Jump to content

joigus

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    2259
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by joigus

  1. Absolutely. Prediction is the first step in a process that later snowballs, as @Peterkin points out. Prediction is like inverse memory. The first version of this new capability must have been inductive: If B always follow A; whenever you see A, expect B. Deductive processes and analysis (breaking up the problems into smaller problems) must have come later. But to think that all these stages must have appeared incrementally, adaptively, is what boggles the mind.
  2. I'm sure this evolutionary pressure is at its root. The extraordinary rate of development that @Peterkin described is, I'm sure, the primary most immediate biological reason. I also agree that memory must have played a very important part. Memory is the substrate of ideas. But imagination goes the extra mile. Let me give you an example: We know coral snakes and kingsnakes are easy to confuse. This is at the root of so-called Mertensian mimicry. Kingsnakes are quite harmless, but they disguise themselves as deadly coral snakes because there are potential predators that can't tell the diffe
  3. I would like to introduce another perspective to the very interesting physiological arguments that have been displayed (as @TheVat said, the topic is vast.) It is the question of evolutionary pressures. That's the way I would tackle this question: What (in evolutionary terms) gave rise to big brains with highly complex relational cortex with its cognitive features? Big brains are very expensive organs: They're gluttons for energy, and are under very strict detoxification demands due to extremely high oxidation levels. https://askananthropologist.asu.edu/brain-expensive (Le
  4. If Churchill were here, he'd probably say, Never so much was said by so many about something that worries so few.
  5. Sorry, I didn't explain. This would be cloning for quantum superposition \( \left|a\right\rangle +\left|b\right\rangle \).
  6. There is not such a thing as no-cloning theory. The non-cloning theorem is the simple fact that if quantum evolution is linear, there is no way that you can produce, as a result of an interaction, an outgoing state for a second system that consists in the second quantum system cloning (xeroxing, carbon-copying, reading, reproducing) the first system's quantum state. This is not a requisite of quantum teleportation (biggest misnomer in physic's history), but a requisite of your setup. More schematically than the Wikipedia article: \[\left|a\right\rangle \left|\psi\right\rangle \righta
  7. I know next to nothing about mental illness. My point is --however we define the boundary between a healthy and a diseased mind, which I suspect won't be easy to do-- that the question of consciousness comes first; it's bound to be more elementary. It must have to do with how certain physical systems ('observers') make room in some of their 'self' variables to represent their immediate environment in its ongoing evolution. If the 'self' physical variables are busy representing the ambient variables, perception of the self cannot fundamentally be dissociated from perception of these ambient var
  8. Impossible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
  9. But that's more in the direction of what cognitive scientists call 'theory of mind', isn't it? The way I see it, some kind of basic consciousness must develop before the logical inference of 'I' and 'the others' takes place. As to 'sanity', it is conceivable that a conscious agent could be completely insane. But I see no reason why this subjective experience cannot be objectively explained, at least in principle. At the very least, it's something we must aspire to.
  10. One historical factoid: Feynman never wrote a book. He only wrote papers. All his books are based on recordings or, in the case of Lectures on Gravitation, written notes by students, and translated from Feynman notation to standard notation. That wasn't James Gleick's. Sorry. James Gleick's book is Genius, the Life and Science of Richard Feynman. Surely you're joking... wasn't written by Feynman either. It's based on recordings again. It's Feynman's recordings typed by Ralph Leighton.
  11. I don't think Feynman ever wrote popular science books. Not for the greater readership anyway. The Character of Physical Law or Quantum Electrodynamics, the Strange Theory of Light and Matter are not your regular popular-science books. They are only deceptively popular. They're actually scientifically maverick attempts at showing you the nuts and bolts of physical theories, often getting involved in lateral thinking, and not at all easy reads. It was James Gleick's Surely you're Joking, Mr Feynman that did it. Before that book Feynman was widely known among the physics community, but by n
  12. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.05129.pdf Also: I suppose Carlo Rovelli's excellent book on quantum gravity should be next.
  13. I agree with this. In fact, I look at this kind of exercise as a useful one when it comes to defining most difficult/slippery concepts: Constructively jettison any connotations that are suspect of being just contingent as regards the concept to be defined. In this case: emotions, sight, touch or other specific senses. There would have to be some sensors, granted. Whether those sensors are 'internal' or 'external', to me, is not that clear, as the boundary is surely a fuzzy one at some level of description (I don't perceive my nails or hair as 'self'). They would have to be measuring stimuli ar
  14. No version of the internet --that I can see, or foresee, now-- could replicate the functionality that I've tried to describe as, How does this projection occur and how does it coalesce into a continuous integrated perception is, to me, the only 'hard' standing problem. It's not just about harvesting data from the environment, not even in a chain of 'downward' or 'downstream' causation --however that concept presents itself to me as possibly necessary for any conscious entities worth the name. The internet, or a bee, jellyfish, or any other data-processing entity could, for all I c
  15. Because gods are human creations, unable to go beyond what humans can conjure up?
  16. I don't think the internet fits the bill --it's not so much a problem of scales, as it is a problem of functionalities. A bee might... But this would make me stray away from the role of mere spectator I wanted to play here, until I hear more arguments.
  17. joigus

    What is "i"?

    I think it was clear that your a-b system cannot be a photon. Gimme a derivation of Einstein's field equations, and I will pay more attention, I can assure you. So far, my focus is on what's wrong with your idea, rather than what could be right. Spin-statistics, give me something. Do your particles satisfy Pauli's exclusion principle?
  18. joigus

    What is "i"?

    But this hypothesis is manifestly incomplete. You assert something can be constructed, and you do not provide even the faintest idea of how this construction can proceed. So the obvious follow up question to your 'hypothesis' is, How? On the contrary, Fermat's principle, is either true or false experimentally. It makes no constructive assumption. The time is either minimal or not. There are no shady areas in that statement.
  19. But the corpus callosum is an area of the brain, not a mechanism, or process. Expressed like that, it's very much like Descartes saying the ghost in the machine is in the pineal gland. I think it's more along the lines of what @exchemist said: (My emphasis.) or certain patterns of activity. I think you agree with this, AAMOF, if I understood you correctly before. One would think so. But this is, e.g., what Daniel Dennett has to say about that 'integrated collaboration' (I have set the video to the time when the relevant comments are made): Daniel D
  20. joigus

    What is "i"?

    Can you formulate your hypothesis in a simple sentence? I'll give you an example of a hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_principle
  21. joigus

    What is "i"?

    No. Inertia is locally indistinguishable from the gravitational field. (Equivalence principle.) (My emphasis.) I was talking quantum mechanics, which the way we know Nature to behave. That's not how science works. If you want to have people consider your new concept, first understand all that's been already understood. Doesn't seem like you really understand inertia, gravitation, and their intimate relationship; or 'quantum' vs 'classical', or chirality/helicity, or gauge charge. You want to build physics from scratch, and there's no change in the world that this will ever
  22. joigus

    What is "i"?

    They don't have inertia? How come? Field degrees of freedom exchange energy via couplings. The reason we say that is that there's a precise mathematical definition to hypothesize it; and methods have been developed to check the predictions. In physics, you can't just utter a sentence and hope it will make sense somehow. Example: space-time gains acceleration via vacuum energy. Yeah right, but that responds to a mathematical model. You haven't shown us a mathematical model, however crude. You have a motion cartoon and a bunch of intuitions. That's not what I hear. LIGO
  23. The question of what consciousness is hasn't been settled IMO. I would assume that such a question is even farther from being settled.
  24. I think you both overlooked my words: 'Then human kind as a whole is superconscious, so to speak. And the internet too' is not my stance* here. My point is Koch's criterion is kind of a loose-ended one to me. Any higher-level structure could, under right auxiliary assumptions, be considered a meta-consciousness by that token. Not that I consider it an absurd idea --if cells could think they would be none the wiser about what's going on at the tissue --> organ --> organism levels. According to Daniel Dennett, neurons are not very much collaborative agents. So it's not exactly
  25. That still puzzles the simple minds (like mine). I'll take a back sit, for the time being, and learn more. @MigL, make some room for me, please.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.