Sione

So, what is the problem with editing, correcting spelling and stuff?

You are here to debate' date=' not to lecture and definitely not to belittle others who take the time to respond to your claims.

[/quote']

 

What do you mean "my claims", it is general knowledge from scientific textbooks.

 

All I say is that brain and neurons are ultimately made of subatomic particles and therefore subject to electromagnetic interaction and quantum uncertainty. I say chemical interaction is just an approximation to electromagnetic interaction, do you think this is 'my claim' or current scientific understanding?

 

1.) Do you think thoughts and feeling are not electromagnetic, but chemical?

2.) Do you think memory and thoughts are independent of electrodynamics and only obey chemical or chemo-electrical laws?

 

 

 

iNow,

 

Sorry for editing... and I'm glad you finally understand that neurons and brain mechanics have everything to do with computer science if we want to simulate it, since computational simulation is a field in computer science. I forgive you for asking such a silly question so many times.

 

 

Could you please clear up your position, what is your point:

 

a.) Do you think chemical reactions are deterministic?

b.) Do you think chemistry of neurons is independent of electromagnetic interaction?

Again though, none of this has anything to do with computer science, and there is a bridge somewhere missing a troll.

This is what you quoted yourself:

-"Chemical synapses allow neurons to form interconnected circuits within the central nervous system. They are thus crucial to the biological computations that underlie perception and thought."

Computational simulation is a field of computer science. What part do you still not understand? Simulating emotions and thought process means simulating neurons mechanics.

The rest you might understand when you realize electrochemical reaction is ELECTROMAGNETIC reaction. What do you imagine you and me disagree about? We are saying the same thing, only you fail to realize that underlying mechanics includes magnetic fields as well.

So, do you think that mechanics of neurons is independent of quantum properties and deterministic? Do you think chemical reactions are deterministic?

Oh' date=' and what does this have to do with computer science?[/quote']

 

What are you referring to, what confuses you?

 

Simulating thought process has to do with computer science, what part do you not understand?

 

 

Sione - All neural activity is chemoelectric. If you wish to argue otherwise' date=' I'd like to see citations in support of [b']your position that ion exchange has no impact on signal transduction, action potentials, and neural cascades.[/b] Until you share citations in support of your statement:

 

the point is thought process is not chemical, it would be too slow, but ELECTROMAGNETIC.

 

...then you are simply making things up and your words can be disregarded.

 

chemoelectric? Hahahaa...

 

Humans are so persistently oblivious to magnetic forces, oh mercy!

This confirms my point from another thread about Lorentz... remember, there is no electricity without magnetism.

 

 

Chemistry is an approximation of electromagnetics, can you grasp? Your statement that something is chemoelectric, but not electromagnetic is an insult to human race, you should be put in jail for saying such nonsense. "ion exchange" IS ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION, thought some might learn about it at chemistry class, sorry if that confused you.

 

 

If you are not aware of electromagnetic properties of human brain, then you're not even worth making fun of. I pity you, and looking forward to see what others will say about that. In the meantime, you could do some reading and save yourself further embarrassment.

I insist -determinism- is fundamental property to implementation of algorithm' date=' or physical structure, for AI.

[/quote']

Anything which runs on a Turing machine is inherently deterministic.

 

I believe we achieved some understanding here.

 

And so, before we start talking about simulating this "machine", we should be aware if it is really deterministic or not.

 

 

------------------

Now, I see you argue brain is "Turing machine" and that is exactly the point we need to discuss first. That is the whole point of my talk about determinism, to discuss if brain is deterministic type of Turing machine or is some kind of non-deterministic Quantum machine.

 

Thank goddess Chance, discussion will be more obvious and straight forward now... so, let us argue. I say, you are wrong!

 

 

The emergence is of a secondary metaphysical construct' date=' in this case your perceived conscious experience. If you believe emergent materialism, the content of this experience is entirely determined by the physical goings on of the brain.

[/quote']

 

I will say what I believe for myself, you tell us what you believe. Are you saying there is no free will, consciousness is illusion, we can not really change anything with will, intention or planning is a mirage, and we are just some puppets of our brain's chemical structure?

 

 

If there are quantum effects at play somewhere their probabilities would need to be modeled and simulated.

 

That is right' date=' they must be modeled if we are to call it a 'real-deal'.

 

However, without knowing MECHANICS, we can not know if there are quantum effects at play. Do you suggest you have a reason to be believe there are no quantum effects at play in thought process? That is quite a lot to say about something human race knows nothing about, especially since brain is made out of these quantum particles.

 

 

In the case of the brain, the underlying mechanics are classical (chemistry, classical field theory, etc) and are extremely well defined and understood

 

Please, you are suggesting memory and thought process exist inside the brain as molecular structures, geometrical imprints? It is well known brain functions with electric impulses and it is almost completely unknown about magnetic fields influences to whole thing... my point is, thought process is not chemical, it would be too slow, but ELECTROMAGNETIC. Do you really mean to dispute this?

 

 

By the way, electromagnetic interaction is not well defined at all, it is not even chaotic, it is truly non-deterministic and uncertain, that is why we have Quantum Mechanics explaining it with voodoo. Do you mean to refute this?

 

 

New MRI and other neural imaging technologies are making it increasingly easier to build sophisticated maps of the structure of the brain. These can in turn be applied towards creating a full computer simulation.

 

Alternatively we could model the entire human development process inside a computer, starting with a fertilized egg and letting it mature into a complete artificial human.

 

That sounds great and I would like to hear more about it.

 

However, we CAN MOST CERTAINLY NOT 'model the entire human development process inside a computer, starting with a fertilized egg', are you crazy? We can not even simulate the simple bonding of two hydrogen atoms, only statistically via Quantum Mechanics, and that is fake. Any more than couple of atoms in such simulation and QM will struggle, because it does not have equations for interaction, but equations of statistical geometry description.

 

 

Chemistry is an approximation, think outside the box and look at the big picture... accept this knowledge, do you accept?

bascule,

That's great. I agree with almost everything you said.

There is no evidence of quantum behavior in the brain. Moreover' date=' there has been substantial research into the behavior of the brain and models constructed which rely on classical mechanics. Neurophysiologists have not discovered any brain behaviors which cannot be explained using classical mechanics.

[/quote']

 

I especially agree with this.

 

Artificial Neural Networks might be a good candidate to simulate "true emotion/thought/consciousness". But to answer the question fully and be sure if it is really "real", we must know the mechanics of thought process or otherwise be able to compare it with our AI. Do you know how random and spontaneous are Artificial Neural Networks?

 

 

I insist -determinism- is fundamental property to implementation of algorithm, or physical structure, for AI.

 

 

As an emergent materialist' date=' I would argue that qualia, emotion, etc. would emerge from a complete enough functional simulation of the human brain.

[/quote']

 

I agree, but how deterministic is something which 'emerges spontaneously'?

 

 

Dennett argues the underlying mechanics of this process are still deterministic, i.e. given the same mental states and being put in the same situation we will make the same choice every time.

 

That's fine, I do not insist. All I'm saying is that IF it turns out that it is not deterministic, say because of quantum mechanics, then how do you simulate it short of building a physical replica?

 

My only point is:

- WITHOUT the DEFINITION of underlying MECHANICS there can be no TRUE SIMULATION.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Sione; Emotions are predictable. Advertisers' date=' politicians, preachers and interrogators (among many) know this and use it to their advantage.

[/quote']

 

Sorry, we are talking about simulation, algorithms and determinism here, you are talking about statistics and probability.

 

 

The problem is in knowing every variable in a highly dynamic system.

 

Yes' date=' but first you need to ask if it is at all POSSIBLE to know. If it is based on Quantum Mechanics, then it is not possible to know, it is NOT DETERMINISTIC in that case. The first thing to know about simulating something is MECHANICS of it, do you know mechanics of thoughts and emotions? If not, then you can not claim they are either deterministic or not, only statistically, which is fake. [b']Forget the word "predictable", [/b]it is wrong word that apparently makes confusion. This is what I am talking about:

 

de⋅ter⋅min⋅ism –noun

1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly. In contrast to probabilistic.

2. Describes an algorithm in which the correct next step depends only on the current state.

 

 

 

Let me suggest something then.

 

You' date=' kind of, did not answer to my questions, but keep challenging me for some strange reason. I hope what you're going to say next has anything to do with anything, lets see...

 

 

If you measure the spin of an electron in an unknown state, you can measure the spin as up or down. Call the up 1 and the down 0. This is considered to be a non-deterministic result.

 

We do not know something before we know it, ok.

 

 

Now' date=' flip a coin and call heads 1 and tails 0. This is known to be a deterministic result.

[/quote']

 

I see what you mean, but you are confusing yourself.

 

It is not about result and reading, but about underlying physics. Classical physics is deterministic, quantum physics is not.

 

 

 

Finally' date=' I shall call the flip of the coin a simulation of the measurement of the spin of the electron. Now, can you tell the difference, from looking at the 1s and 0s, which is the simulation and which is not?

[/quote']

 

No, I can not. And, your point is?

 

However, if I am programmer to simulate AI for you, then you tell me, will you accept it to have "true emotions" if I fool you the same way? My point is about defining TRUE emotions, not about statistical fakes and Pokemon.

 

- WITHOUT the DEFINITION of underlying MECHANICS there can be no TRUE SIMULATION.

 

 

If you cannot' date=' then I just gave you an example of a deterministic simulation of a non-deterministic thing. How many individual quotes do you think you will have to break this paragraph into for you to think you have given any sort of counterargument?

[/quote']

 

Why would I want to counterargument that, it has nothing to do with anything I said. People can be tricked by statistical simulation, that's what I said. The question is if you accept that as "true" and "real emotion". This is not about being tricked, but about true nature and possibility of real simulation, stop fooling yourself and pay attention!

This discussion is silly.

 

Emotions are noumena' date=' and applying phraseology like "deterministic" to noumena is silly.

[/quote']

 

It is not phraseology, stop insulting yourself.

 

Silly is that you do not understand requirements to SIMULATE something, anything.

 

de⋅ter⋅min⋅ism –noun http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deterministic

1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly. In contrast to probabilistic.

2. Describes an algorithm in which the correct next step depends only on the current state.

 

2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.

 

What part of the definition do you not understand?

 

 

Once you manage to comprehend the connection between determinism and thought process, then answer this for us:

 

1.) Do you say emotions are not thoughts?

2.) Do you say emotions or thoughts are deterministic?

3.) Do you say there is no "free will"?

 

 

The question is whether the content of consciousness (i.e. noumena)' date=' including things like emotions, the color red, the taste of a lollipop, the smell of a mountain flower, etc. is fundamentally rooted in a deterministic system in which they're physically manifest (i.e. your brain)

[/quote']

 

You say things without any apparent meaning or point.

Can you explain how is what you said related to simulation of emotion?

 

Brain IS NOT deterministic system, even if it was you have no means to support such ridiculous statement.

 

 

Neo:

- This....this isn't real?

 

Morpheus:

- What _is real? How do you _define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

 

Quantum Mechanics is based around uncertainty principle, which is opposite of determinism. You think emotions are part of the chemistry, but you are blind to realize that chemistry is just a simplification and only macroscopic effect of subatomic interaction and electromagnetics.

 

 

 

There's nothing non-deterministic or magical about emotion. It's just chemicals.

 

Electromagnetic fields, my friend!

Chemistry is for unsuspected younglings.

 

Quantum Mechanics, uncertainty and all that... now, recognize your mistakes and accept the knowledge given to you here, do you accept?

Right. Let me try asking this another way since you missed it the first time. What does any of this have to do with computer science?

Hahaaa. Your forgot to quote the answer' date=' hilarious!

I already told you this, let me repeat it in bold:

[b']This thread is about simulating EMOTIONS. What confused you?[/b]

Now, let me ask you one more time in hope that you can articulate some answer:

- Do you understand how determinism is fundamental property, something you MUST know about in order to even try to simulate anything?

Do you not know what simulation has to do with computer science?

Yes. If the algorithm is a close enough representation of what we do as humans' date=' then they would be felt/appreciated, and they would likely suffer from the same drawbacks and limitations that impact humans as a result of their emotions.

[/quote']

 

If algorithm does what brain does, it will do what brain can do?

 

Yes, that is exactly my point. Except for the "close enough", that means nothing.

 

 

Without simulating mechanics of it, it is not real simulation, but statistical simulation.

 

That was already said, the main question is if thoughts and emotions are deterministic or not. This is of most importance because it directly impacts the POSSIBILITY of such simulation and it's authenticity. Defining the determinism of simulation mechanics is the very first step in creating any simulation, in computer science.

The by all means incorporate them and do what the physicists of a hundred years ago' date=' and since, could not.

[/quote']

 

Are you teasing me?

Do we agree such unified equation does not exist and therefore could have never been tried?

 

 

Your Google-fu has failed you.

 

Ultraviolet catastrophe/blackbody radiation' date=' photoelectric effect, the Hydrogen atom and other atomic structure, relativity (Lorentz vs Galilean transforms, length contraction and time dilation, GR), Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, matter diffraction and the deBroglie wavelength …

 

The beat goes on.

[/quote']

 

Please, pick your favorite equation, one by one, it will make things more obvious and focused.

 

 

Do you realize that most of the formulas you are talking about do NOT have magnetic fields in equation at all?

 

Lorentz equation was expected to model Hydrogen atom without taking torque and spin magnetic moment into account?

 

 

What particular equation of classical physics failed to model Hydrogen atom - Lorentz, Maxwell, Faraday, Coulomb, Gauss, Ampere?

What does any of this have to do with computer science?

This thread is about simulating EMOTIONS. What confused you?

Do you understand how determinism is fundamental property, something you MUST know about in order to even try to simulate anything?

What I am interested in discussing is the notion that rational thought and emotional thought are necessarily opposites.

Why would you want to discuss that? Does it concern simulation of either?

I explained many times now I do not mean to compare them directly, do not be so literal.

They can not really be compared. 'Emotion', as defined, is not purpose based property, therefore without real reference. There is no such thing as "good emotion" and "bad emotion", only if you put it in the context of PURPOSE and RATIONALE.

In general I would say that emotions are predictable.

Yeeya! You have no idea what "predictable" means. Please use dictionary, you just keep repeating your opinion based on incomplete understanding, without any arguments and despite what has already been said.

Lets try some other words:

1.) Do you say emotions are DETERMINISTIC?

2.) Do you say thoughts are DETERMINISTIC?

3.) Do you say there is no "free will"?

I can predict how someone I know well will react emotionally in the vast majority of situations. Predictability says nothing about the process.

What do you think we are talking about here, your mum, your intuition? Ability to guess something couple of times or even most of the time does not make it deterministic. Deterministic means to be able to calculate exact and every reaction.

Determinism is just about the most important property of some system. As already explained couple of times, if the process is not deterministic then simulation can only be made statistically, that is fake. You can accept animated smiley face to 'have emotions' if you like, but that's just as fake, get it? If your AI is predictable, then it will not be able to "feel" any NEW emotions, it would lack in originality. Statistically you could fool everyone, but do you accept that as REAL? Would you have kids and spend the rest of your life with such AI?

The definition for the "true emotion" must be a description of mechanics of the process, otherwise simulation will be fake.

Artificial Neural Network, therefore fits my definition as a system possibly capable of producing "true emotion". The question of determinism still stays, i.e. do ANN manifest randomness and can it be compared to the determinism of the real thought process.

I can predict how someone I know well will react emotionally

Will you stop confusing EMOTION and REACTION? Reaction is intellectual process, you can not predict irrational behavior based solely on emotions, that is what we call CRAZY, erratic and emotional. Put emotional person and rational in the same situation and tell me who is easier to predict?

I can instinctively duck when a shadow is closing in on me to avoid being hit with a stray frisbee and not be emotional about it.

What? What in the world are you trying to say?

I would not argue with you if you said instinct and emotion are arrived at by the same process but IMO they are not the same.

Instinct and emotion are not the same, hmm.

Ok, thank you, that's plenty to say. I appreciate your opinion, but what is it based on?

You are completely wrong about that. The essence of emotions is predictability:

 

you understand what gets people to feel an emotion' date=' and how that emotion modifies their behavior.

 

Rational people are harder to predict, because you are not smart enough and don't know them well enough. But emotion restricts behavior making it easier to predict.

[/quote']

 

Are you sure you mean what you just said?

Rational does not mean "more intelligent", and Emotional does not mean "less intelligent".

 

You argument means as much as contra argument of same form, look:

- "You are completely wrong about that. The essence of emotions is NON-predictability:

you DO NOT understand what gets people to feel an emotion, and how that emotion modifies their behavior."

 

 

Are you not the same person who said this:

- "You got someone mad at you. Will they

A) Grin and bear it,

B) Punch you in the face,

C) Tell the cops that you are a pedophile, or

D) Key your car,

E) Wait until you forget about it and then do something nasty ?"

 

 

...how is that PREDICTABLE, again?

 

 

 

OK then predict what the next instance of rand() on my computer will do. As far as you are concerned' date=' it might as well be non-deterministic since you don't have the necessary information (in this case, the random seed and the specific random program being used) to make a prediction.

[/quote']

 

What? What is your point?

 

Predictable does not mean ME or YOU or ANYONE in particular can guess it, but that it is _possible, having the initial state defined, to calculate ANY successive "number". Are you saying emotions based on random seed can pass the test and you accept that as "true emotions"?

 

You mean to say emotions are predictable?

Do you mean to say there is no "free will", as well?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you knew every detail of a person's psyche' date=' you could predict very well how that person would react in a given situation.

[/quote']

 

Can you please pay attention?

 

When you talk about what people would do, about DECISION, then you are talking about reason and intellect, and I agree it gets more predictable the more reasonable it is. The "function of reason" has unique value, once we know the "purpose" or mathematical/logical expectation. Less rational means less predictable or unreasonable, random behavior, right?

 

 

Now, tell me how much can you predict what would the same person FEEL, perceive, think, imagine, associate... what impression will that leave and in what EMOTION could all that turn into. Sometimes people get blinded with emotions and do crazy, unpredictable, sometimes even unimaginable things, that we call irrational behavior, stress induced or emotional response.

 

 

Most people may act rationally and predictable most of the time, perhaps you see them in same old, accustomed situations doing the same, everyday things, but what they feel and how much they can control their emotions is the question good for crystal ball as much as for science. Unpredictable, like inventions and inspirations... like love. Emotional and Rational are two opposing forces, somewhere in between, when they merge like Yin-Yang, consciousness and appreciation for the time emerges.

 

 

Who can differentiate EMOTIONAL and INSTINCTIVE?

is there anything that is not moving?

"at rest" depends on the observer who is probably moving in some way so the task is to change momentum by working against inertia.

could you say force against inertia is transformed into momentum? a force could be equally opposed by inertia, and if enough momentum is created by the force motion results?

Yes, I agree with all that... except for the word "enough". It is always "enough", it might be "small", but never zero, which kind of answers your 1st question - no, everything is moving.

What exist, moves. E pur si muove!

If it was not moving, there would be no time.

If it was not moving, there would be no heat or light.

If it was not moving, there would be no life. Motion=Animation=Life.

Universe is alive, except where is absolutely cold, but then there is no time or light there either and without time stuff does not really exists. Yes, quite literally you can 'freeze the time', which is convenient way to "kill the time" when traveling around galaxies.

Righto' date=' then. I must have been blinded by your cartoonishly overinflated ego and obvious immaturity. You should lose the attitude, and focus on the info.

[/quote']

 

Great, I'm glad we both have a sense of humor and are here for the sole purpose of exchanging the INFORMATION. I stated my claims, it is about evidence now and it is your turn. What is the formula that is to blame for classical physics inability to model subatomic interaction?

 

 

Your example with Mercury was on the right track, but modeling electromagnetic interaction is far away from modeling gravitational interaction. Peculiarly, even with simple gravity and planetary motions, magnetic fields might have more input than we care to consider.

 

 

 

Swansonts comment remains accurate, no matter how vehemently and consistently you ignore it. The failings of classical physics are many. If you pretend this is not the case, then the harm in doing so falls solely on you.

 

No problem, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but if you care to compare your imagination with reality, then you will try to find some evidence in support of your dreams. You say there are many failings of classical physics, so please share one with us, one that includes magnetic fields and have failed, just one?

 

 

What laws of physics do you say stop working when electron approaches proton - electric or magnetic?

When you say classical physics fails to describe atom, what particular equation you referring to - Lorenz, Maxwell, Coulomb, Faraday?

You got someone mad at you. Will they A) Grin and bear it' date=' B) Punch you in the face, C) Tell the cops that you are a pedophile, or D) Key your car, E) Wait until you forget about it and then do something nasty ? I said the response was semi-predictable. They might try to harm you in some way, but you don't know how or even if they will do it.

[/quote']

 

There is no such thing as "semi-predictable", only statistically but that is not general enough for definition.

 

My point is not that they ARE opposite, but that they are opposite in respect of uncertainty and determinism. I do not mean to claim that they are ALWAYS opposite, nor if they can be the same most of the time. The essence of 'emotions' is it's unpredictability, while the essence of rational is the opposite, rational is predictable like 2+2=4.

 

 

Computers can generate pseudo-random numbers with perfect logic gates, or some truly random numbers in other ways. The pseudo-random numbers are fully deterministic, but I guarantee you will not be able to predict them unless you know exactly how the computer generates them.

 

I'm not sure if you're arguing against something or you're simply expanding on it. In any case, are you saying emotions are random, chaotic, predictable or something else? (I do not accept semi-predictable events, it makes as much sense as semi-random. However, I do accept pseudo-random numbers, they are fuly predictable as you said.)

 

 

 

If you take game theory, you will learn that some emotions are more rational than "rational responses". For example anger might seem irrational, but it is the threat...

 

Ok, we are going around this same thing.

 

I do not mean to compare emotional <-> rational directly, but only if they are predictable or not. I only mean to compare them in this way:

 

RATIONAL = deterministic

EMOTIONAL = chaotic/random

 

 

 

I generally agree with what Mr Skeptic wrote. That is why I would say that emotions are not the opposite of being rational' date=' merely different.

[/quote']

 

Yes, they are different, that is my point, but how are they different, maybe, like this:

 

RATIONAL = deterministic?

EMOTIONAL = chaotic/random?

 

 

To cut this short, the main question is how to test for emotions if it is something unpredictable, therefore not really definable.

 

I could produce program that randomly complains about some pain, loud music or says it is happy about moisture in the room. If emotions are truly random then how would you test for it. The more you try to narrow the definition the more it will be describing intelligence, the more precisely you try to describe 'emotional' the more it becomes the definition of 'rational'.

 

 

The key to simulating something is about defining MECHANICS of it, otherwise it is sort of "statistical simulation", less real.

 

We can simulate good driving AI just because we can define very well what "good driving" is. Similarly, we can define what good chess move is and as long as we can define something, we can simulate it, at least as good to achieve statistical equality with reality.

 

 

However, if the property is unpredictable, then we do not know the real underlying mechanics of it, we can not really know if it is truly random or it only appears chaotic, so naturally without knowing mechanics we can never simulate it. We could only produce something that appears as random as we are used to observe, statistically. That's fake.

I think real proof would require a lot more than just my (extremely non-rigorous) math. I was just hoping for some in depth explanations and discussions. Not acceptance, or arguments wrt other models.

Sure.

However, the discussion here was about the _possibility and I came to argue against people that want to dismiss this blindly, close the case based on prejudice. That is scientifically unwise, so I came to help you out and support your assertion.

My arguments are not to disprove or prove theories, but just as yours as I gather, to establish the possibility and refute a priori refusal based on Bohr model or similar approximation. I'm here to support your arguments for the possibility of magnetic fields as a primary source and explanation for subatomic interaction, this is what you're asserting, right?

I'm also here to argue against claims that say 'classical physics' approach, which is how is this called, has failed to model atom. I refute that by saying none of the proposed theories consider magnetic fields. Even more, I say we do not have equation of motion to handle magnetic spin, magnetic dipole torque and electrostatic forces simultaneously, and I propose such complete equation could actually produce the full description of electron orbits.

To refute my arguments someone only needs to point equation that represents 'classical physics' attempt at modeling subatomic interaction, then we can see if such equation really exists and what is wrong with it, perhaps it is just incomplete?

Merged post follows:

No' date=' you cannot. Perihelion of mercury. Case closed.

[/quote']

 

 

Huh, you want to challenge me... again?

 

You have to realize that I'm Pythagoras reincarnation, which gives me quite an advantage about such issues as 'knowledge'.

 

 

Anyway, you say "Perihelion of mercury" has anything to do with MAGNETIC FIELDS? Perhaps it has to do with subatomic interaction and atomic wave functions? I predict, if you were to include magnetic fields in your equation of GRAVITY, you would get correct results for 'Mercury Perihelion', wanna bet... do you accept the challenge?

 

 

Real scientists never close any cases.. never, ever.

 

It is scientifically unwise. Anyway, good for you and good for us as well, I suppose we will not hear more from you then.

Because the electron would have to be spinning too fast; the surface speed would have to exceed the speed of light.

Ok' date=' some theory, some equation does not work, that is fine. Faster than speed of light is also fine, at least as much as disappearing and reappearing out of nowhere, I suppose.

Out of curiosity, what is the surface of an electron, what is the size of it?

The failings of classical physics are pretty well documented.

False statement.

The failings of 'classical physics' are not documented because there are no such experiments that can speak for the whole 'classical physics' approach. Few models fail as not complete, but as I said, and just as Greg continuously points out, it is because none of them consider MAGNETIC fields.

Simply regurgitating them isn't really something I am going to spend time on.

I can prove "failings of classical physics" are not documented at all.

Search the Internet and you will find no such documentation. Sure' date=' you can ignore it and not spend any time on it, but then you would be obscuring this simple truth from your sight, which is not scientifically wise. First, if you find some time, you would need to point the exact equation to blame for not providing the results. I still do not know if you are saying that we know those equations, we do not know them or we know them, but they do not work?

As far as I can tell all the equations work individually and are used in industry, so where exactly did classical approach fail? What particular equation and laws of physics stop working once electron approaches proton - Lorentz, Coulomb... which equation is wrong and responsible for this failure?

Mostly what I'm wondering about is: If there is a possibility that atomic wave functions are dictated by magnetic fields? For example, have look at the hydrogen wave function (3,2,1) seen here:

Yes.

What I'm trying to say is that it is not "possibility", but rather obvious fact. Why are you so hesitant to accept it, even thought it is your own conclusion as well? I think you are giving excellent supporting arguments, still you seem to would like some more proof?

Yes, orbits are wrong. As I mentioned before, the orbit of the ground state Bohr atom has one unit (hbar) of orbital angular momentum, and the excited state has two. But in actuality the 1S and 2S levels have no...

"Orbits", as a concept, have no direct computational impact, it is an observational description and as such can not be really responsible for the failure of some incomplete theory and damnation of the whole 'classical physics' approach.

Orbits are not wrong just because Bohr model does not work for everything, that is way to much to say about some concept of something orbiting something in smooth path, as opposed to jumping around, disappearing and reappearing as in QM. Bohr model has nothing to do with magnetic fields and it is not representative of 'classical physics' approach, it is just one of the many simplifications and approximations, but even then it gives some impressive results.

Do you find it logical we can see particles always describe smooth paths and obey classical physics when we collide them in particle accelerators and plot their trajectories, but only "inside" the atom they start to behave like ghosts? QM works, it has rules based on statistics and produces results that fit statistics, but those equations say nothing about mechanics and interaction.

Where does classical physics fail exactly?

Do you think it is impossible to describe subatomic interaction based on known forces, why?

I was referring to orbital angular momentum. But classical physics has problems with explaining the electron. It's not a physical spin, first of all, and the g-factor isn't 2, and that gets into quantum electrodynamics.

How do you know it is not a physical spin?

Perhaps not, but how curious is then that we can model it as if it is physical spin. Do you find it surprising such quantum property can be modeled with classical physics?

By the way, as far as I can see, and what you later suggest yourself, we do have all those equations ...for angular momentum in magnetic field, magnetic moment for orbiting electron or spinning electron.

We do know the equations. If you think you can explain the Hydrogen atom classically, and do as well as QM, go ahead and try.

Are you saying we have equations, or not?

Are you saying we have equations, but they do not work?

I'm saying that I might explain Hydrogen atom and more, once we can combine the electrostatic and magnetic equations of motions into one. Such equations do not seem to exist, the equations that will combine Coulomb + Lorentz + Magnetic Torque + Spin Dipole Moment.

Without such COMPLETE attempt at modeling subatomic interaction it is not scientifically wise to give up of such possibility, there is simply no evidence that points classical physic is unable to model it.

Gre,

According to my understanding, you are on the right track.

It has orbits' date=' not orbitals, and that's wrong.

[/quote']

 

Orbits are not wrong, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea that electrons obey some classical laws of physics "inside" the atoms, just like they do for everything else.

 

We simply do not know equations of motion that can model atoms and predict their bonding properties, or perhaps we do know equations, but have not tried to do it properly.

 

 

It gets the angular momentum wrong. At that point' date=' you have to abandon it.

[/quote']

 

What are you referring to? Classical physics predicts and can calculate electron spin and magnetic moments

 

Spin magnetic moment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment

 

 

 

The current quantum mechanics model actually does acknowledge pairing of electrons is due to magnetic forces. I know of papers suggesting magnetic forces gets stronger than electrostatic at certain distances and therefore can lead to attraction of like charges, similarly to what Gre suggests.

 

 

We simply do not know the right equations or no one has managed to combine electrostatic and magnetic interaction. All the failed Bohr atom models and similar were only concerned with electrostatics and Coulomb equations, but not Lorentz, not magnetic dipole moment, nor magnetic torque equations.

 

I do not see any reason why classical physics can not actually model electron-proton interaction, explain electron coupling and atomic bonding better than quantum mechanics. All the attempts to model interaction of magnetic spin moments of charged particles seem to give good results and actually explain how and why.

 

 

Basically, it appears there is no complete equation of motion that can model electrostatic and magnetic fields interaction simultaneously. However when these forces are modeled separately we can get some general picture of it, some idea about distances and attraction/repulsion limits, which apparently seem to describe the reality and we get the similar numbers as with QM.

 

 

 

The bottom line is,

there is no real reason to think subatomic interaction can not be described by classical physics, just like everything else can.

Sione; I would disagree with the notion that emotional response is the opposite of rational response. Sometimes they are the same.

Yes, sometimes they are same, but that means at all other times they are not the same, and that is enough to classify it as unpredictable. Of course this goes much deeper if we are to consider what "rational" really means, what is "purpose" and "benefit", what is "good" and "bad". To keep it simple we can stick to mathematics and say that rational is 2+2=4, while emotional can be different to that.

Rational = predictable (deterministic)

Emotional = unpredictable (chaotic/random)

- "Humans are controlled by subconsciousness, feelings and emotions almost randomly, while awareness is an illusion created by consciousness to make them feel as if they really wanted to do, and try to justify, what they just did." (Lizard-Man)

I would say they are merely arrived at through different mechanisms ie. deliberate thought processes vs. preprogrammed response.

preprogrammed response = emotional?

preprogrammed response = instinctive?

deliberate thought processes = rational?

Do you mean to say emotional response is "pre-programmed" in a way that it makes it predictable?

How do you differentiate "deliberate thought processes" from "preprogrammed response", what is different about them, the place they originate? the way how they form or propagate? Basically, how do you know the mechanics is different? how do you know something was deliberate, can we measure it?

I think emotions are a set of self-induced alternate states of consciousness, that have predictable effects, and are a semi-predictable response.

I think I agree with that, thought not sure how you define 'predictable effects' that can lead to 'unpredictable response'. Can that definition address the question if these entities have emotions:

a.) Fly

b.) Tree

c.) Chicken

d.) Beef

e.) Dog

f.) Pork

I'm afraid the border line between emotion and non emotion is blurred as much as the line between live and inanimate matter, it might even be the same line. Emotion is certainly some "state" that will impact physical reaction. The question is, can we accept that state to be fixed and material? If so, than we can substitute emotions with logical gates, but it will be deterministic, fully predictable. However emotion that is predictable is almost contradiction. Certainly one of the main characteristics of 'emotional response' is that it means opposite to 'rational response'.

===============================================

Let me try some more concrete definition....

Feeling = internal/external sensation in the present, including touch, smell...

Emotions = past internal state of memorized feelings (experiences)

Emotions are all the experiences, intensified more or less depending on the amount of time you spend "processing" them. These 'states' are operands (filters) inside the general recursive computation that includes current feelings (sensations/perceptions) and past(emotions/experiences). The result is fed back to next iteration together with new current feelings/perceptions/sensations, and so on.

Basically, I'm trying to say that emotion and feelings is not just nice music and poetry, but also when you drink hot milk and burn your tongue. It is a FEELING that you will REMEMBER and next time when you see a glass of yogurt, you will first blow at it... just because you still carry that EMOTION (sensation) of pain when you tried to drink something white.

Intelligence is the one to teach later that not all what is white is hot milk.

If fly can apparently differentiate what is good and bad for it, then it is not only consciousness, but it even processes it's perceptions and "emotions" in such way that we can say it cleverly dodges our attempts to catch it, and it can outsmart even the most intelligent humans, right? Luck or Intelligence?

For life to have been intelligently designed via an evolutionary algorithm' date=' would require that some intelligent being created the rules for natural selection, aka the laws of physics.

[/quote']

 

Mr Skeptic is of course right here and who does not agree should pay attention!

 

As we all can witness our 'evolutionary algorithm' is built-in into the laws of physics and the only question is whether laws of physics occurred spontaneously or were created by some intelligent creature.

 

 

Anyone should be able to deduce that ultimately any creator or god, if there was/is any, must have emerged spontaneously at some point. The logic forbids us to even assume the existence of the God.

 

Sure, if some aliens planted life on Earth, than they would be your Gods, but they themselves must have emerged spontaneously sometime. Of course, if they claim to be created by some even superior God, then that God as well must have emerged spontaneously at some point, and so on. By definition it is not God if it was created, only if it emerged by itself. And if some God can emerge spontaneously, then why could not a tree or human?

 

 

God is not an answer to any question, it is just moving a question one inch further so silly humans could be manipulated by religion. Whoever believes in Bible is crazy and will go to hell. Lucifer is a good guy on this planet. Luckily for them Lucifer is much nicer person than God, so they will not burn for the whole eternity.

 

 

Even the definition of God prohibits it to be some singular entity, with it's properties God = Universe. We do not know much about universe and automatically we can not know much about any gods. Unfortunately we should be more able to see through simplicity of personification and metaphors, how else can you judge a fairy tale from religious FACT?

 

 

God is evil, viva Lucifer, the Bringer of Light! Viva Las Vegas...

How can we speak of artificial intelligence' date=' when modern psychologists cannot even agree on a definition of human intelligence? First, provide an operational definition of human intelligence; then, one can begin to speak of artificial intelligence.

[/quote']

 

Absolutely.

 

We need the definition as a means to devise a TEST. As long as we can not agree on the test and how to *decide* what intelligence is or is not, it is impossible to directly and properly answer the question.

 

 

For example, how many people would answer the following questions equally:

- State if the following forms of life have intelligence or consciousness?

 

a.) Fly

b.) Bird

c.) Shark

d.) Chimp

e.) 1 month old human

f.) 3 years old human

g.) 30 years old human in coma

 

According to my understanding, I say all of them have both intelligence and consciousness, while only the last case seem to be unprovable.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

However, the OP question is about EMOTIONS rather than about intelligence, so the question should be about how to test for emotions:

- By their response, can we know if the following life forms feel emotions?

 

a.) Amoebae

b.) Tree

c.) Bird

d.) Dog

e.) Chimp

f.) 1 month old human

g.) 5 years old human

 

According to my understanding, if "to feel" equals "having emotions", then yes, I say all of them 'feel emotions'.

 

It is in the very definition of "life" to be able to respond (feel) to external factors and if that "response" leads to some benefit of the lifeform, then we can even say it was an intelligent response. In other words, if amoebae can live it's life in a way that response benefits the "purpose", then how stupid some amoebae really is?

 

Does the "facial emotions test" work for other animals too?

Does increased growth of plants stimulated by music equals "happiness"?

 

 

Definition is hard and again we need a TEST. Facial expression works if there is a face... and I'm pretty sure most will agree that we can notice emotions with very young human babies long before we can say there is any intelligence or even consciousness there, right?

 

It is as if emotions come first, while intelligence and consciousness emerge later, not as a property of a material brain, but more as an incorporeal property of memory and past experiences. Having intelligence and consciousness be more of a spiritual quality rather than material, is the point where it all turns from classical physics and turing machines to quantum mechanics and unpredictability. Ultimately then, this question becomes the one of determinism and free will.

 

 

To artificially produce intelligence, consciousness or emotion we first need a complete and general definition for it, otherwise we will never agree. Until then, we can only test for special cases like chess or driving AI, and that is still far, far away from testing a happy or funny AI.

 

 

 

Thought, I know one thing for sure.

 

It is recursive algorithm, like fractals. The "result" always feeds into the next iteration and that is the basis for the evolution of thought process, the mechanic responsible for the persistence of memory and learning ability, while in the same time mechanics that provides flexibility and forgetfulness.

I think you should just use "interaction" here. All collisions are interactions. Not all interactions are collisions.

Yes, I agree with that.

Let me propose new answer.

Motion is an effect of e/m and gravity fields interaction.

The true description of motion is a rate of change of linear and angular momentum, therefore the attribute to decide the "amount" of motion - it's acceleration - is mass. Hence, my best guess is that Newton's "unbalanced force" refers to difference in mass, as equal forces with different mass produce different acceleration.

I like what DrDNA said as well. That is, kind of, what I meant to say here too.

I also agree with OP that 1st law only makes confusion. Worse even, we really have no idea what in the world mass is and where that inertia thing comes from. Motion is easy, but how does an object actually achieve mass?

The collision is never "unbalanced" in terms of force or momentum.

I think you are referring to 'conservation' of momentum, I was talking about balanced/unbalanced forces and referring to what OP said about what Newton said:

newton's 1st law states that acceleration can only be acheived if an external UNBALANCED force acts upon an object

What is your understanding of Newton's first law?

"A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force."

What is the collision that accelerates a charge in an electric or magnetic field? Remember' date=' we're discussing classical physics here.[/quote']

 

"Collision" is not common term for electromagnetic interaction. However, if you let me define "constant collision", then its meaning can be derived from the existing definition:

 

col⋅li⋅sion

–noun

3. Physics, the meeting of particles or of bodies in which each exerts a force upon the other, causing the exchange of energy or momentum.

 

in⋅ter⋅ac⋅tion

–noun

1. reciprocal action, effect, or influence.

2. Physics, any of four fundamental ways in which elementary particles and bodies can influence each other, classified as strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational.

 

 

collision = interaction

 

no interaction = no collision

 

 

Basically, we can say two particles collide when they "interact" with each other, where 'interact' means - "change velocity, direction or spin".

 

If, for example, gravity field goes to infinity, then we can say it "interacts" with any other particle, no matter how far away and no matter how small that "influence" might be, it is still not zero and, in a way, they are "colliding". Their 'mass bodies' are not in contact, but their 'field forces' are colliding/interacting nevertheless.

The very short version is:

nucleotide polymers do not equal self-replication does not equal genetic code...

So' date=' you still manage to believe in God, even with all that proposed knowledge of yours, eh?

Anyway, I think you already addressed your statement when you later contradicted to it, by saying this:

-"I can synthesize any number of compounds in the lab that will spontaneously polymerize; even some with nucleobases attached... // ....HOWEVER, these things, after they have 'spontaneously polymerized', do NOT necessarily "self replicate" or undergo the process of self replication."

[b']NECESSARILY[/b], my friend, makes the whole difference here.... millions of years... billions... infinity...

With infinity, NOT NECESSARILY = EVENTUALLY.

ok?

Taking that further, no one has yet been able to figure how to make a "self replicating" or a "life-mimicking molecule" (if you want to call it that) that can assemble itself from simpler components than two halves of itself.

Pay attention!

Harvard Team Creates the World's 1st Synthesized Cells

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html

- "...If it sounds hideously unlikely, be aware that some Harvard researchers, including Harvard Medical School's Jack Szostak, have managed exactly that. Mixing some fatty acids and DNA in a test tube of water, they found that the lipid molecules formed a crude ring around the information-rich core. Even more strikingly, nucleotides added to the solution successfully entered the cell and replicated the DNA within a day."