Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by fess, Nov 13, 2008.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
i feel i am nagging you to elaborate
a fucking machine!
If that was the case then we wouldn't be able to detect superpositions in double-slit experiments... but we most certainly can.
A superposition will collapse into the most probable state once an observer (a system capable of accepting information) tries to pinpoint the particle. Some observers (like the photosensitive screen in a double slit experiment) don't result in collapse because they don't try to define the particle's position. The result is that it gets hit by multiple particle clones at multiple points.
I would love to see you 'address' a brain without it.
Fortunately I have one of my own so I can Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
These all require experiencers.
Sometimes information is used as a metaphor in other ways.
For example. Look around your room. Within a fraction of a nanosecond, there were a bunch of photons headed straight for your eyes which didn't actually get there yet. Until they hit your eyes they are unobserved information Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Without stimulus there is no perception for the experiences. That external stimulus is the information.
seems like they are just photons. what is informed by them?
You're still not answering the main point. You cannot base everything you know about everything on A and then say that A is periperhal.
Good point. I am thinking raw information (i.e. data). It would become information as per your listed definitions once a system formatted it for its own use (i.e. once eyes picked it up)
I don't see where I asserted that. What I did assert (condensed version) is that sapience is a secondary effect of the brain. It is caused by physical phenomena but cannot cause physical phenomena itself.
In this particular context parsimony is choosing just what is necessary and sufficient to succeed in explaining a question.
With this I agree. While this information may not tell us anything definitively concerning the source, what it does do is indicate a source.
Not at all.
What is validated here is the model we're making use of to test our hypothesis.
1) what is a primary effect of the brain?
2) you say the mind cannot cause physical phenomena itself. can you think of any other effects that cannot cause anything?
3) the word itself, from your perspective, would be redundant, wouldn't it?
All 'information' is a kind of compression or condensation.
We compress information, by expanding something - thermodynamic expansion of 'electric charge' is directed, along "channels", something like a big graph being traversed.
When we write something on paper, we're compressing something.
We apply pressure and make marks, which are graphical - we expend energy or do work to create a 'condensed' graphical form, which is informational (is information). A drawing is a logical representation, but we only draw things because of what we 'make' in our brains - which are computations (thermodynamical, but also directed like a digital computer). Like traversing a graph.
But every compression has a corresponding expansion; in a bounded system you can only have systole or diastole, so those are the 'flows' we see (or use).
Quantum physics say that until an observer comes along, everything is in superposition where every possible option is represented.
So in the beginning perhaps the whole universe was in such a superposition until we came along and it became what it had to be in order for us to exist (and to observe it that way).
Or is this wavefunction stuff only local?
Separate names with a comma.