Mind or minds

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:31 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:14 pm
Let's agree that the universe is bounded for sake of discussion. How many different combination of things you can make with 10^120 particles?
Lets go with worst case: 10^120 factorial.
It is 2^(10^120).
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:17 pm
But you are making an error. Your universal set's contents hasn't changed. You still have and always will have 10^120 particles.
It is not about content. 10^120 is the set by definition the universal set. All sub-sets is far bigger than the universal set. All sub-sets in principle can exist.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:35 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:31 pm
It is 2^(10^120).
You are counting only arrangements. I am counting inter-connections.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:17 pm
It is not about content. 10^120 is the set by definition the universal set.
Yes. That is the number of elements in the set.

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:17 pm
All sub-sets is far bigger than the universal set. All sub-sets in principle can exist.
What do you count as a "subset"?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:38 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:35 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:31 pm
It is 2^(10^120).
You are counting only arrangements. I am counting inter-connections.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:17 pm
It is not about content. 10^120 is the set by definition the universal set.
Yes. That is the number of elements in the set.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:17 pm
All sub-sets is far bigger than the universal set. All sub-sets in principle can exist.
What do you count as a "subset"?
A certain arrangement of the elements of the set.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:41 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:38 pm
A certain arrangement of the elements of the set.
That depends. Do you consider: 1,2,3 to be the same arrangement as 3,2,1 ?
Can one photon replace another photon or are photons unique in themselves?

This is why I am going with worst-cases (so we can avoid nitpicking).

10^120 factorial is a much bigger number than 2^(10^120).
10^120 factorial means "everything is connected to everything".

Said plainly: Each micro-state correspond to a unique macro-state (e.g no emergence!)

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:52 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:41 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:38 pm
A certain arrangement of the elements of the set.
That depends. Do you consider: 1,2,3 to be the same arrangement as 3,2,1 ?
Oh yes, you are correct all combinations is more than 2^(10^120).
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:41 pm
Can one photon replace another photon or are photons unique in themselves?
Yes, the number is lower if you consider the fact that the particles are indistinguishable.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:56 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:52 pm
Yes, the number is lower if you consider the fact that the particles are indistinguishable.
Right. Hence my pessimistic approach. Call it 10^120 factorial. This way we don't get sidetracked with nitpicking.

The only way the set expands from here onwards is if you decompose any of the parts.

Either one photon becomes 2 <some new particles>, or 1 "connection" (interaction?) between any two particles becomes 2.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:12 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:56 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:52 pm
Yes, the number is lower if you consider the fact that the particles are indistinguishable.
Right. Hence my pessimistic approach. Call it 10^120 factorial. This way we don't get sidetracked with nitpicking.

The only way the set expands from here onwards is if you decompose any of the parts.

Either one photon becomes 2 <some new particles>, or 1 "connection" (interaction?) between any two particles becomes 2.
I don't know how big is he sub-sets considering the fact that each two members can be arranged differently in three dimensional space.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:17 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:12 pm
I don't know how big is he sub-sets considering the fact that each two members can be arranged differently in three dimensional space.
Potentially - yes. Then we can work out the volume of spacetime in Planck-lengths if you want. Then we don't have 10^120 factorial permutations. It's a much bigger number!

Whatever. My point is - pick the highest cardinality quantifiable set you can think of. Add the exclamation mark (factorial) and call that "The Universe".

If you think you are committing an error in estimate - square it as a safety margin.

That is your ontology.

The only "wrong" out of here is reinventing physics and that's the good kind of wrong.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:07 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:12 pm
I don't know how big is he sub-sets considering the fact that each two members can be arranged differently in three dimensional space.
Potentially - yes. Then we can work out the volume of spacetime in Planck-lengths if you want. Then we don't have 10^120 factorial permutations. It's a much bigger number!

Whatever. My point is - pick the highest cardinality quantifiable set you can think of. Add the exclamation mark (factorial) and call that "The Universe".

If you think you are committing an error in estimate - square it as a safety margin.

That is your ontology.

The only "wrong" out of here is reinventing physics and that's the good kind of wrong.
And what if the universe is unbound? I have an argument for that.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:07 pm
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:12 pm
I don't know how big is he sub-sets considering the fact that each two members can be arranged differently in three dimensional space.
Potentially - yes. Then we can work out the volume of spacetime in Planck-lengths if you want. Then we don't have 10^120 factorial permutations. It's a much bigger number!

Whatever. My point is - pick the highest cardinality quantifiable set you can think of. Add the exclamation mark (factorial) and call that "The Universe".

If you think you are committing an error in estimate - square it as a safety margin.

That is your ontology.

The only "wrong" out of here is reinventing physics and that's the good kind of wrong.
And what if the universe is unbound? I have an argument for that.
Then logic is useless.

Humans are incapable of unbounded comprehension.

Any notion of “locality” would be entirely artificial.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:35 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:07 pm
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:17 pm

Potentially - yes. Then we can work out the volume of spacetime in Planck-lengths if you want. Then we don't have 10^120 factorial permutations. It's a much bigger number!

Whatever. My point is - pick the highest cardinality quantifiable set you can think of. Add the exclamation mark (factorial) and call that "The Universe".

If you think you are committing an error in estimate - square it as a safety margin.

That is your ontology.

The only "wrong" out of here is reinventing physics and that's the good kind of wrong.
And what if the universe is unbound? I have an argument for that.
Then logic is useless.
That is not true.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
Humans are incapable of unbounded comprehension.
That is not true either. In fact I have difficulty to understand a bounded universe. What is beyond the universe?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:54 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:35 pm
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:07 pm

And what if the universe is unbound? I have an argument for that.
Then logic is useless.
That is not true.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pm
Humans are incapable of unbounded comprehension.
That is not true either. In fact I have difficulty to understand a bounded universe. What is beyond the universe?
By what conception of “understanding”?

I mean modeling/accurate prediction.

I don’t know what is “beyond the universe”.
And I am OK not knowing.

Some questions are meaningless or deserve “42” as response.

But if you think you are capable of reasoning without boundaries I am willing to demonstrate the error in your ways.

There is this theoretical notion of a finite state machine. It applies to minds and there are physical limits to their practical realisations.

Walker
Posts: 6886
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Walker » Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:40 pm

Mind, with degrees of access to mind governed by both incarnation and varying degrees of incarnated capacity, depending upon the life-form.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
AlexW wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:48 am
It cannot know what is not in agreement - which is: the conceptual content of thought.
I would say that It can KNOW what is NOT in agreement - the conceptual content of thought, because;
1. It is within EVERY thing and IS able to Observe/SEE EVERY thing.
2. The conceptual content of thought is always HEARD in spoken words and SEEN in written words.

The conceptual content of thought is actually SPLASHED throughout these pages, on this forum, for ALL to SEE.

The conceptual content of thought can also be SEEN through ALL of human beings' creations.

The conceptual content of thought is, literally, EVERYWHERE in this human made "world".
I think this is where we seem to have different opinions.
1: "It" is not within "EVERY thing" - simply because there are no things (there are only ideas of things).
2. The heard is simply sound or thought - the content can not be heard or seen it can only be inferred by chains of thought which seem to generate meaning, but these meanings are only an abstraction they are not "real" (they don't really exist - they are ideas only)

Yes, "The conceptual content of thought is actually SPLASHED throughout these pages" , but it cannot be seen, it exists only in the map that is being created by interpreting the words that have been written.
See, if we state "I feel the wind on my skin" then this is an interpretation - chains of thought might state that "It" can really feel/know "wind" or "skin", but ultimately this is not true.
"It" can only know what it IS.
"It" is not an idea, not a concept and can and will never be one. "It" knows the direct experience of "wind on skin", the real (no-)thing, but not the interpretation - "It" doesn't know any meanings - they are reserved for the map and for interpretative thought.
Yes, "It" also knows thought, but it has nothing to do with the ideas/beliefs that seem to be formed by linking thoughts up into imaginary pictures (like "wind on skin" or a "human made world").
This "human made world" exists only as an idea - even "world" is an idea, a concept that "It" can never know (yes, "It" knows the thought, but this thought has no meaning for "It").

Again:
"It" only knows itself by being itself.
"It" knows the terrain by being the terrain.
"It" cannot know the map as it is NOT the map.
The map is an illusion/interpretation that exists only as chains of thought that seem to prove the existence of things, but these things are only ideas - they are not ultimately real and this "It" (=absolute reality) has nothing to do with them.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3633
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:31 am

AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
the Universe simply exists rather than experiences [ to me Mind and Universe are the same ]
But physical nerve endings experience that is how physical things KNOW where to place themselves and in what positions
Therefore some might argue that it is because of EXPERIENCE that the Universe / Mind has placed Itself in the place that It is
existing in NOW and in the position that It is existing in NOW
Physical nerve endings belong to biological organisms but most of the observable Universe is known or thought to be without life
And awareness of experience is not possible without life forms and this is why I think the Universe exists rather than experiences

Also the Universe cannot place itself anywhere else because there is no such place as EVERYWHERE is the Universe
So there is no space that exists outside the Universe because by definition that would also be part of the Universe

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests