Prometheus

Taking some courses which will teach certain maths programmes but i was wondering which ones to focus on. At the moment i am learning mathcad, but later will have the option of learning C++. I'm told C++ is similar to mathmatica, so by learning one you get to know the other a bit. Is it worth learning mathcad at all? Also learning some stats packages, S+ and R. Are these used outside the world of stats at all?

I'm far from proficient at it, just learned it myself, but if you post the problem we can try to tackle it together.

But,by functionalism, if mental states aren't the same as brain states, would that not imply 'something' else that mental states are? Unless mental states are simply mental states and no further reduction is sought.

I got something like 758, pretty sure it was the right answer. Also pretty sure i've got this down now, so long as i sketch out the functions first. Just need to practice now. Thanks for all your help - i'll be sure to bug you with more questions later - moving onto differential equations soon, which i'm told are like integration problems, but harder.

Well we could play wikipedia trumps, in which case i would play this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism ,which directly addresses A Wallace's point. But i don't think that will be fruitful, so lets quote from Buddhist scripture. A lot will depend on how you want to define god(s). God as a creator, from the Pali Canon.... This of course does not deny the existence of a creator god, simply that it is not worth considering in Buddhism. God as Brahman, self as Atman: One of the core teachings of the Buddha was the doctrine of Anatta - no self. From samyutta nikaya 22.59: It follows if there is no Atman there can be no Brahman in the Hindu sense of the word (Brahman means something else in Buddhist scripture: sometimes a holy person, sometimes a deva). God as moral creator and/or arbiter: couldn't find a direct quote from scripture, so i'll quote from "What the Buddha taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula (p32): Again, not denying the existence of God, only that the concept is not relevant to Buddhist morality. This book is from a Sri Lankan Theravadan scholar. God(s) as devas: The definition of a deva in Buddhism is a being which occupies a realm in which there are too many luxuries around for such a being to properly contemplate the dharma. They are referred to numerous times throughout scripture, it is clear that the Buddha believed in them. It is equally clear that they are entirely irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. My favourite quote on the subject comes from Nagarjuna, an Indian Buddhist philosopher from the 2nd century: By so forcefully repudiating them, their existence is reinforced. But i ask you 2 things. Is this buddhist concept of deva really what you mean when you say god(s)? Is anything lost at all if someone denies the existence of something the Buddha obviously thought of as irrelevant to his teachings? Bottom line, belief in god(s) is not necessary to be Buddhist.

I'm happy to stand corrected, but the difference between type-identity theory and functionalism doesn't seem so great. Presumably they both are entirely reducible to physical matter? That mental states are something the brain does rather than something it is would not change this.

Buddhism is not theistic, even though Tibetan Buddhism has a pantheon of gods. Buddhism is agnostic. The concept of god was entirely irrelevant to any of the Buddha's teachings. Look up the 10 imponderables if you are in any doubt. Buddhism teaches dharma. Dharma does not necessarily teach Buddhism.

I didn't realise that people have written who have conclusively solved the problem of consciousness. You will have to point me to those books/articles. As for testing whether there is such thing as mind, by denying that you can you have already assumed that mind is something immaterial. It would be better to do it the other way round surely? Test the hypothesis that the mind is 'nothing but' the brain - that its entirely reducible to physical phenomena. If it can be proved, no problems. If it can't be solved this way, then we can begin to 'immaterial' explanations.

Was pretty sure i had deciding on the limits down - i'll wait to see what you get. No rush though, I handed in a while back, just trying to make sense of it. P.S. How hard are these sorts of questions considered? These questions are part of a stats course, I've no uni/college maths background before doing this so not sure where it sits in the scheme of things.

Are you talking to yourself again? Many do think of mental states as states as physical states, read up on Daniel Dennett if you're interested. As for our perceptions of a thing not being the same as the thing itself makes sense to me. I'm just not sure how far we can take the analogy of 'coding' in the brain - whether the brain is entirely computational or has some non-computational components - Roger Penrose has interesting thoughts on this (i just wish i understood more of them). I didn't understand the second bit, something about different consciousnesses existing in one brain (which is a theory put forward before). About the metaphysical claims: it might be impossible to test whether 'mental' substances, whatever they are, exist - but surely if the mind is entirely a function of physical components then it should be possible to empirically test such this hypothesis, in theory if not in practice at least?

Think i got it. I changed the order of integration to make the sums easier: [math]\int_{0}^{4} \int_{0}^{3x} y \sqrt{36+x^3} \ dy \, dx[/math] I'll do it like this, but just wondering was i even close with my first attempt. Hope you enjoyed the concert!

Which is exactly the answer i got the very first time i worked it out. But i was under the impression that it didn't make sense to report an integral a a negative, because areas and volumes are not negative. And i thought just taking the absolute value of whatever you had was considered 'cheating', so i thought i had the limits wrong. Is this just something taught by certain mathematicians? Nevermind, you have greatly helped my understanding anyway. As for the two methods, i think i prefer changing the order of integration. On to another one: [math]\int_{0}^{12} \int_{\frac{y}{3}}^{4} y \sqrt{36+x^3} \ dx \, dy[/math] I did think about trying to change the variable, but i don't really know what i'm doing with that. So i tried the substitution [math]U=\sqrt{36+x^3}[/math] which led to [math]\frac{3x^2}{2\sqrt{36+x^3}}[/math] which i than solved by parts giving: [math]\int_{0}^{12}y [x\sqrt{36+x^3} - \frac{9}{2}ln|36+x^3|]_{\frac{y}{3}}^{4} \ dy[/math] After computations i got another negative answer, so had thought it was wrong again - but maybe not...?

Is this always the case? I need to be able to visualise why this is the case. Is it simply so we don't end up with negative answers? Any way I got [math]336[/math] when changing the order of integration. I then split it like this: [math]\int_2^{8} \int_{-\sqrt2y}^{4-y}2xy \ dx \, dy + \int_0^{2} \int_{-\sqrt2y}^{\sqrt2y}2xy \ dx \, dy [/math] But i got around [math]371[/math]. Think i'm getter closer to understanding, hopefully this was just a computational error.

Thanks a lot Daedalus, As i thought, my problem was with the limits. I don't have a graphics calculator but they were easy functions to sketch - i don't think i'll ever be able to tackle such problems without a sketch. If i imagine a line running through the plane, vertical in the case of the changed integral then the lower function will be the lower limit, so it will be: [math]\int_2^{-4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}x^2}^{4-x}2xydydx[/math] For which i make it 180. But i'm still not convinced about the limits of the outer integral. Thinking of that same vertical line passing through the plane, if i imagine it passing from left to right it first passes the point -4 then 2. So then the upper limit is the first point encountered? I'll try the split integral later.

I'm in a similar position. I hope to go on to a neuroscience PhD. My biggest worry was being too old to significantly contribute, but i convinced myself determination is more important than age. I've no doubt it will be a long hard road, so best of luck.

Weird question for a homework assignment. What's it for? Thought about using the blood brain barrier to reduce the number of potential proteins responsible for the effect?

I've a few homework questions involving multiple integrals. I think most of my problems come from the limits of the integrals. Pointers would be most welcome. This is the 1st one. [math]\int \int_D2xydxdy[/math] where D is the bounded region between [math]y=\frac{1}{2}x^2[/math], [math]x+y=4[/math] and the [math]x[/math]-axis. Wasn't sure whether to split the integral or change the order if integration here (but both should work, right?), so i tried both and got very different answers. So changing the order of integration i make the limits: [math]\int_2^{-4} \int_{4-x}^{\frac{1}{2}x^2}2xydydx[/math] For which eventually i get 2752 - seems too big. Splitting the integral i get: [math]\int_2^{8} \int_{\sqrt2y}^{4-y}2xydxdy + \int_0^{2} \int_{\sqrt2y}^{2}2xydxdy[/math] Which eventually leads to [math]\frac{332}{3}[/math]. This is closer to what i expected. Either way obviously something wrong somewhere, so could someone tell if the limits are correct? Aslo, is there any way sketching these functions here, might help my understanding. Cheers.

Just started to learn a bit of set theory, and was hoping someone could aid my understanding of power sets. As i understand it a power set is the set of all subsets within a given set. This includes the null set - easy enough. It also includes each of the elements within the set. Isn't this saying that each element of a set is also a subset of the set? It then includes the set of all elements. Since all the elements are the set, isn't this saying that set A is a subset of itself? Hopefully i'm just confusing an element with a subset, but any help is appreciated. P.S. And am i right in thinking there can be no subsets of the power set, only elements?

Um... Isn't 'ridicule', or at least reluctance to accept, part of how the scientific method works? We put ideas to the sword, repeatedly, and if they survive they are probably good ideas. For this to work you need people to take strong (unreasonably strong?) opposing views to the idea put forward.

Something i don't understand. In what way is a moral 'objective' just because it comes from a god(s). I assume it was still made by the 'creator'? Is it simply that if god(s) says it's bad, it's bad? In theory then, if god(s) changes his mind and says, actually homosexualtiy is OK, does that then become the objective moral? Or does the attribute of all-knowing allow god(s) access to knowledge of what is eternally good and bad, but is something that somehow exists independently of god(s)? If the former, then i am glad the bringer of light, Lucifer, revolted against the tyranny of the literal biblical god. If the latter, we're no closer to knowing 'where' objective morals come from, and god(s) is simply a messenger.

This all sounds quite absurd(ism), Sisyphus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

Not all, or perhaps any, of these are down to 'fate' alone. Getting robbed or wrongly convicted, at least, involves other humans. A sense of injustice is rightly to be expected. Lose of one's family or one's health, well that would depend on the situation. A terrorist bio-attack would be quite different to losing a limb to an animal. For the former one may seek justice, for the latter there is no justice to be found (we all know the story of Moby Dick). So i would agree that for events outside the sphere of human control, one should try to develop the serenity to accept them. Just because you couldn't find meaning in life without god, doesn't mean someone else couldn't. There doesn't have to be some inherent purpose or grand plan for people to find their own meaning. An atheist doesn't necessarily feel 'left to fend for ourselves in this lonely world'. Recognising our insignificance in the cosmic scale tends to inspire awe and respect for life, rather than fear and loneliness. What else is there to think about? The concept of justice is compatible with a godless universe. Note this is only one atheist's view, i can't speak for anyone else.

Therein lies the problem. Let us assume for a moment we live in such a simulated world, and that there is no way to tell whether we live in such a simulated world. There would then be no way to distinguish reality from illusion. The world we occupy is the only reality we can ever know. Being empirically unverifiable, the question is as futile as beliefs in unprovable god(s). The question would only have value if a 'simulated reality' were distinguishable from 'real reality'. There is also another option to consider, perhaps more likely than all other options given; that it is impossible to model the complexity of our universe, regardless of technological level, due to mathematical constraints. Consider the three body problem ( i know little of physics, but we could put this question to the physics or maths sub-forums for a fuller treatment). As for giving philosophy a bad name, i am yet unconvinced otherwise. I feel philosophy offers much to pursuits of knowledge, but many scientists feel it is nothing but speculations and tail chasing. I think the simulated argument idea is a classic example of tail chasing, in that it does not change the way we think about or engage with the universe. Diogenes had the right idea in his treatment of Zeno's paradox.

It's such ideas that give philosophy a bad name.

Just need to correct you on quite a few things here. Buddhism certainly does not teach about a cosmic consciousness. Such a belief would be akin to the Hindu concept at the Atman and Brahman, which Buddhism does not regard as true. Some Buddhists might believe it though, especially the new age westerner Buddhists. The closest i can think of is the Zen concept of 'Buddha nature' which all humans possess. However, this is simply a belief that all humans have the potential to realize serenity in their lives. The Dalai Lama is certainly not a god, the Buddha himself is not considered a god. Tibetan Buddhists regard as the current Dalai lama as the 14th incarnation of their spiritual leader. Buddhists from other schools just regard him as a pretty wise guy, but not their spiritual leader. Interestingly the Dalai Lama said he would stop believing in reincarnation if he was given sufficient proof - hopefully someone will take him up on that offer soon. Buddhism does teach various celestial, and other, realms. Most Buddhists believe this literally, but a large minority take it only to be figurative. You claim to be a Buddhist. I would recommend you read the 10 imponderables in which the Buddha taught such concerns were not part of his remit of teaching. The 10 imponderables lists certain things the Buddha explicitly said he did not teach and never commented whether he believed in them or not. This included creation stories and whether the universe was infinite/eternal. Let science answer these questions, for it is a most excellent method. It is a waste of time for any religion, or metaphysical system of thought, to ponder such things, and it also misses the point. The Buddha taught to relieve the suffering experienced by man, not to explain the workings of the world. Any religion that is not to the benefit of man is a waste of time: the existence of god(s) or otherwise is irrelevant to the human condition.