which they reflect/are reflections of. There are well different possibilities. The choice of a special possibility/scenario is not (fully) predictable. Eg. the choise of the next US president, may influence many physical processes in the physical world. But the choice is not predetermined, it is based on free will of the American people. I think the universe lost its predictability with the advent of mind.

What follows is a LARGE amount of PURE speculation based on some simple assumptions on my part ... be warned ... What I present here is not published anywhere, nor does it have any completeness... It represents my view and my view only...

One could argue that the formation of "thoughts" and "ideas" are stochastic processes in which there is no real 'free-will'. Free will assumes that your choice is independent of past experience as well as any external influence -- that is you can still choose to do something regardless of any inputs that you may receive contrary without 'biasing' you towards a particular choice. If there is bias, then how can there be 'truly' free-will?

Furthermore, going back to the concept of 'ideas' -- can we really think of an idea that is not some form of a previous thought?

If we assume that all ideas are a result of something we have previously 'experienced', then we can store these 'experiences' as 'states'. Consider a big state-transition matrix that constantly expands in size to accomodate each new 'state' that we record in the world through our sensory organs as a function of time (so this matrix, expands ad infinitum for our foreseeable lifetime, or until our brains explode, whichever happens first).

Let us also assume that each time we re-visit an old state (memory or experience), this increases the future probability of re-visiting that state.

Now, the total number of states is a function of the total number of discrete 'experiences' (are memories and experiences really discrete? who knows) in the form of 'integrated sensory stimuli' that we receive at any given moment in 'time'. By 'integrated sensory stimuli' I am referring to some 'hyperstate' that corresponds to the 'whole' percept of touch, taste, smell, sight, etc. that is integrated instantaneously (for each moment we 'record' from the individual sensors) into a single 'state'.

So now, in this model, a 'train' of thoughts might correspond to a sequence of state-to-state transitions between the memories/experiences (which are the so-called 'integrated sensory stimuli' I talked about above.). Assuming that we've had N such memories or experiences, there would be N^2 such transitions possible in the matrix, or if we assume that a state just visited cannot be immediately visited, N(N-1) such transitions are possible.

Of course, if we now expand this matrix so that all 'combinations' of 'integrated sensory stimuli' become potential 'new states' this provides a framework for having 'new ideas' based on 'previous experienced states' which are not in any one of the previous states, but can be some combination of pairs or triples or quadruplets (and so on) of previous 'integrated sensory stimuli' states.

We could represent the number of such 'pairs' as (N(N-1))or 'triplets' as (N(N-1)(N-2)) or 'quadruplets' as (N(N-1)(N-2)(N-3))and so on (ad infinitum).

If we had say N integrated sensory stimuli, then there would be a possible N(N-1) possible revisitations of 'previous' states, and N(N-1)+ (N(N-1))+(N(N-1)(N-2)) + (N(N-1)(N-2)(N-3))...and so on... and on and on...

Now if we add a random noise process that arbitrarily 'samples' the ever-expanding matrix above, we have a model that will 'mimic' how thoughts/ideas evolve from one thought to the next in a markovian sort of way; under the 'assumption' that all thoughts are recycled (i.e., we cannot have thoughts that we have not had corresponding physical experience with). I haven't thought this through to the point where I can say anything about thoughts that have NO prior cause -- but this is another open question -- has anyone really ever had a thought/idea that has never been 'thought' before, or cannot be 'pieced together' from previous thoughts? One obvious thing about the model above is that its grows without any bounds if we assume that there are no constraints on the types of 'ideas' that one can have. Such a model is ridiculous if one is looking for something 'succinct' -- but it may be useful as a practical 'algorithm' for designing say a 'robot' or 'computer' that would 'memorize' states and use them to develop 'thinking processes'. Of course, you'd have to have an extremely cleverly designed (i.e., compact yet large capacity) memory system to accomodate an ever-expanding transition matrix as described.

... I don't know where my imagined excercise/ramble is taking me but i'm falling asleep, so I will stop at this point lucky for you all... :D

I was trying to grasp this some time ago, if I understand your point. That we are not truly free to engage a vast system in thought at once; we break things down into tiny pieces to gain understanding of the whole. The best mathematics are true everywhere, but they are not reality.

I suppose mathematics are a way to gain insight to what something feels like, smells like, or looks like, as much as our own physical senses.

No, I don't think we have the resources to grasp the concept of the Universe as a whole, but we understand it better one baby-step at a time. No idea is original, but some of us have the ability to link many thoughts together into a chain of comprehension that reaches far into the unpredictable world of reality. Art can be <i>almost</i> abstract; science is very rarely abstract, but in some ways science is definitely an art? Vice Versa?

The idea of 'micro-chip' seems completely removed from Thomas Edison's light bulb, but it was only a matter of time before electricity grew into a vast science.

Very interesting thought, thanks for bringing it up, again. (Mi Casa, Su Casa)

Originally posted by ProCop
I can easily prove thought exists: I can translate my thoughts into a computer program and let the computer program move objects eg. print something. The software which I make does contain my ideas (it is not heavier than the paper+inkt (prove that the ideas are mass-less)) and can move matter (if I program it print "A" it wil print "A".


That doesn't prove thought exists. First prove that the computer exists, then the printer, then the paper on which you printed, etc. ad infinitum. You can't prove the existence of a 'physical universe' since all your measurements must be 'processed' by your 'sensory organs'. These sensory organs then take their data and shove them into your brain, and somehow this brain processes this stuff into a 'mind' which cognizes everything. However, if the physical universe can only be observed by a 'mind' whose very existence is 'within' the physical universe -- there's a problem of circular referencing here. I don't know if i've made my point clear -- but a 'mind' that exists within a physical universe which exists within the mind -- which of these is 'real' and which is 'unreal'??? it's basically like the chicken and the egg problem in that we don't know the correct hierarchy of things.


Existence/possibility of free will can be easily coupled with the possibility of randomness. If there is true randommnes then there is free will. You can again test probability concepts on a computer and these will probably not prove but indicate that true randomness is possible, thus free will too.


No; you don't understand the word 'randomness' then -- how can a random event (in time) be 'causal' in any sense of the word? A random event implies that the probability of any state of the system is equal to the probability of any other state within that same system. Random implies that the past has no relation to the future. Therefore, you cannot place a constraint on it and say that it is 'free' or 'random' (you can constrain the total number of possible states, but you cannot constrain their order of occurence or it wouldn't be random; the analogy would be a white noise process -- you can constrain the amplitudes to be 'gaussian', but you cannot constrain their 'ordering'). However, i'm somewhat sleepy so I may be fudging up my definition inadvertently, beware.


What you believe to exists, exists. Many people belive in physical universe.


It's questionable that if "I" believe in something, then it must exist -- when even the existence of the believer, namely "I", is in question. You don't grasp the depth of what i'm saying here, and I apologize that i'm unable to verbalize something that is quite obvious to me as a blatant paradox on the concept of 'existence' itself. I think in the end the best we can ever really do is say "I think therefore I am" and nothing more. :)

Many-states mind makes me think of many-states universe. You brought up/implied very interesting point: many-states mind reflects many-states universe in a manipulative way (that's why we have science). How is this manipulated IQ, what is the presence (of the mind) how it is "stated" (transfered in state) I think your memory basis for new ideas will not do, what was the process in the memory/brain/mind of Madamme Curie when she saw the print of the key on the plate?

*sigh* Again, that is not a valid example. Re-read what I have written and carefully rethink what you are saying. Not going to argue this point further. :m:

Also, I never proposed any 'many states mind'. I proposed that thought is a series of events that are linked by probabilistic state-to-state transitions, where each state is dependent upon the available store of experiences one has previously encountered. This also has nothing to do with multi-verses. I don't have the background to argue about the existence or absence of multi-verses. Its a cool idea; whether it is neccessary or true is a different question. :eek:

Finally, what is IQ? (its not some fundamental property of 'mind' if that's what you're thinking... its an arbitrary test which is questionably useful). The concept of what is 'intelligent' is also fundamentally arbitrary and depends on what constitutes an intelligent behavior.

forget the "many states" mind

Finally, what is IQ? (its not some fundamental property of 'mind' if that's what you're thinking... its an arbitrary test which is questionably useful). The concept of what is 'intelligent' is also fundamentally arbitrary and depends on what constitutes an intelligent behavior.

Speed of thinking. You rightly ask how speed of thinking / falls into the states scheme. Speed kan be caused by faster neurons in HIQ (the same organisation of states) or by superior organization of states (the same speed of neurons) in HIQ.
Markov's scheme would put IQ in the speed of neurons. I do not. I think HIQ states the cognition differently.

where and how can you possibly come up with all this procop?

Originally posted by ProCop
Speed of thinking. You rightly ask how speed of thinking / falls into the states scheme. Speed kan be caused by faster neurons in HIQ (the same organisation of states) or by superior organization of states (the same speed of neurons) in HIQ.
Markov's scheme would put IQ in the speed of neurons. I do not. I think HIQ states the cognition differently.


Ok, if you can't know what a thought is -- there's no way you can 'quantify' speed of thinking. This makes no sense again. There's no such things as "faster neurons" -- yes, they vary their firing rates, but this isn't related to "speed of thinking". Markov's scheme? No, the idea above was 'my scheme', using a Markov like process. What is "HIQ"? You keep adding new terms each time you post. What the hell. Where are you going with all this? Where did this come from?

This must be proof that my entire model of thought based on state-to-state transitions is completely wrong -- because your transitions have no link what-so-ever.

:confused:

GDW, i suggest you do a search of all posts by procop ( http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=6277 ) before getting into it too heavy.

One of his better theories was "the DVD universe".

Markov's scheme? No, the idea above was 'my scheme', using a Markov like process. What is "HIQ"? You keep adding new terms each time you post. What the hell. Where are you going with all this? Where did this come from?


(by HIQ I mean High Inteligence Quocient - can't you read?)

<b>Your</b> scheme sux because how come that people are different intelligent. HIQs can remember much more then AIQs (average) (was tested). In your markov based scheme you'r ignoring this, your people have the same IQ your model does not comform reality test.

Crackpot Test (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html )
Who wants to do the math?

Originally posted by ProCop
(by HIQ I mean High Inteligence Quocient - can't you read?)

<b>Your</b> scheme sux because how come that people are different intelligent. HIQs can remember much more then AIQs (average) (was tested). In your markov based scheme you'r ignoring this, your people have the same IQ your model does not comform reality test.


People are differently intellgent because there's this thing called laziness that prevents certain people from ever opening a real textbook and learning the basics. There may be slight genetic variation, but i'm quite sure its nurture and not nature. Fundamentally, there is no such thing as a genius; just as there is no such thing as an idiot. There are such people however who "don't listen" and "don't think things through". ;)

People are differently intellgent because there's this thing called laziness that prevents certain people from ever opening a real textbook and learning the basics. There may be slight genetic variation, but i'm quite sure its nurture and not nature. Fundamentally, there is no such thing as a genius; just as there is no such thing as an idiot. There are such people however who "don't listen" and "don't think things through".

Not true. IQ is "given" (you cannot encrease it)(Differs greatly in gen. population 40-170). Your model is an unsuficient storage room. It holds the info/memories as a kind of "movie"/state. You have to rewind it all per every search. You yourself must be able tto see it won't do. Whats more the mind filtering reality/states does not need memory. Reality is memory. Mind just makes a couple of (differrentlyn filtered) steps back.

Originally posted by ProCop
Not true. IQ is "given" (you cannot encrease it)(Differs greatly in gen. population 40-170). Your model is an unsuficient storage room. It holds the info/memories as a kind of "movie"/state. You have to rewind it all per every search. You yourself must be able tto see it won't do. Whats more the mind filtering reality/states does not need memory. Reality is memory. Mind just makes a couple of (differrentlyn filtered) steps back.


You don't understand:
(1) my model
(2) markov processes
(3) mind
(4) IQ
(5) filtering

Without this understanding, you really can't argue anything. :bugeye:

You don't understand:
(1) my model
(2) markov processes
(3) mind
(4) IQ
(5) filtering

Without this understanding, you really can't argue anything.


I have some intuitive understanding. Here I learnt that I must test my "intuitivity" against the true state of the things. That's what I am doing/trying to do. (I told you what I think about referencing earlier.) Though, my intuitivity brought out an untestable theory. (You mentioned having something similair (ever) in mind but droping it because it was not possible to prove.) I am not of such opinion (yet). e.g. Everett theory is not provable too. You may be right in stating that what I do is more philosophy than science (but still its basis is a quantum experiment).

You do not get what filtering is.(Speaking of a model from an another thread: the domino hall is reality <b> and</b> memory. Why would you memorize anything? The Universe is your memory).

Originally posted by ProCop
I have some intuitive understanding. Here I learnt that I must test my "intuitivity" against the true state of the things. That's what I am doing/trying to do. (I told you what I think about referencing earlier.) Though, my intuitivity brought out an untestable theory. (You mentioned having something similair (ever) in mind but droping it because it was not possible to prove.) I am not of such opinion (yet). e.g. Everett theory is not provable too. You may be right in stating that what I do is more philosophy than science (but still its basis is a quantum experiment).

You do not get what filtering is.(Speaking of a model from an another thread: the domino hall is reality <b> and</b> memory. Why would you memorize anything? The Universe is your memory).


You have to whittle it down before you can call it a theory or a model or anything else. Too many jumps and leaps which are only 'continuous' in your own mind. Slow yourself down.

I don't know what you mean by:
(1) Everett theory
(2) Quantum experiment
(3) domino hall

And no, I do get what filtering is. My area of research deals with analysis of time-series, I use filters quite regularly. Thank you. :rolleyes:

Also, for the last time IQ does not exist, its a measure that is not rigorous at all; its not a physical object that you can grasp, for example.

Originally posted by ProCop
Not true. IQ is "given" (you cannot encrease it)(Differs greatly in gen. population 40-170). Your model is an unsuficient storage room. It holds the info/memories as a kind of "movie"/state. You have to rewind it all per every search. You yourself must be able tto see it won't do. Whats more the mind filtering reality/states does not need memory. Reality is memory. Mind just makes a couple of (differrentlyn filtered) steps back. Well no... IQ isn't "given". IQ can decrease when you're inactive mentally for a few months, and can increase with practice of the types of questions posed. While there may be a "given" portion of intelligence it can not be seperated by "learned intelligence" using any current technique.

Well no... IQ isn't "given". IQ can decrease when you're inactive mentally for a few months, and can increase with practice of the types of questions posed. While there may be a "given" portion of intelligence it can not be seperated by "learned intelligence" using any current technique.

No, also (some) very small children have eg. high IQ start to speak early (can read at 2 years old) etc. You can <b>score</b> higher in IQ test if you train for it. (Training/mental activity has to do more with the testing than with IQ) People cannot influence their IQ but their knowledge well. (There are truck drivers with 160 IQ and scientist with 120 IQ) eg. only appr. 1/3 of HIQ >140 has college or higher education. Appr. 1/3 of HIQ dont know about being in that group, it is discovered accidentally, eg. after an injury etc.

Originally posted by ProCop
No, also (some) very small children have eg. high IQ start to speak early (can read at 2 years old) etc. You can <b>score</b> higher in IQ test if you train for it. (Training/mental activity has to do more with the testing than with IQ) People cannot influence their IQ but their knowledge well. (There are truck drivers with 160 IQ and scientist with 120 IQ) eg. only appr. 1/3 of HIQ >140 has college or higher education. Appr. 1/3 of HIQ dont know about being in that group, it is discovered accidentally, eg. after an injury etc.

You don't know that. Generally, truck drivers don't waste their time taking IQ tests. There could be an einstein of a truck driver out there who just isn't interested. period. IQ means nothing. :m:

IQ means nothing.

Now you have offended a whole discipline of science (psychology)who thinks differently about the IQ. The info was from a Mensa site.

Originally posted by ProCop
Now you have offended a whole discipline of science (psychology)who thinks differently about the IQ. The info was from a Mensa site.


I work in conjunction with several psychologists, neuroscientists, and other professional scientists, and what I stated is well understood by most people who have been trained as scientists. I insulted / offended no one, except for perhaps you who after having spent a few hours in the public library reading "psychology for beginners", thinks you know something about what you are talking about. Anyhow, go spend a little more time thinking about what you mean and what you are saying.

ps1. Mensa is just an organization -- they are not the gods of psychology.

ps2. I work in a neuroscience lab. :m:

Originally posted by ProCop
Now you have offended a whole discipline of science (psychology)who thinks differently about the IQ. The info was from a Mensa site. Mensa, an organization you pay to tell you that you are smart.

(not 'you' persay, but 'you' who become members)

Some people make very few mistakes. They take the time to get it right the first time. Some get it right faster than others. Those who think faster generally have better nueral response times, i.e., reflexes. Many great atheletes are very 'intelligent' people. They focus on athleticism. Human kinetics becomes thier primary venue, and they excel because they are intelligent and have great reflexes. Of course, they have the physical attributes to match the sport they compete in.

A person that thinks 20 percent slower might be quite ingenious. I score fairly high on IQ tests, but I've been lazy in recent years. It shows in my mishandling of mathematical models, where I have not taken the time to get it right. During the last weeks, a good warmup has produced tangible results; inactivity leads to a dull mind.

I agree partly with Gundamwing, that IQ means little.
But, I agree partly with ProCop, that IQ can mean something, especially as an astronaut or fighter pilot, etc.., where lighting reflexes and a quick wit can make the difference between life and death.

Originally posted by Fluidity
Some people make very few mistakes. They take the time to get it right the first time. Some get it right faster than others. Those who think faster generally have better nueral response times, i.e., reflexes. Many great atheletes are very 'intelligent' people. They focus on athleticism. Human kinetics becomes there primary venue, and they excel because they are intelligent and have great reflexes. Of course, they have the physical attributes to match the sport they compete in.

A person that thinks 20 percent slower might be quite ingenious. I score fairly high on IQ tests, but I've been lazy in recent years. It shows in my mishandling of mathematical models, where I have not taken the time to get it right. During the last weeks, a good warmup has produced tangible results; inactivity leads to a dull mind.

I agree partly with Gundamwing, that IQ means little.
But, I agree partly with ProCop, that IQ can mean something, especially as an astronaut or fighter pilot, etc.., where lighting reflexes and a quick wit can make the difference between life and death.

I concede that conceptually it could be 'useful' to categorize people as 'intelligent' to varying 'degrees'. However, in practice, we find that without a useful definition for 'intelligence' this is nearly impossible. The brain is too complex, too dynamic, and too rich, to be characterized by a single number. What is the 'IQ' for an idiot-savant? What was Einstein's IQ? What is a computer's IQ (I bet you could program a computer to solve most of the Mensa problems/questions algorithmically much faster than a human being)? If you are testing for procedural knowledge, that isn't necessarily an indicator of 'intelligence'.

With that said, my point stands -- IQ is meaningless.