Raising My Arm

[Fist and Faith]

I don't know how to word it, Sky.

There are laws of physics. Particles interact in various way, following specific rules, which depend on things like the types and number of particles involved, and the specific situation. At all levels, things interact in specific ways. They must interact in specific ways, and they cannot act in other ways. Two electrons will not combine to form a proton; they will repel each other. Two hydrogen atoms will not combine with an oxygen atom to form sulphuric acid; they will form a water molecule. Oxygen does not enter my bloodstream and cause me to see a rainbow; it is part of the cells' processes of producing energy she carrying away toxins.

When doing math, various physical/chemical processes are taking place. Neurons are firing, ions are released to cross synapses, etc. Processes that we can measure in various ways. At the very least, we can detect the brain activity. As V has said, we can often recognize the patterns of brain activity, and know what a person is thinking.

When doing a math problem, the state of the brain at any given moment (that is, the exact arrangement of molecules, ions, flowing energy, etc) is not the cause of the state of the brain the next moment. Math is not done by the laws of physics. Math is not done by the properties of particles that lead from one event to another. If that was the case, I would not be able to NOT calculate the answer to a problem presented to me. But I can sing a song, instead. And, if I DO calculate the answer, I would not be able to get the wrong answer. But I certainly can get the wrong answer. If one state leads to the next, which leads to the next, which leads to the next, then math would be nothing more than knocking over a complex arrangement of dominoes. Once you set them up, they WILL fall in a certain way.

Not so with arrangements of all the "dominoes" that make up a particular brain state. The next brain state is not a foregone conclusion, based how those dominoes fall, due to the laws of how things interact. The mind is free from that.

[Skyweir]

I don't know how to word it, Sky.

Well this is pretty good ..

When doing a math problem, the state of the brain at any given moment (that is, the exact arrangement of molecules, ions, flowing energy, etc) is not the cause of the state of the brain the next moment.

I expect doing a math problem has been tested and mapped and this is a finding

The state of the brain is not the CAUSE of the state of the brain the next moment ... ..

^^^^
That I do not understand
I wonder how that is determined. The state of the brain is mapped and when processing math .. there is no causal link between one state and the next

Wouldnt this imply that that LINK has not yet been identified .. I mean if you cannot explain the different states .. there ultimately is a step not yet identified

I am absolutely sure this is beyond irritating .. and for that I apologise. I will however also see if I can get an understanding of the process you describe .. from the inter web LOL .. ..

Math is not done by the laws of physics. Math is not done by the properties of particles that lead from one event to another. If that was the case, I would not be able to NOT calculate the answer to a problem presented to me. But I can sing a song, instead.

How is that possible .. noting clearly that I am neither a musician or a mathematician ... surely you cannot sing a song unless you know the music, the tune, its rhythm, the lyrics, have sung it before even. So this is not a balanced comparison.

On my note .. when seeking for intelligence candidates, grads, there was a preference for musicians, creative folk, who were skilled in identifying patterns. Also when my kids were in school, there was often a connection drawn between mathematical ability and musical ability.

How are these two functions distinguished in these analogies that you have given

Ok so math is done by laws of physics .. but that is just the science of maths, even mathematical theory, that has been discovered and refined by mathematicians, like Elba, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Newton and others ... throughout the history of the humankind, and took generations to establish.

So would the human brain have acted differently prior to earliest mathematical thought .. Lets say stone age human hunting and gathering .. perhaps he would have had the simplest of mathematical capability .. perhaps not unlike me today .. if we could record what occurred in the brain when they made the attempt to process how many nuts they would need to gather to feed their family of 13 .. simple calculations that preceded a refined knowledge of calculus, physics, chemistry or mathematics.

And, if I DO calculate the answer, I would not be able to get the wrong answer.

How is that possible .. this equates the human brain to a programmed computer .. which is not able to reach an answer not programmed

But I certainly can get the wrong answer. If one state leads to the next, which leads to the next, which leads to the next, then math would be nothing more than knocking over a complex arrangement of dominoes. Once you set them up, they WILL fall in a certain way.

Not so with arrangements of all the "dominoes" that make up a particular brain state. The next brain state is not a foregone conclusion, based how those dominoes fall, due to the laws of how things interact. The mind is free from that.

Yes you can get the answer wrong .. the brain doesnt work like that I dont think.

The scenario hasnt changed imo. You cannot process a math problem if you do not understand the process, the math. You cannot sing a song if you do not understand or know the tune, the rhythm, the lyrics.

As far as the processes in the brain go .. Neurons are firing, ions are released to cross synapses etc .. is what happens when we think. This can be mapped and tracked you say .. and scientists, neurologists .. whatever can even identifying what you might be thinking ... which is pretty awesome actually .. but ..

1. It is posited that some knowledge is carried in the genes from one generation to another .. If that IS possible .. there seems to be a growing developing knowledge base from which the brain can operate .. or tap.

2. How we process thought is monitorable

3. We acquire knowledge in increments .. building blocks

4. There may be a distinction between brain states when processing math but that may simply mean we haven't yet identified the causal link between those two states

5. If point 4 is correct .. which of course it may well not be .. math is not really the analogy for unexplainable

[Fist and Faith]

Unfortunately, you are entirely missing my point. As though I am talking about the material a ball is made out of, and you are taking about its shape. I have no idea how to get us on the same topic.

[Skyweir]

hahaha .. Im sorry FF .. its not you its me .. absolutely me ..

Thanks for your efforts

[Skyweir]

Ok I was thinking about what you wrote FF and maybe you can explain the thing about this

When doing a math problem, the state of the brain at any given moment (that is, the exact arrangement of molecules, ions, flowing energy, etc) is not the cause of the state of the brain the next moment.

What does that mean Clearly you discovered this somewhere.

Does it not just mean that we just dont know how the brain moves from one state to the different state .. which is more about humans not yet learning how it got from one state to the next .. you talked about causation .. so isnt it just we haven't identified the causal relationship between disparate states

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

These might be helpful. They're from the hyperactive, German wunderkind, Markus Gabriel, one half of duo composing the "New Realist" school.

Is the Mind a Product of Nature? [Video: 5 min]

Against Neurofetishism [Video: approx 80 min]

------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, this book has the distinct advantage of being written in a very accessible, popular style.

I am Not a Brain: Philosophy of Mind for the 21st Century by Markus Gabriel

[Vraith]

I'm not saying the mind is immaterial. I believe it is material. But it is doing things that cannot be explained by the properties of the material. And it doesn't matter what we call it/them, or what it/they truly are. They have specific properties and interact in specific ways. The laws of physics.

-When does a virtual particle become a real particle/How are they "pushed" to become real?
-How do we distinguish a virtual particle from a real particle?
-Which "real" effects does a virtual particle stop having after it becomes real?

Second first---virtual becomes real in rare/particular instances, breakages like when a virtual pair forms right on the edge of a black hole, so before they remerge, on is sucked in, and one goes on. [[energy imbalance and input always is part of it, afaict]].
A virtual photon violates [or can...I don't know if it MUST] conservation laws.
All virtuals can.
Uncertainty allows that. Reality makes it happen.
A virtual photon can [and afaict always might] have mass.
Real photons never do. They CAN'T.

You keep saying "Physics laws say things happen in precise ways."
That's true.
But you're ignoring the multitude of precise ways there are.
EVERY snowflake follows the same exact rules.
But EVERY snowflake is unique...and that isn't even QUANTUM, that's just normal shit.
Again, I think you're saying the problem in a mistaken way [Wos's link guy goes in this way in the videos, though there are things I disagree with, he's framing/stating it more clearly] [[BTW, Wos...a German friend of mine from back in the day runs a group that hosted that guy as part of a forum. Small world].

Anyway..mistaken way---I think there's an inside and outside...though I hate saying it that way. There's a complicated continuum. Z says even matter is immaterial...I go the other way, I think the immaterial is just a phase-state of the material.

For fun: if math was done by physical states, then you couldn't be wrong---really? do you have any idea how much went into creating the first calculator and making it get the right answer?
Rules and particles are a clusterfuckingmiasmaness of chaos where every nailed-down process risks impossiblizing simple others. And that's just the OUTSIDE.
And math isn't done by physical laws?
Well, physical laws aren't done by math, either.

[Skyweir]

+JMJ+

These might be helpful. They're from the hyperactive, German wunderkind, Markus Gabriel, one half of duo composing the "New Realist" school.

Is the Mind a Product of Nature? [Video: 5 min]

Against Neurofetishism [Video: approx 80 min]

------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, this book has the distinct advantage of being written in a very accessible, popular style.

I am Not a Brain: Philosophy of Mind for the 21st Century by Markus Gabriel

Cheers Wosa .. will give these links a gander

Nice post V .. more food to digest

[Skyweir]

Okay I absolutely love this guy Markus Gabriel .. him I get

I love his language it is so precise .. and he is actually HAS a sense of humour Nice mix .. am watching ALL of his short snappy videos

cheers Wosa

[Skyweir]

Interesting

God did not create the world, if he created the world, he would have had to create himself, then the world.

[Fist and Faith]

I tried the short video, Wos. It did absolutely nothing for me. But I'll try the second tomorrow.

But you're ignoring the multitude of precise ways there are.

None of the multitude of ways is different in the ways that address the issue.

For fun: if math was done by physical states, then you couldn't be wrong---really? do you have any idea how much went into creating the first calculator and making it get the right answer?

I'm sure it took many tries before they figured out what they were doing wrong. But it was human error that was the problem. But yes, calculators do math by physical states. (Ignoring the fact that humans must push the buttons to begin the process.) And now that we have learned how to program them correctly, an incorrect answer is not possible. Try 54,856x21,242= any number of times you want, and you will not get an incorrect answer.

But this is not how math is done in our heads. We can get the wrong answer.

And we can ignore the question. For example, I have not tried to calculate the answer to the above. But, once you press the = button on the calculator, it will calculate the answer. Because it is nothing but a progression of physical states, falling like dominoes. It cannot do anything but follow the laws of physics that apply to them. No matter how many times you punch it in. It won't get bored. It won't wonder why you keep asking the same damned question endlessly. It won't know that you just asked it five seconds ago, and five seconds before that, and five seconds before that...

These two differences between us and calculators - the possibility of getting the wrong answer and the ability to not bother trying - are due to the fact that we have consciousness; our minds are not bound by the laws of physics.

[Skyweir]

The second one is EVEN better imo

lol

[Avatar]

That's the spirit, Av! Good you're in agreement!

--A

[Skyweir]

[Vraith]

These two differences between us and calculators - the possibility of getting the wrong answer and the ability to not bother trying - are due to the fact that we have consciousness; our minds are not bound by the laws of physics.

Or those two things are due to the fact that our brains/minds are not made for [or mechanically limited to] being a mathematical calculator. Their role is to help us live/survive.

Of course there are differences in how we and calculators do our jobs---

TANGENT--->>>although I would note that most people "do" math in a somewhat similar way to calculators---they're loaded with date [like the multiplication table]...they [[MOST people, some people "speak" math]] then use a standard [and not understood, mostly] algorithm that they've been taught/programmed with to arrive at answer/output.

---but, here we go again with a hopefully tenable/communicative ponderation---
Somewhere I've mentioned inside/outside...I also mentioned fields being the fundamental, not the particles...
SINCE the brain is made up of particles, it is REALLY an area with a whole bunch of interacting fields.
The brain is MADE BY these fields.
[[[though ALSO these fields interact where they do because there is a brain there.]]]
So, what if all the "mind" things---abstract mathemetizing, the redness of red---are what it is to be "inside" the fields interacting?
And I really think this somewhat resembles what is really going on...it's a decent analogy/metaphor/presentation.
There are a lot of problems it doesn't solve, it just shifts them to a slightly different perspective...
But I think it prevents the "everything contains some portion of consciousness/mind" thing.
And it ends the mind/brain dualism.
It flips the script/issue, and eliminates the problem that peter quoted something about somewhere---where mind/consciousness is just waste-product, or illusory/non-causal, the idea that it's just epiphenomena of brain activity.
I also think it, or something like it, might be a path to exploring/explaining the issue Z was talking about somewhere--why consciousness when some things could apparently be done just as well without consciousness. I'd need to think and tease out some implications to be sure...but I guess it might be fruitful/pertinent.

[Skyweir]

Nice post V

[Fist and Faith]

Ok I was thinking about what you wrote FF and maybe you can explain the thing about this

When doing a math problem, the state of the brain at any given moment (that is, the exact arrangement of molecules, ions, flowing energy, etc) is not the cause of the state of the brain the next moment.

What does that mean Clearly you discovered this somewhere.

Does it not just mean that we just dont know how the brain moves from one state to the different state .. which is more about humans not yet learning how it got from one state to the next .. you talked about causation .. so isnt it just we haven't identified the causal relationship between disparate states

Heh. Yes, I discovered it when Z posted it. The first of his posts that I quoted last week.

We can see how things happen in the brain. We know that a neuron releases neurotransmitters into the synapse, to be received by the neuron on the other side of the synapse. We know how the reception of the neurotransmitter makes the receiving neuron more or less likely to form it's own action potentials, and release its own neurotransmitters into the synapse toward the next neuron in the chain.

That's all just physics. Cause & Effect.

So here's the question... Is the thought "There is an unsolved equation: 3,275+67,439=_____" nothing more than the exact arrangement of all the specific neurons that are transmitting, and all the neurons that are receiving, at a given moment? And is the first step taken in solving the equation nothing more than the exact arrangement of all the specific neurons that are transmitting, and all the neurons that are receiving, the next moment? And on and on until the solution is nothing other than another arrangement?

I am saying No. That cannot be the case. Because we know that Neuron 1, having received some dopamine, will now do X. And Neuron 2, having received some GABA, will now do Y. Etc etc etc, for the billions of other synapses. But it's all just physics. The neurons and neurotransmitters and other things involved are each doing the only thing they can do; following the laws of interaction that they follow.

Do those laws of interaction know math? Or is something else going on? Either something else is present? Are all the neurons, individually or as a whole, also doing things that do NOT follow the laws of interaction?

[Zarathustra]

Well said, FF. I'm glad I was able to convince at least one person of my position.

Sky, the mystery is how one mental state follows another. What is the cause of one mental state to the next? In physics, everything happens due to a physical cause (whether matter or energy or fields etc.). These causes are "blind," they don't look forward to the future with a goal in mind. But when our minds go from one thought to the next, it they are chasing after meaning. Right now I have a vague idea of what I want to say. I'm not sure the exact words I'll have to use to say it. And my neurons have even less idea. They don't look forward and chase after a goal that is entirely semantical. The next thought I express isn't determined by the laws of physics. It's determined by my sense of incompleteness in making my point, that there is still more to say in order to finish. Where could that sense come from if not an intention, a goal, of which matter has neither?

Mental states follow patterns that are purely ideal in nature. Math is a good example, but it's even more powerful when you think about simply expressing yourself, or writing a novel, or improvising live music. While the consciousness is "carried on top of" a physical process of neurons firing, the content of that consciousness isn't determined by this physical process. My next word or next note could literally be anything. While there are grammar rules or musical theory that might help predict the next note or word, I could easily making start just sense no absolutely.

You still understood me, didn't you? Exen wten I shart broeking trese roles.

Meaning isn't in the rules, much less in the laws of physics. We are alive and knowing. That's where meaning exists. And when we chase after meaning, we are freeing ourselves of physical constraints of cause-and-effect, which cannot determine meaning. My current mental state is causing my next mental state due to something entirely different from a bottom-up process of neurons firing in a sequence. Where these mental states are tending towards is already "predetermined," not by the laws of physics, but by my goal, my meaning. Only I know when I am done speaking.

[samrw3]

I have been doing my best trying to follow all this. I am not a scientist or even remotely close to understanding biology, physics, etc. So I may be totally off with this question but here goes nothing.

The way I had always understood it (or at least processed it in my mind) was that consciousness was matter - neurons tapping into other matter (wherever memory is stored - sorry like I said not well defined in biology). Then all the "learned" memory places start processing with each other to "survive" in the situation. Then the minds neurons start kicking back to those memory locations how well it survived using the prior memory skills to "survive". If a satisfactory result occurred then very little is kicked back to memory locations. If the neurons interpret the results as something needs to be fixed for a better survival rate then it kicks back to memory locations - search for more optimal survival. So in the memory - will be investigate other's results, run trial and errors, etc.

So isn't consciousness just a combination of neurons and some small scale of evolution/survival factors?

PS by survival I mean here - situational survival - faster processing of math, better music arrangement, etc.

*Gulp* my guess is I am way off but just curious if there is some of this type of combination going on? So Zarathustra in your scenario - yes you could state something that made absolutely no sense but then to "situational survive" in KW your brain would kick back to memory storage - hey no one said anything about this post or they replied what the heck!!! So now your mind decides to more situational survive the next posting it better "learn" more optimal communication patterns.

[Lazy Luke]

I am not a scientist or even remotely close to understanding biology, physics, etc.

Ditto -

So isn't consciousness just a combination of neurons and some small scale of evolution/survival factors?

PS by survival I mean here - situational survival - faster processing of math, better music arrangement, etc.

Isn't that statement like comparing the brain to a computer, insomuch as it's only self-explanitory. The components of a computer are very limited and in very basic terms as functional as a spinning top.

Conciousness has to be more than it's constituent parts, ie, the brain, the body, the soul. So if neurons were for example like sparks, it's the source of the spark, the potential to store electrical charge that constitutes consciousness. The physical and natural world we live in has that capability.