awareness

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: awareness

Post by Blaggard » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:42 am

uwot wrote:
Blaggard wrote:Well Copenhagen has no ontology until a measurement is performed.
Yes, I should have added Copenhagen, Shut Up and Calculate to the list. Incidentally, I meant to say 'you ask whether GR and QM are incompatible', I don't know whether that makes it any clearer that I understand that physics can be interpreted entirely instrumentally.
Well we already discussed this it looks like some particle explanation is not too far off.
Blaggard wrote:If that counts as an ontology that would be it.
Only if you are prepared to say what the ultimate cause of the phenomenon is.
Energy fluctuations are the cause of everything, energy is the potential to do work, gravity even causes the creation of particles in a near vacuum.
Blaggard wrote:As I said on another thread if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?
Thanks Arising for putting it so succinctly. Yes, we get that observations/sensations imply observers/sensors although almost from the time Descartes said it, even that has been challenged; by Gassendi, initially.
Well you are restricted to what you can measure ultimately or at least infer or induce.
Blaggard wrote:What we actually need is experiment, and it is all we have to verify science, we don't have the benefit of making shit up like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whatever. ;)
There's a bit more to it than making up dancing angel shit. It's what philosophy does, you take the phenomenal world and put it in a context; try and make sense of it. Quite literally the oldest question in philosophy is 'What is everything made of?' According to our best physics, the universe is made of something that can grow from eansy-weansy to really, really big in just shy of 14 billion years. And do all the freaky is it a wave? is it a particle? two slit jiggery-pokery, form stars, planets and conscious beings, indistinguishable from magic stuff. Philosophers are as much party to that information as physicists, second hand, granted; but for all that we are dumbstruck by the brilliance of experimentalists in finding things to measure, and the mathematical genius it takes to account for the measurements, can physics or maths say anything about what the universe, what fundamental particles are made of?
Steven Weinberg, no friend of philosophy, but undoubtedly a brilliant man, Nobel laureate no less, says that most physicists assume 'a rough and ready realism'. What is it that most physicists think is real?
Atoms are real, they are made up of sub atomic particles which are also real, who exhibit certain behaviours which induce even smaller units called quarks. The strong force though becomes stronger as you try to tease matter apart up to a certain distance, so far the energy concerns needed to release a quark from say a proton are just too great to experimentally verify quarks, but the mathematical model is in fact pretty water tight, there has to be something about the atom that gives it its properties and these must be different for different types of particles hence it is induced there must be something intrinsic about some of the energy contained in the atom and something hence intrinsically particular.
You said before: "I can't do what you want." I'm not trying to be funny, but do you at least understand the question 'What are fundamental particles made of?' I quite appreciate that 'Yes, but who cares?' is entirely reasonable, but this is a philosophy forum and you wouldn't be playing the game. Bad Blaggard!
I said that I haven't studied it enough and it's hard to explain things without using some pretty complicated maths. I can give you an overview but I can't tell you why in laymens terms an electron is a spin half particle and a photon is a spin 1 particle.

What I can do is say that since an up an down quark are charge 2/3 charge -1/3 they have antimatter partners charge -2/3 +1/3 this gives us the electrons properties of charge it also is what relates intrinsically to its negative charge and it's counterpart antimatter positrons +1 charge. ie 1/3+2/3=1

mesons are said to contain 2 quarks which can have various configuration of up down anti up and antidown.

On the other hand a proton is made up of charges up up down 2/3+2/3-1/3 this gives an integer value 1 and a neutron is up down down giving also a value of 0 for charge in the neutrons and +1 in protons. The quarks also are related by a mass concern and an energy concern which means particles with the same configuration have the same mass, and particles with different configurations such as nuetrons and protons have simillar but different masses.

Image

Spin is a natural consequence of mass energy relations that gives all particles their inherent properties and is related to their inherent quark configuration.

the weak interaction can change the configuration of quarks meaning particles can decay, such as a proton becoming a neutron or vise a versa, the energy given off is also particular and the whole process is called beta minus or positive decay according to which particle is created. This implies also that there is something non fundamental about the proton and neutron.

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

This is a pretty good overview of the process.
uwot wrote:
Blaggard wrote:This forum is running so slowly at the moment I can't possibly answer your questions, when it stops basically running that slowly I will endeavour to do so. It's like swimming through treacle though atm, fucked if I can be assed to. :)
In your own time.
About dancing angel shit, dunno whether you saw New Scientist, 8 Feb. Pop science, I know, but just as an example, four different versions of black holes, I'm sure there are plenty more. The kudos will go to those that devise the experiment that determines whether it's foxtrot or rumba. The glory will go to the one that can say: I told you it was angels.
Black holes are still hypothetical despite what pop science says, until someone actually performs an experiment which shows what they are it's a bit of a philosophical mine field more than a theoretical one. That said the inferred evidence is so strong (
pardon the pun) you could probably say it is at least a weak theory.
Blaggard wrote:cnuts will of course be cnuts. It's ever so human to restrict access to those who can think. ;)
I blame the Inebriatti.
As do I, gently swaying in the background, controlling information as always whilst very very slightly pissed. ;)

uwot
Posts: 4812
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: awareness

Post by uwot » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:04 pm

Blaggard it does seem that we are talking completely different languages. I have heard of quarks, dontcha know? The problem now, as it was two and half thousand years ago, is what are they made of? You mention some imminent 'particle explanation'; maybe it's turtles all the way down, but I suspect that you are closer with 'Energy fluctuations are the cause of everything.' Fluctuations in what? As I said, I 'suspect' that some version of a field theory is 'true', in that the universe really is made of a substance, in the philosophical sense; it obtains, to use philosophical vernacular: long story short, it is my guess that the energy fluctuations you suggest, are variations in density in this field, caused by the fact that it clearly has the potential to be as big as it is, and was once really, really tiny. In a sense, I think the universe is a little like the Magic Porridge Pot, I can imagine porridge bursting forth and the eddies and compressions are Fermions and Bosons respectively. It's metaphysics, of course and makes no difference, but as I said, I like stories.

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: awareness

Post by Blaggard » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:07 pm

uwot wrote:Blaggard it does seem that we are talking completely different languages. I have heard of quarks, dontcha know? The problem now, as it was two and half thousand years ago, is what are they made of? You mention some imminent 'particle explanation'; maybe it's turtles all the way down, but I suspect that you are closer with 'Energy fluctuations are the cause of everything.' Fluctuations in what? As I said, I 'suspect' that some version of a field theory is 'true', in that the universe really is made of a substance, in the philosophical sense; it obtains, to use philosophical vernacular: long story short, it is my guess that the energy fluctuations you suggest, are variations in density in this field, caused by the fact that it clearly has the potential to be as big as it is, and was once really, really tiny. In a sense, I think the universe is a little like the Magic Porridge Pot, I can imagine porridge bursting forth and the eddies and compressions are Fermions and Bosons respectively. It's metaphysics, of course and makes no difference, but as I said, I like stories.
Well that's more or less what I said so I'd find it hard to disagree.

You asked for an explanation and told me I was bad, I felt guilty so I gave you one. ;)

I don't think we are talking different languages, philosophy and science are the same language with different expectations, one hopes to prove useful and to explain what is happening, the other only hopes to refine the logical process, making utility if not more likely, at least more refined, these are not different languages they are merely different dialects. :P

In one sense the universe is only as big as it has ever been the number line is just expanding.

123...
1.2.3...
1..2..3...
1...2...3...
1....2....3....4...

If you get the analogy.

the elipsis is confused there but it just means and so on to "infinity" in this context. I could of put it in terms of an elastic sheet being "pulled" apart but either way I think the point is fairly clear.

Space and time are expanding but they are not relatively larger just relatively more attenuated from a certain perspective.

Let's just hope the porridge is not too hot or too cold, but just right since you like stories... ;)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests