![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 21, 2003, at 18:56:10
In reply to What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 20, 2003, at 23:57:07
> I'm not a smart guy (I scored like a 120 on some generic internet IQ test, and only like a 21 on my act),so I don't believe I'm the right one to ponder this question, but I'll start it regardless. My question is more of an idea to be elaborated upon: Is Consciousness a universal "algorithm," if you will, that manifests as a function of time within a particular "mind-space," formed by semi-stable "solutions" (lifeforms) to the problems presented by the physical world? In other words, is self-awareness the property that defines IQ, but being that nobody learns the same way, is consciousness spread out unequally among humans? In terms of this idea of consciousness as the integral of mass interaction/communication of--In our case, neurons as logical operators--physical phenomena in a constant fashion over time, it's easy to visualize our problem.
>
> Think of a bunch of dominos standing on end arranged in a line, so as to produce "the domino effect" (as is refered to in conversation). Set this imaginary experiment in motion by knocking down the first domino. As you imagine the dominos falling one by one, you can visualize an overall function (or isomorphism) that moves each domino from a standing position to a laying down position (from a starting state to an end state). Step back and don't think of the dominos themselves, but the function over time that moves them from standing up to lying down (that you initiated in the beginning of this thought experiment). It is this form (or "shape") that travels at a constant rate from start to finnish within this line of dominos that I want to use an an analogy of consciousness. In order for it to exist, it logically must first be set in motion, but disregard that fact for now; all you need to know is that the only way it can exist is if there is an "ether" for it to travel within (in this case the dominos), and a time for it to move. Also note, this overall form is not observed in any givin picture of the entire event, it is only observed by viewing the entire system over time.
>
> Much like the above, our minds only exist in continuous time, and within an "ether" of neurons. So these two variables, N=neurons and how they are networked in our case, and T=rate of time upon which the N interact with each other are the only things that define intelligence.
>
> Think back at our analog of dominos. What would make the form (or isomorphism/function that changes each domino from a starting state to an ending sate) different? You guessed it, a difference of the two different variables N and/or T. So if you change the rate of time, the shape of the dominos falling over time will either stretch or shrink. If you change the properties of the objects that provide the "ether" or "mind'space," the form of them interacting over time will be different. In the case of the dominos, if you made the dominos lay on thier longest side, then the shape would be shorter.
>
> Going further:
> Let N = neurons in your brain
> N! = the number of possible different arrangements of neurons. As is easily understood, this is a very large number. It is possible that two people can have exactly the same personality, but improbable because it would take an ungodly large ammount of time to produce every possible arrangement of N neurons, most likely far more time than the universe will exist. Now, this is really the only factor that differs humans in intelligence from one another--arrangement and number of neurons in our brains--the rate of time upon which the neurons interact doesn't change much from person to person I think, and possibly could be the same depending on how a person defines rate of time (percieved rate vs. actual rate). But rate of time sets humans apart from other intelligence in the universe, because other solar systems than ours will most likely operate at a different rate of time due to the ammount of energy that surrounds them ie. ammount of gravity. *got off on a tangent, my how i amuse myself with math*
>
> So, what do ya think? Have I got myself into a huge misconception?
Posted by responsiblek9 on November 22, 2003, at 0:52:42
In reply to What is consciousness? « Jonny Trigonometry, posted by Dr. Bob on November 21, 2003, at 18:56:10
Sounds like the pondering of it is not rain until it hits the ground it is precipitation LOL.
You can argue it all and runs rings all around. But common sense is another thing. Tests dont measure true intelligence. What truly measures intelligence is how we use what we know. There are people who unlearned in letters who are geniouses. but of you tested them along the lines of how normal schooled people are tested with the tests . You would find him a moron. He would not know current events. Math , reading, social issues history because these are not parts of his world. But hand him what is part of his world and magic happens. This is where most tests miss. They miss the cultural differences in what people see as important. This country is too geared into tests to prove intelligence. But they miss the different types of intelligence too often. many are very hard to measure. How do you measure empathy and score it? It varies from situation to situation and also according to culture . It would be hard to but an iron clad number on it and have it even read the same from one test to another. Tests are to find out where your weak spaots are so you can work on these . And also illness and health have a lot to do with IQ test scores. if you are ill many times you score lower. And sometimes a mental illness in full cry can make a person being tested score very high and not make the same score when in good mental health. I know I have been there. And too many times I watched people who had not been educated be required to be tested on IQ when they could not understand the material. It was outside their experience. So take test scores with a grain of salt. Inventiveness and creativity are marks of genious. But most tests are geared toward memory .
Posted by Elle2021 on November 22, 2003, at 3:36:09
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by responsiblek9 on November 22, 2003, at 0:52:42
There has been some recent speculation as to whether IQ tests have any validity at all. I doubt they do. In fact, in my opinion, they forget to measure the most important type of intelligence, common sense. How would it be possible to measure common sense? It is impossible (though you can always pick out the people who are lacking it, hehe). As for what is consciousness, I suspect it is being aware of yourself and awake, a less scarier version a depersonalization. :)
Elle
Posted by pixygoth on November 22, 2003, at 6:50:13
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by Elle2021 on November 22, 2003, at 3:36:09
This is a thread worth pursuing, I think...
consciousness is clearly awareness of one's self - the question is how on earth does it turn up from what appears to science at least as purely physicality. How does mud and water "wake up"?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2003, at 11:15:06
In reply to What is consciousness? « Jonny Trigonometry, posted by Dr. Bob on November 21, 2003, at 18:56:10
Re: What is consciousness?
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 21, 2003, at 21:15:22
In reply to Re: What is consciousness? » Jonny Trigonometry, posted by Bob on November 21, 2003, at 2:40:26
> So what's your ultimate point?
No point. Just trying to see what people think. I'm also trying to understand if AI is even possible, because if it is, then won't we create a new consciousness in the process? I'm also interested in the tempting idea that the thought process itself can be described mathematically. I'm also somewhat inclined to believe that the theory of everything must also include an algorithm of consciousness, in order to get around Hiesenburg's uncertainty principle (ie. Schroudinger's cat paradox). I think if we combine fractal geometry (the other alternative to euclidian geometry as opposed to Reimann's metric tensor) with our existing equations (reletivity, quantum theory, maxwell's field equations, etc.), and describe all forces (gravity, electricity, the strong force, and the weak force) with one field equation that operates at different scales, and add in a Consciousness theory, we will have a theory of everything. It would imply ideas like parallel universes and hyperspace (after all, fractional geometry implies that an infinate number of dimentions can fit in zero dimentions and so on, so our iniverse would have the emergent property of being a single particle with dimention zero within a "higher up" dimention/universe, or as we call it "hyperspace").
I'm sorry, I got off on a HUGE tangent (i love that word), and I'm probably not on the right message board for this type of "crazy talk," or am i? Doesn't Psycho-babble mean Crazy-talk? hehe. My apologies.
--
Re: Kierkegaard, Søren- What is consciousness?
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 21, 2003, at 21:23:16
In reply to Re: Kierkegaard, Søren- What is consciousness?, posted by Stavros on November 21, 2003, at 3:12:10
> you have gone a bit too deep for me and I am all caught up in my shorts but it sounds like you would enjoy reading Kierkegaard, Søren. In cannot remember but one of his book is all about consciousness. good luck
>
>
> S
Thanks, I'll try to check that out, I could use all the help I can get.--
Re: consciousness
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 21, 2003, at 21:44:56
In reply to Re: consciousness, posted by pixygoth on November 21, 2003, at 9:50:34
> whoops I answered this post up above...
> but i like what Jonny's saying, and let me say that 1 for goodness sake 120 is a great iq
> 2 as a philosophy with lots of science and logic etc graduate I think what you're saying is actually related to a lot of stuff on the cutting edge of academe -
> complex systems theory?
> strings/ m-theory?
> Spinoza (okay pretty old and i mentioned him above but he's worth it...)
> Anyway keep thinking... it's fun, innit?
> SAhh, hehe. Yes, I was thinking of those ideas (I just read The Computational Beauty of Nature by Gary William flake, and Hyperspace by Michio Kaku). I don't have the math understanding of those ideas yet, but from my vantage point, I can tell you whats wrong with string theory. If you zoom out far enough from the universe, relative to you it doesn't have three dimentions, let alone four, and in no way could you conclude it had ten. To you, you only see a single point with dimention zero. So, dimentions change depending on where the observation takes place, and the only thing that can observe is a consciousness, hence the need to know what consciousness is.
--
Re: consciousness » Jonny Trigonometry
Posted by Bob on November 22, 2003, at 2:25:33
In reply to Re: consciousness, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 21, 2003, at 21:44:56
My take on your dimenional theory would be, just because you can't see the dimensions from a certain perspective doesn't mean they're not there. The moon looks like a flat disk, but we all know it has a third dimension of depth.
--
Re: What is consciousness? » Jonny Trigonometry
Posted by pixygoth on November 22, 2003, at 6:47:29
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 21, 2003, at 21:15:22
Jonny, if you "move away" from the universe you're still *in* it, aren't you. You can't escape entirely. And Schrodinger's paradox was just a thought experiment to show what *he* thought was wrong with Quantum Mechanics. There is no problem, he was barking up the wrong concept.
And it's not that many dimensions can go into one... many dimensions can go into a very small *space*, they are still multiple. Spinoza is good on the idea of many dimensions... obviously he wasn't talking about m-theory (by the way,. no offense, but if you don't understand the maths, surely you can't tell anyone what's wrong with it?) but his theory has lots of "dimensions" in the sense of different "modes" of being, which is very useful in this case.
As I said, keep it up, but beware of saying "what is wrong with that is...." when even the professors at MIT etc. are far from sure... (and you're not one of them, right? )
S
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 22, 2003, at 14:11:13
In reply to Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2003, at 11:15:06
You've got a good point, there is no way I can tell whats wrong with something if I don't fully understand it. I agree, there are many fundamental flaws with my arguments... I don't beleive the Theory of everything will ever be solved, but it's fun to think about. Perhaps our attitude on the subject makes it impossible to solve though, if nobody wants to see it, it will never exist. Like sackhoullier said, because of the nature of the mind, things are only as complex as you feel you want them to be.
I'm not one to say string theory is wrong, I'm just sort of reluctant to accept it because it seems too wierd... i mean 10 or 26 dimentions? why only those numbers? I've got a vaugue idea of why they used 10 though, in order to put all known equations together, they needed to make a 4x4 matrix to describe folding of space-time, and that produces 16 possible combinations, and 6 of those are duplicates. NOTE: Stop here and think, what are physicists trying to do? They are trying to show a way to describe the folding of space-time from a vantage point outside the universe. In other words, they need a non-euclidian geometry to describe the universe... Well wait a minute, the tensor isn't the only non-euclidian approach to this problem, the other approach is fractional dimensions. I have much more appeal to fractals because they show that our understanding of dimentions is very basic, and there is far more going on than we think. For example, with fractals, things can have dimentions in between the euclidian ones, so instead of things being either zero, one, two, or three dimentions, they can be anywhere in between each successive dimention. So what it means is, you can have something with a dimention of 2.332, or 1.78 instead of just 2 or 1. So that means fractal geometry has the power to explain string theory only by using 10 or 26 of it's infinate ammount of dimentions. String theory goes and assumes the universe has exactly 10 dimentions because thats the ammount it takes to describe folds in space-time. Now, I'm all for the idea, but what about things that we don't have the equipment to know they exist or not? like mini-universes as sub atomic particles? As stephen hawking proposes, there is a wave-function of the whole universe, and that would imply that (even though it would take more energy than the universe is made from) if you zoomed out far from the universe, it would look and act like a particle. It might only last for a split second from that vantage point, because the rate of time is different. Things that exist on smaller scales have a faster rate of time than things on larger scales.
String theory does support the idea of being able to "leave" the universe if one were to concentrate enough energy to escape space-time, I don't know how much energy it would take though, and I personally think that it would take more energy than that of which all of the universe is made. In effect, this idea of breaking through "space-time" is like breaking the speed of light, It is impossible with our energy. Likewise, breaking absolute zero probably requires equivilant energies. When I speak of these barriers, I'm speaking of the boundry between dimentions.
I don't know my point once again, but I know that I have no "theory" as some of you say, I have merely a very weak hypothesis. I can't say I follow the whole "barking up the wrong problem" thing about schrodinger. He shows that we will never know the truth if we never look for it, how can you argue with that? I feel it is a problem in the way of a theory of everyhting. Keep in mind that if one day we actually create an AI, then that proves that we are able to describe awareness mathematically. Then what? We can incorporate it into our existing theories to describe an awareness that oversees the entire system of equations, and is created by the entire system, and that tells us if the cat is dead or alive within initial circumstances. Refering to my first post, this awareness is created by the "ether" of equations within a mind-space inside a computer... I don't even understand what that means, I don't know how we would incorporate it, but I feel it should be taken into consideration.
I admit that I even think these ideas are odd, and I'm having a hard time traversing the rough seas of the misunderstood universe. Basically, all I'm saying is "lets use the other form of non-euclidian geometry to describe the unverse and see where it leads us"
Posted by deirdrehbrt on November 23, 2003, at 14:18:12
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 22, 2003, at 14:11:13
Jonny,
You are asking some very good questions, but I think your analogy of the dominos fails far too early to provide an answer to the question. Dominos may fall, but they do not right themselves again, nor do they reconfigure themselves. Neurons create new pathways as a result of new learning. Neurons reset themselves to be able to transmit again. The brain is a dynamic machine while dominos are an exercise in entropy. They start in a high potential state when set up, an end in a low potential state with motion exhausted after they have been triggered.
I think that AI is possible because it already exists. It is used a great deal in pattern matching, in providing solutions for many scientific problems, and in many other areas of computer science. It doesn't exist in the form of androids and such, but it in a very real, though limited way, enables many areas of research, law enforcement, etc.
The limiting factor at present is the number of processor cycles, memory, and algorythms that are available. I don't expect AI to replace man, because I believe that there is an element of life that cannot be simulated. I don't know what that element is though.
Thanks for the question.
Dee.
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 23, 2003, at 16:10:51
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by deirdrehbrt on November 23, 2003, at 14:18:12
Thank you all for the feedback. I like the counter arguments you provide about how neurons are much more complex than dominos, and dominos only lead to entropy, thats an excellent point. I can't help but agree that the analogy is a much more general picture than what is actually going on. I've heard that the human brain will be obsolete in computing power by 2030 when we use nano computers and 3d chips as opposed to micro computers based in 2d designs. It's true the brain is very powerful, but the time it takes to make a descision is much slower than computers nowadays, but we have so many "processors" firing in parallel that we can think faster. One day, since AI is possible, and due to moore's law, we will witness a computer that is smarter than any human, and might be so smart and convincing that maybe we'd make it our leader... (tangent) scary!
Posted by deirdrehbrt on November 23, 2003, at 20:33:53
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 23, 2003, at 16:10:51
Jonny,
Who knows.... that could happen. On the other hand, I wonder.
How do you program a computer to dream?
How do you program creativity?
Lisp is a language that is capable of reprogramming itself, yet it isn't 'creative'.
How do we know that Moore's law 'is' a law? Might it not break down?
As regards 3 dimentional structures in microelectronics, they already exist. I spent 6 years before I became ill designing software and hardware to test MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical-systems). These were sensors that did signal processing all in the same component. 3-D is here.
So much of our creativity comes from parts of our minds that we don't understand. To build truly creative machines, we will have to learn to understand what now seems impossible to understand, or we will have to build a machine that we cannot understand.
Last, but not least, is the question of connectivity. Could our minds all be linked? I don't know, but I'm not willing to discount it just yet. I've seen too many strange things prove to be real, and I don't want to count anything out until I'm sure.
There are lots of questions, but very few answers.
I really like this kind of discussion, and I especially like your attitude. I love talking to people with an intellect, and even more so when they are truly curious.
Thank you.
Dee.
Posted by maxx44 on November 23, 2003, at 23:22:48
In reply to What is consciousness? « Jonny Trigonometry, posted by Dr. Bob on November 21, 2003, at 18:56:10
seems 'consciousness' is best defined as 'self-aware' sensory event, with little to do with nervous systems. bacteria clearly exhibit this. viruses even seem adept, but i doubt one may find a nervous system in either. it seems an innate process of life. recently some 'artificial-intelligence' bunch, using 'probability calculus'obtained a patent relateing to 'consciousness'. i'll check my bookmarks and hope i saved the paper and forward the link. if not, a search should find it. perhaps a more proper question would be 'what is life?' that which may reproduce? crystalline substances do that. but are they conscious? an 'animist' would say yes, but they'd say the same about the nail that flattened your tire. the best explanation i've seen comes from the american indian paradigm termed 'nagualism'. in that view, space-time, life, etc. is just one 'set-point' in an infinite sea of totally separate sets. anything for which there is a word is simply part of our set. when our 'unknowable' part partakes of any set, it swiftly learns, by what rupert sheldrake would call 'morphic resonance' the 'view of the set-point'. so consciousness is then considered a learned social event. this is consistent with dr. wheeler's 'interpretive participator' quantum model. oddly, it's also ubiquitous in global aboriginal belief systems, and eastern ones as well. and the kicker is you always find yourself dealing with 'initial conditions'---nobody even wants to get near that deal---but 'consciousness' does appear, to the quantist, or the shaman, as learned from the pre-existing set. who knows?
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 16:22:50
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by maxx44 on November 23, 2003, at 23:22:48
It seems so temptingly possible to be able to program creativity and dreaming and other unconscious things to which an awareness can draw from... From the algorithms that are based on evolution theory, we have almost cracked this problem. The algorithms provide a state-space for programs to evolve from, and later "mate" with each other by mixing different parts of them together to form offspring of any number and any random combination of the parent programs, and there is also an added mutation possibility. As these programs grow, they are tested against the problem at hand and determined to either be a good solution or a bad solution. If the solution is good compared to the rest of the solutions, then it will mate with other good programs, if it is bad it might not mate with other programs, and will most likely be thrown away. So over time, the solution becomes more clear, and more efficient to the problem at hand. Well, if our computing hardware gets powerful enough, we will be able to develop a 4th level programming language, capable of solving problems in english instead of lisp... of course, it would be based on lisp. But anyway, if this whole process of evolution for the best solution could be done in a micro-second, then it approaches human-competative problem solving skills. These genetic algorithms wouldn't be the awareness/consciousness of the AI, they would be the way for the AI to think about things, or if the awareness desires, i think these algorithms provide a way to be creative, or possibly to dream. They wouldn't be the consciousness, they would be the unconsciousness of the awareness... For example, as humans, we are able to recognize a face in a crowd, but if we were to make a program to do that, it would need to take snapshots of every face and compare them with known faces, and with our current technology, that would take a long time, well our brain does it all unconsciously and in micro-seconds. To look for someone in a crowd may seem like a conscious process, but there is way too much info to process consciously, therefore most of the finding must be done unconsciously. In the case of our AI, the initial circumstances would all be set by the consciousness, and the unconscious genetic algorithms do the rest over time to develop the best possible solution(s) that appease the awareness to it's satisfaction.
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 17:17:26
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 23, 2003, at 16:10:51
In regard to our minds being linked... *gets goosebumbs* yes, you could be right. Like plato says, all our minds are capable of traversing "trancendance" which is where the "forms" reside. This trancendance is basically all possibility. When you think of anything, you are thinking of something possible, therefore you are traversing the trancendant world. It is our minds that guide us to realize possibility in the physical world. Every thought already exists within trancendance (all possibility), and therefore, whenever a person invents something (whether it be a thought or a cotton gin), it is actually just that person becomming aware of something within trancendance. In fact, the latin word "Invent" directly translates to "to discover," so whenever you hear of a new invention, rationally it's just another discovery of what resides in trancendance (all possibility). experimentation with thoughts is the act of dealing with things possible and realizable in the physical world. I believe we are connected to each other in the respect that we all have the ability to experiance this ever present, but hard to understand "world of the mind." This trancendant world is known by physicists today as hyperspace (hypothesis). When we think of dimentions, we can figure that two dimentions is really the integral of all parallel one-dimentional lines within a specified viewing window, and three is the integral of all parallel planes within a specified window. Our universe observably has four dimentions; length, width, height, and time, so something we can think of that is possible is one or more arrangements of these dimentions to our own satisfaction. If we take the integral of all the known dimentions that describe the physical world, then that would be the fifth dimention, which describes all possible arrangements of the four known dimentions. This is why I refer to trancendance as being the same thing as hyperspace or the 5th dimention. Reimann's metric tensor was the first attempt to describe the fifth dimention, and years later evolved into string theory... I've come upon an inconsistancy, string theory states there are ten dimentions, not just four, and the other six (which we can't see and haven't experimentally verified, but seems impossible to do so in the first place) are said to be "another universe in itself" but so incredibly small, it's impossible to find. This gets confusing, what I'm calling "the fifth dimension," is the entire string theory itself, even though it says it's based on 10 or 26 dimensions.
Posted by maxx44 on November 25, 2003, at 17:31:53
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 16:22:50
you folk are way ahead of me on math---but then the simple F=MA was revolutionary. i didn't bookmark that paper on the probabilty calculus model of consciousness, if you may find it i'm sure you'll enjoy it. my major was writing, but i seem a naturalist/generalist. comes in handy. not so sure i would toss string-theory just yet. as for the 'cat in the box'? i was under the impression it was presented as a possible 'proof' of indeterminincy and quantum mechanics, and dr. H one of its main founders. is this not so?
Posted by maxx44 on November 25, 2003, at 19:35:48
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 17:17:26
hi jonny---although it's a work of 'life-science', your mention of platonic ideals makes me think of sheldrake's opus 'the presense of the past'. i was led to it via paul davies' book 'the cosmic blueprint',(sky publishing) which pointed out that unlike previous work, it was subject to experimental method. published in '83 it was termed everything from brilliant to bunk. the important thing is that it has exhibited robust positive global resilience in controlled experiment. sheldrake may be a bit eccentric, but his concept of all forms arising from 'information-fields' extends beyond 'living things'. for instance, his point that these 'morphogenetic fields' exist throughout space-time and are not subject to astronomical distance is, as he admits, remarkably like platonic thinking. his example of information fields that produce form being as a 'seemingly inactive' blueprint which leads to a house sort of gets the idea across. his further assertion that these fields resonate explains a bit of many clearly observed life events, remote-viewing, an epileptic's dog sensing its owner's oncoming seizure, the efficacy of 'talk-therapy', etc. from a physics/math view i wouldn't know if quantum fields leading to a 'strange' quark vs. an 'up' are the same thing. in our writings back and forth we tend to disagree on several issues, mainly his assertion 'form-fields' relate to only 'living, self-organizing' systems, and he seems to contradict himself by using crystallization as an example. i don't see any difference from that, and say, quantum simultaneity. both may be seen as resulting from his morphic-resonance concept. perhaps that's where a 'generalist' comes in handy. is the universe awash in an undiscovered sea of 'conscious-ons', as photons? quanta of perception only seen in 'living systems'? that would merge life-science with physics. interestig? best wishes
Posted by jonny trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 22:12:37
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by maxx44 on November 25, 2003, at 17:31:53
i don't want to make the impression that I know everything i'm talking about. I'm making broad generalizations, and I'm not sure if it was a proof for indeterminancy, but rather a "thought experiment." Heisenberg developed the uncertainty principle which states that the more accurately we know the position of a particle, the less accurately we know it's mometum and vice-versa. This conclusion was entirely derived from the fundametal equations of quantum mechanics. It holds true for every venture into quantum mechanics, but not true for things not based on quantum mechanics.
The whole premise for creating quantum mechanics was to be able to describe all interactions without the use of "action at a distance" because it just didn't make sense to people that things can influence other things without touching them. Based on these assumptions, we learned more about the nature of the atom, but ran into greater problems like the uncertainty principle, and another thing called quantum entanglement (which is basically our friend "action at a distance" on the quantum level). So where we are now isn't really any further than where we were to begin with... We still can't describe action at a distance.
Einstien didn't like the idea of uncertainty, and the paper that he, Boris Podelsky, and Nathan Rosen wrote called "the EPR paradox" sets out to show with the use of the uncertainty principle, things like quantum entanglement will happen, but at the time no experiment could show quantum entanglement... It was later experimentally verified to be a fact, and Einstien and his colleagues were right in their interpretation of what would happen, but they figured it seemed impossible to conclude such a thing as quantum entanglement at the time because it goes against "common sense." But what happened was a reaffirmation of the uncertainty principle as being true. The complete implications of the principle mean exactly what the cat paradox suggests, that we (an awareness) will never know with certainty anything that goes on in the quantum world if we don't look specifically for it. I'm still wrestling with this fact. I'm not out to disprove the uncertainty principle, I think that since it is experimentally verifiable, then it is true. The big problem is action at a distance, and quantum mechanics needs extra cheese added to it to account for action at a distance, therefore it is an incomplete theory.
String theory ties together quantum theory, reletivity theory, and field theory in order to be able to derive all known equations from the original equation. This is based on an assumption, that all these different equations are really just products of a higher-level equation.
I can't prove that consciousness ties in with the equations of the universe, but I have a strong feeling that it does. I don't know how it would be able to get around the hiesenberg principle, but I feel it could. It seems out of all my effort, my conclusion so far is that our existance is recursive. We, and the whole universe exist only because we think it does, or we (awareness) wanted it to exist. That statement is clearly dependant on consciousness, but I have no idea how to turn that into a mathematical statement.
Posted by jonny trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 22:21:17
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by maxx44 on November 25, 2003, at 19:35:48
very interesting. I don't know what to think besides, I gotta read a hella lot more stuff hehe. This whole merging of life science and physics almost seems enevitable. Hopefully one day, with the use of a theory of everything, it would be possible to plug in initial conditions (ammount of energy to be used to emerge into a solar system), and watch it output the entire evolution of life on a planet over time.
Posted by maxx44 on November 25, 2003, at 22:57:27
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by jonny trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 22:21:17
well, boy howdy---'custer wears arrow shirts'. the yaqui, apache, etc. gotta big jump on 'initial conditions'. as they view space-time as just one more set-point in an infinite set of things, as here, appearing perfectly normal from the indide out---'initial conditions' to them is termed 'that for which there are no words.' that from which the 'set' of space-time, one set-point, comes to being. this 'that for which there are no words---the "nagual" may be tapped by, of course, many year's effort. as for consciousness? goes with the place. sheldrake and others contend it's inherent in the universe. like the universe looking at itself, thru you, me, etc.
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 23:15:31
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by maxx44 on November 25, 2003, at 19:35:48
man, this subject is so confusing. I feel i haven't said enough to appease even myself. Who am I convincing? I'm not even convincing myself. What is going on in our minds? Why can we know we are conscious, and yet not even know what consciousness is? How is all this possible? How can I experiance existing in a physical reality when I'm dreaming? How do I conclude that I'm not actually sleeping right now? Could I only be the thoughts of other people that I know, or could the other people that I know be entirely created in my mind? because I have had conversations with people in my dreams, so those people actually never existed in reality. What is going on? I feel like I've been tricked into being in this schism of existance.
Posted by maxx44 on November 25, 2003, at 23:19:54
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by jonny trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 22:12:37
rendering to math is always the problem. that 'probability calculus' paper's worth digging for. pretty simple math vs. The Calculus. and more applicable to this problem. years ago my father-in-law, a calc prof, showed me how 'h' was not a deal of 'interaction', rather the math simply could not know position and angular momentum at once. why so few accounts neglect this beats me---you're one of a couple i've met, and all my peers were math/physics folk. they didn't know. people.
Posted by maxx44 on November 25, 2003, at 23:29:33
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 23:15:31
if consciosness is inherent in the universe---problem's solved---if it's only inherent in living things, problem solved. to quantify it is one thing, to qualify it another.
Posted by jonny trigonometry on November 26, 2003, at 21:16:24
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by maxx44 on November 23, 2003, at 23:22:48
thanks for all the referances I can check out, Sheldrake looks pretty cool.
Posted by maxx44 on November 26, 2003, at 22:42:15
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by jonny trigonometry on November 26, 2003, at 21:16:24
rupert sheldrake's pages are a start. but 'the presense of the past' is required reading mostly as he's at his best. his best seller on pets and their owners was 1st attacked by even 'The Great Randy'---who for the 1st time in his life, apoligised. you see sheldrake's 'hypothesis of formative causation' has a way, as neo-lamarckism of being experimentally proven. globally. but it also seems he is as maxwell, to me, the BIG guy in physics--rupert seems as maxwell vs. marconi. in otherwords the various obvious 'spin-offs' of his hypothesis may go unnoticed to him. at this point as i have a work in progress, i really have to review the copyright data on this site. biz.
Posted by pixygoth on November 27, 2003, at 5:56:44
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 25, 2003, at 23:15:31
Do you guys know (I presume you do considering the maths level) about the Turing stuff on Halting? Basically If you can think about thinking, you add a new level of consideration,. I f you think about that, there's another... the levels of consciousness automatically pile up, so we probably *won't* ever understand our brains at the reductionist level. However, all the new complexity theory stuff etc. shows how the "entropy-laden" domino analogy actually *does* avoid entropy in *some* arrangements - it is, as the name suggests, all very complex though.
Have you read Rudy Rucker? Mathematician, talks a lot about higher dimensions *and how to "enter" them*, conceptually speaking.
And so, when you (jonny) talk about moving away from "the universe", you mean moving away from *our* universe? right... so one can never leave the... multiverse if you like.
Also, String Theory with 10 dimensions came in 5 or 6 different shapes this was embarrasing fopr the physics people, but adding the 11th dimension apparently filled all these holes.
Also, can I say that I think the "curled up small" dimensions idea is misleading - from the inside of a sphere, the outside would *appear* to be the inside of something else, right? (in my head anyway...) so that would allow the six dimensions (the 11th is "over" the rest) to be "small" fom where we're looking, but big from the inside - from where I assume that *our* 4 dim.s would appear small and curled up. Yeah?
I have huge hopes for M-theory (strings with 11 dim.s) as I love QM and think that you have to take maths seriously if nothing else in this world.
Oh and sorry to be a pedant, But the cat paradox was Schrodingers attempt to show that QUantum Mech *could not* be correct. (Cos he couldn't believe that what looked like was happening actually was). Mathematically, QM *is* right, and Schrodinger's expt. is used everywhere in a way he would have been quite p*ssed off about. i,e, to show the weirdness, not show that the whole thing is wrong.
S
Posted by maxx44 on November 27, 2003, at 18:05:20
In reply to Re: Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by pixygoth on November 27, 2003, at 5:56:44
not much on math here---feynman diagrams? ok. i do think it's important to remember that most math forms are actually marvelous short-hand for words. of course math frees us from needing 1000 blackboards vs. one. and who could follow the 1000's content? so it's really needed by a life-form hopefully destined to secure Life, 'beyond the stars'. the great thing i see in q and particle physics is its potential for assisting this.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.