Choice or Determinism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Re:

Post by Blaggard »

attofishpi wrote:
Blaggard wrote:I personally find the whole consciousness debate fascinating, and any insight is always appreciated. :)
I do to!

The fact that a certain arrangement of atoms results in 'ME'....well, the mind boggles.
Add quantum mechanics into the mixture ie things at the atomic level are not deterministic but probabilistic and the mind boggles on the mind, if you catch my drift. :)

Did you know that recent research has found DNA enzymes use quantum mechanics principles, rather than deterministic rules to more quickly locate chemicals. Which means even memory which involves DNA methylisation is somewhat probabilistic. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;)

The research was done by a Nobel prize winning biologist at NASA, so it is not so easily overlooked, true or not it is very interesting. :)

Recent psychobiology experiments have shown the mind often goes into a sort of cascade mode where it suddenly and randomly has a burst of activity, which might explain inspiration. The odd behaviour resembles an epileptic fit but as yet it cannot be modelled by any chaotic (determined classical)
theory. If one applies probability mathematics though the resultant model exactly matches the brains flurry of activity, as to why it happens is anyone's guess but it does seem to precede periods where the brain is dreaming or day dreaming...


In the classic apocryphal story of the apple falling on Newtons head, hence it triggered a cascade that lead to the invention of calculus to model physics. ;)

Also in the 17th century some bright spark came up with imaginary numbers on an axis, numbers at 90 degrees to the 3 common dimensions, and that in addition to calculus lead ultimately to quantum mechanics, and more precisely Einstein's general and special relativity theories which used 4d calculus aka Minkowski space to model space/time.


It is one of the most interesting times to be alive in science and thought, if you'll pardon the pun. :P
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Blaggard »

Ginkgo wrote:
Blaggard wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
Yes, I agree it is a very good casual explanation for consciousness. I would like some time to think about the implications of this ( if any) when it comes to a knowledge argument. Could be interesting.
Take as much time as you like mate, I wont be going anywhere. :)

I personally find the whole consciousness debate fascinating, and any insight is always appreciated. :)

Hi Blaggard,

My guess, in relation to Multiple realizability and the Mary argument is as follows:


The realizability argument suggests to me that there can only be one single type of qualia. Imagine if Mary had a twin who was exactly the same in every single way; they both would emerge from the black and white environment and collectively claim they have gained additiona information l upon seeing colour. As far as the realizability argument is concerned it would have to be exactly the same new knowledge, because there is a claim that for a single type of qualia they both can partake in the same essential state.

The other possibility is that both partake in the same set of underlying scientific properties. In other words, both share the same essential state of non-interest because they both partake in the same essential state. This would make it impossible to have a situation whereby one Mary gains new information while the other gains no new information.


That's the best I can come up with so over to you.
Well that doesn't help me much, suffice to say in twin studies they have found that twins who are often exposed to the same stimuli differ markedly still in the activity of their brain. Aside from the mystical stories of them feeling each others pain, I cannot fathom how mutlirealisability will perform a function without their being congruency and hence come to the conclusion that any qualia should be at least similar necessarily by logical induction, but can go no further in terms of what exactly is the colour red...

As Putnam said the robot analogy was his first choice, ie that data maps 1 to 1 to data, multirealisability is a more neuronal consequence of abandoning the idea of 1 to 1 mapping and consciousness...

The closest I have seen to that sort of set up is fuzzy logic where something can equal 1 or 0 or 1,0 or 0,1 and that basically is the essence of quantum computing so...

I can provide links to quantum transistors, but this leads us back to the robot issue again, or even worse to that outdated zombie issue. I feel however we
(and I don't mean we as in I am the big I am in consciousness theory, just we as in philosophical terms) are close to something, I just don't as yet know exactly what it is (again pardon the pun). :)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/24 ... room_temp/

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-harnessing ... stors.html

These links are relevant I think.
Post Reply