Kevin's Watch

weeeelllll....i've just perused the wiki article on Trigun.

looks like a hero journey to me!!

Emotional Leper wrote:But quite honestly, I don't think the 'mind' as a seperate entity exists. I believe that my 'conciousness' is the direct by-product of chemical reactions in my brain.

I don't think the mind is separate. For instance, we don't find minds unless they are intrinsically tied to brains (in some mysterious fashion). However, does this mean that you think minds are illusions? Sure, consciousness might be a direct by-product of chemical reactions in the brain. But think about how "otherworldly" and unique that by-product is. As a comparison, consider the images created on your TV screen by the chemical reactions of electrons being shot at a phosphorous screen (at least in the old CRT). These moving images are built up from information from the outer world (TV stations, or cable providers). Yet they create pictures which mean something to us, which tell stories, which convey information. However, these images in themselves don't have any power or control upon the electron streams themselves. The images can't turn themselves the "other way" and affect the very thing which produces them. That's what a "by-product" is. Do you think Mind is something similar? If it's also a by product, a series of images of the outer world produced by chemical reactions, why is it that Mind can affect the body? This is more than an extremely complicated by-product. It is not enough to say that there is a "feedback loop"--that's just the name of this curious occurrence. Could we ever build a TV with such a feedback loop? Even in principle, it seems that it is impossible to make a TV where the images on the screen affect the electron beam itself.

So what we're left with is that the mind is an illusion, that when it seems like I'm causing my body to do stuff, that's just an illusion. My consciousness could be nothing more than a series of "pictures" like the images on a TV screen. No causality could flow from the by-product back towards that which produces this by-product.

If you're willing to admit that mind is an illusion, then your position is fine. But I can't admit that I have no control over this body, that my identity, passion, opinions, and will is all an illusion. My mind is not this body's TV program.

Emotional Leper wrote:I also believe that the easiest way to create and 'artifical' intelligence would be to create a computer capable of simulating with extremely high accuracy the functionings of the human brain . . . If your emulation is perfect, the person being emulated would not be able to tell that their mind was being emulated, nor would an observer engaged in a turing test.

I don't think this is possible, at least not with the kind of computers we have today. A universal Turing machine (i.e. what we call a "computer") does nothing more than manipulate symbols according to algorithms. However, consciousness isn't a manipulation of symbols according to a mathematical algorithm. In addition, our consciousness can do something that no possible computer can ever do. We can prove Godel's theorem--which basically says that there will always be true propositions in any given formal, algorithmic system (such as math or logic) which we can never prove. No computer could itself could ever come to this conclusion because its processes always operate within such an algorithmic system. Godel's proof requires one to recognize a truth of algorithmic systems which can't be recognized within that system itself. We can prove it ourselves because we can understand what the symbols mean. Understanding is itself something different from pure manipulation of symbols.

A simulation of a mind could appear to do everything a mind could do (at least to outside observers) without ever knowing that it is doing it. Consciousness isn't required for the operations a computer performs. To say that consciousness can be built up out of these very operations which themselves proceed without consciousness is a contradiction. Our brain is doing something much more complicated than simply running strings of 0s and 1s through a set of rules.

True, our brains are analog machines. And conciousness is a result of chemical and electrical signals which in turn are alterable by counciousness. I alter the chemical and electrical signals of my brain every time I think myself into a panic attack.

Of course, this isn't the best sort of discussion for me to have, since I firmly believe that free will is an illusion. All choices have already been made. Simply because we don't know what they will be yet does not mean that we have the ability to choose ourselves. Free will is the illusion created due to the fact that, since one cannot perfectly predict the state of the current universe, one cannot perfectly predict the future states of the universe.

And I think it is possible to emulate/simulate a human mind on a machine. Not perfectly, though, but with a high enough degree of accuracy for there to be no different between the simulated mind and the original in terms of how it functions on the 'higher' level. The problem is not one of complexity -- though that is a huge part of the problem. The problem is the limits in terms of speed and memory available to modern systems. According to Wikipedia, the Human Brain contains some 100 Billion Neurons. At the very least, one would need a machine capable of running atleast 100 Billion different threads, although that, of course, would fall far short of the mark. If one is not modeling individual neurons, but, instead, molecules and such, I doubt if there is enough computing power on the planet to do so. Quick Break Down:

100 Billion Neurons = 10^12 = Minimum 40 Bit array, if referenced via array.

A Neuron would need to contain atleast the following infromation:

Pointers to other brain cells representing Synapses, including their length. The average human brain has up to 10^15 synapses. If each neuron structure inside the simulation contained a linked list of synaptic connections which were just a pointer to another nueron combined with the length of the synapse for propagation of the signal, each synapse would require more than a minimum of 40 bits. More probably, each synapse would itself be a seperate structure containing a list of events that are currently being propagated down its length towards endpoints and other neurons connected to them.

I don't know how many different chemicals can effect the neuron, but a list would have to be kept for each neuron of how much of what chemical it was under the influenced of. I really don't have that much knowledge on how the brain functions beyond your average HS Biology level.

Anyway, based on just the number of neurons and the number of synapses, one would need a minimum of... crap. 103.39 Yotabytes, far beyond our capabilities for a long, long, long time. And that's an estimate that I freely acknowledge is far, far lower than the actual requirement will be.

And that's just the memory requirement.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't think we'll ever get there.

EL, wow. You came up with all that rather quickly. I spent way too much time on my own post. I even took a dinner break.

I recommend Roger Penrose's SHADOWS OF THE MIND. He deals with all the issues you raised. It's more than the fact that the mind is analog vs digital. It is also more than the sheer number of neurons or simultaneous processing. What our brain does is fundamentally different from a Turing machine. We may be able to build computers that can do what our brains do, but we'll have to invent an entirely new kind of computer. We can't merely add memory or parallel processors. Our brains do things which no computer--even an infinite computer--can do. And this has been proven with Godel's theorem. It's not just a matter of conjecture or practical limitations.

If you don't believe in free will, then I can't argue against your position. You think will is an illusion, like the images on a TV screen. Nothing more than a by-product which can't affect the stream which produces it. I disagree, but that's an entirely different debate. But suffice it to say, you think robots can be built which are indistinguishable from humans because you already believe humans are nothing more than "robots."

I do think it is possible to simulate human minds on computers. It's also possible to simulate hurricanes on computers. But there's a big difference between a simulated hurricane, and a real hurricane. I don't believe any simulation--no matter how complex--can ever be aware of itself. Any appearance of awareness would be just a simulation. My disagreement is more than a reliance upon the connotations of the word, "simulation" (which include, "not real"). Again, my disagreement is rooted in Godel's theorem, which proves that there always exist true propositions within an algorithmic system which cannot be proved within that system. The only way we can prove this theorem is because our consciousness exists outside of algorithmic systems.

My personal opinion of what is going on with the brain is connected to quantum mechanics. I think consciousness is a phenomenon deeply tied to quantum states being magnified or resonating on a macro-scale. This is something which won't be possible with computers until, perhaps, we start building quantum computers.

No single computer can do it, but could it be done by several working separately but together, each one monitoring the other's progress and iterating its own results against the others'? In The Brain Has a Mind of Its Own, Dr. Restak puts forward that the brain/mind is not only bicameral (or I suppose tricameral if you consider Freud), but actually an amalgamation of seven different processes.

Emotional Leper wrote:Once again, this proves that every conversation in anything eventually devolves to a point where it is indistinguishable from a Buddhist arguement about the nature of reality.

The hidden secret of the Watch, and you've discovered it already. This either means elevation or extinction. We'll get back to you when we decide.

(And of course Star Wars is Sci-Fi Lore. )

(Oh wow, we even got free will involved. Oh, this is gonna get ugly. )

--A

Avatar wrote:

Emotional Leper wrote:Once again, this proves that every conversation in anything eventually devolves to a point where it is indistinguishable from a Buddhist arguement about the nature of reality.

The hidden secret of the Watch, and you've discovered it already. This either means elevation or extinction. We'll get back to you when we decide.

(And of course Star Wars is Sci-Fi Lore. )

(Oh wow, we even got free will involved. Oh, this is gonna get ugly. )

--A

I'm not a Zenarchist Master for nothing. Still working on becoming a Sufi Zensunni Mentat. And as to elevation or extinction, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I have managed to obtain a white-gold wedding band, and I'm pretty sure at this point I'm so throughly insane I can warp reality to my will.

(Free will is a myth! Nothing but the prisoner rattling the bars of his cage!)

Nonsense. All will is free. If you believe otherwise, you're not open to your choices.

--A

Avatar wrote:Nonsense. All will is free. If you believe otherwise, you're not open to your choices.

--A

The way I like to explain my view on free will/determination is that existance is like a novel. When you pick up a book you've never read before, everything in it is already predetermined. However, since you do not know what is going to happen before hand, it appears that the characters make choices. Similarly, all my actions and thoughts are predetermined, but, since I do not know what I will do in advance of the action, it appears as though I have choice. And since I cannot know anyway, I might as well have free will. Only it's an illusion.

Existence is certainly not predetermined. You may not believe in free will, and there are good arguments against free will, but that's not one of them. For nearly 100 years now, scientists have recognized the uncertain and random nature of the universe on the quantum level. It has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge. It's built into the system. I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion on quantum mechanics, but it is the most accurately confirmed theory in the history of science. Indeterminism is real. And quantum events affect macro events in numerous ways.

Aside from quantum indeterminism, there are also chaotic systems which are extremely sensitive to minor fluctuations of their initial conditions. Combined with quantum fluctuations, we have a universe that is in no way predetermined. The future is not written. These are scientific facts. A predetermined, clockwork universe hasn't been a viable position since very early in the 20th century. Time to give it up!

Just because we are incapable of predicting does not mean that there is not an absolute state. It's not time to give up.

What do you mean by an "absolute state?"

Meh. People who don't believe in free will [generally] don't believe because they cannot imagine how it can be possible. Thus, they limit our Creator's genius to their own human level. We don't truly understand consciousness or time or causality ... we're faced with so much we cannot explain ... to stand up and say we know all about free will is rather silly.

:::aren't we approaching The Close status?:::

We do seem to be a long way off the original topic. I'm considering splitting the mind and free will discussion and sending it over there.

Edit: The thought of whether this topic of discussion belongs to the Close or the Loresraat brought an interesting comparison to mind. In the debates of the nature of the mind, and of the existance of free will, there is a combination of two ways of approaching the material--the metaphysical and the empirical sides of the discussion--in a similar way to how the same subjects can be approached in fiction through science or through fantasy.

off topic is an understatement and how come everytime i bring up structure and hero journey everybody patently IGNORES me???

*stomps off in a huff*

Luci...I'm not ignoring you per se. I know nothing of writing structures, so have not responded as to not appear even more ignorant than I usually do...

The people who've been taking part in this seem to be coming from such a different direction from what I'm used to in similar topics that I've not really had any idea how to join in, heh.

Murrin wrote:We do seem to be a long way off the original topic. I'm considering splitting the mind and free will discussion and sending it over there.

Edit: The thought of whether this topic of discussion belongs to the Close or the Loresraat brought an interesting comparison to mind. In the debates of the nature of the mind, and of the existance of free will, there is a combination of two ways of approaching the material--the metaphysical and the empirical sides of the discussion--in a similar way to how the same subjects can be approached in fiction through science or through fantasy.

*nodding*

Isn't that why this conversation went in the direction it did to begin with?

It might be; it's hard to keep up.