Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2015 - 11:37am PT
|
But Largo's "brain copying" is probably absurd at this time...
---
Ed, where did you ever get the idea that "brain copying" was my idea? that idea came right out of neurosciece, so if you want to call those guys absurd, have at it.
My angle was to just go with the assumptions that they would get a physical theory on mind and then go to trying to actualize same - and to show how you would dead end owing to many reasons.
For example, Ed says: So assuming we have a complete physical theory of the mind, we could indeed build a simulation of the mind that would completely mimic the mind that arises from our biological presence.
This is a statement that is worth looking at. And the way I have chosen to look at it is: If you were to actually look at trying to do this, in the real world, what would come up?
Problems of execution...
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Same as the rest of us, here on the frontiers of ignorance and knowledge.
True.
Largo's statements are more smoke than opinion.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2015 - 12:37pm PT
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading
Read up, Dingus. And if you have issues with what is being said, I'd love to hear them.
What I am doing is looking at a theory that is being put forth by respected scientists including the opinions of our own Dr. Ed. And when looking at what is involved in making those idea real, what issues come up per execution. It is an interesting idea that bears fruit you never would have imagined till trying to do so. As MH2 said, a lot of what is being fobbed off as science is in fact "smoke."
You can challenge me on any aspect of anything I have ever said or will say. By and large you and others never get specific per details. I have opinions about Ed's mechanical/pure physical model of mind, and I'll show you what those are.
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I have opinions about Ed's mechanical/pure physical model of mind, and I'll show you what those are.
Mother Hubbard's dog gave up hope on that bone long ago.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
fragment of rat brain simulated in supercomputer
They are trying to imitate something that's already there
Instead they still have no clue who they really are which can be found not needing any man made machine.
Instead they waste their time thinking they are advancing.
They're not advancing anywhere.
Real advancement is freedom from birth death disease and old age .....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
DMT: I read too, MikeL. Enjoy.
Did you? What did you make of the concerns by people in the field regarding the statistics and methodology? Did you understand those concerns? Do you think they are trivial?
I did read the articles you pointed to. I was especially taken with this phrase off the top at Wiki:
Thought identification refers to the empirically verified use of technology to, in some sense, read people's minds.
Ok.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Aristotle (and many that came after him) was interested in certainty . . . and objects and abstractions rather than living being. I think Western cultures tend to argue that myth came to be seen not as a relevant presentation of the world but merely as a story which provides an emotional truth to listeners—rather than a decisive account. Mythic language and logic is a logic of the ambiguous, the equivocal, and a logic of polarity.
Certain spiritual traditions investigate whether mind exists, and some tend to be oriented to reflexive open awareness as Reality. They argue that no description of Reality can be definitive, in that it can never be finally resolved. It is a wholeness of which nothing can be excluded. It must include everything. Conceptual processes (even via negativa) cannot access it because they are abstractions. Hence, Reality *must include* all views—rather than eliminating any one of them—even when they are “wrong.” What is wrong or inaccurate or incomplete also lies in Reality. What is truthful is what is playful, plural, and open, rather than any limiting, or any so-called, certainty.
Reasoning is premised on the separation of objects and subjects. It presents dichotomies. As such, reasoning goes against wholeness. Reasoning does not point in all directions simultaneously. It points out contradictions. Reasoning is premised on definitiveness, and it is valued for its ability to bring closure. But that would seem to be inadequate to grasp the nature of unbounded and undecidable Reality. Hence, a wholeness that has no limits is somewhat incommensurate with reasoning. Reasoning alone stands in opposition to an infinite, nondual reality, to radical ambiguity, to a lack of definitiveness, to a lack of undefinability. Reality cannot be limited; and it requires absolute inclusion. That which is definite is that which is finite.
Reasoning is convergent. The more information one has, the greater convergence one comes to. Problems get solved; closure is achieved.
Unlimited nondual wholeness (Reality), on the other hand, is divergent. The more information that’s gathered about IT, the more divergent descriptions become. There are no solutions available through logic alone—only living in continued complexities and instabilities (e.g., being in mythic presentation rather than “representations” through abstractions). Epistemology is ontology. Experience is Reality. The “Great Perfection” of Reality is understood by seeing harmony in what other systems would call “contradictions.”
If people have questions, they are looking for answers. Answers are singular objects found through reasoning. They are the result of rejection of some part of Reality and an acceptance of others through a process of exclusion. Indeed, questions require reasoning. Wholeness, non duality, Reality, on the other hand, require something other than the logic of conceptualization and abstraction. IT requires the inclusion and complete openness to all facets of One Fact that is unbounded, infinite, indescribable, indefinite, ambiguous, simultaneously understood by an awareness that underlies consciousness.
What I’m trying to express here are radically different views. For some, the view of reason is included in amongst all views simultaneously. For others, reason is the only legitimate view. The first group sees from a position of openness, absence of substantiality (in objects and subjects), spontaneity, and unity (the nondual). The second view uses reason as the primary means to find singular answers (closure) to questions of what subjects and objects are. Epistemology is ontology for the first group; for the second group, epistemology is the vehicle to get to ontology.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Holy crap, Ed! That video link what amazing. Sheesh, Henry Markham is the first guy I've listened to that I'm thinking is likely smarter than you or my brother John.
Looking at all of those variants of neural networks reminds me of variants of galaxies. It's beautiful.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2015 - 05:22pm PT
|
Like your whole no physical extent gambit. You keep writing as if your opinion of physics is a settled matter
-
The wonky thing about all of this, and especially the above, is that Dingus and others give me the astonishing wherewithal to have discovered or somehow come up with the notion that at base, matter reduces to "no physical extent." In fact this comes right out of the accepted take on matter, the holy grail of materialists. But what IS matter?
Says the source:
"This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ill-defined because an object's mass can arise from its (possibly massless) constituents' motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects."
What's more, this stuff with no definition has been said by many sources to have no physical extent. I, John Long, did not invent nor yet concoct that idea. This is just simple reporting of what anyone can read for themselves.
To declare to the wold that the above in "my" opinion is ludicrous. If YOUR opinion varies from what was stated above, then have the sack to say so. Say what you want about Dr. Ed but at least he had the spine to say that Heisenberg, Bohr and Born (who each had a slightly different view of things) were all wrong about QM and that he was right. In fact no one is exactly sure what the Copenhagen Interpretation is.
And that's what's so interesting. A lot of what gets fobbed off here as certain facts are anything but. So when a materialist asks, "What isn't physical?" we chuckle and ask, "Tell me what matter IS and we'll go from there."
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
"Tell me what matter IS and we'll go from there."
This question shows how little you understand about science, its history, and its direction.
Democritus gave a good start on this question and others have taken it further in the last 2400 years. We as a human collective know a lot about matter and its behavior. If you are unsatisfied with that kind of knowledge of matter, what do you want in its stead?
In your question above, who are "we" and where are you going?
Simply asking what matter IS without learning its properties takes you nowhere.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Say what you want about Dr. Ed but at least he had the spine to say that Heisenberg, Bohr and Born (who each had a slightly different view of things) were all wrong about QM and that he was right. In fact no one is exactly sure what the Copenhagen Interpretation is.
there are something like 15 different "interpretations" listed on this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
not much spine required to say that maybe it's still an open question...
And don't forget that the Copenhagen Interpretation is about 90 years old right now...
...not my definition of modern...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2015 - 07:35pm PT
|
We as a human collective know a lot about matter and its behavior.
Wild accusations and intemperate speech will get you nowhere, MH2. And you have to quite drinking that cheap sh#t on Fridays. It's making you surly.
The nuance about matter was clearly stated in the quote - that we can say all kinds of things about the properties of matter, but what matter IS remains mysterious and is currently totally and profoundly undefined. Kindly prove that otherwise, with any citation, in any peer reviewed journal in the known universe.
The key to this whole discussion is almost certainly the simple fact that ultimately there are no "things" composed of matter which HAVE properties. All there are - are properties themselves.
To make this clear, I was given the example of a photon. Of course there is no such "thing" (with rest mass, etc.) as a photon that HAS the properties of change and luminosity. Put differently, there is no such thing as a photon that gives rise or sources or creates charge and brightness and which travels through time and space at 299 792 458
m / s.
The things, and the matter we believe that composes such objects, are simply not there in the way our senses and mind tell us they are.
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
. . . this stuff [matter] with no definition has been said by many sources to have no physical extent (JL)
Are you sure this is what you meant to say?
Many sources?
You would probably find agreement here: Institute of Noetic Sciences
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
maybe you should try a different perspective Largo...
you're drinking deeply from a spring sourced in Hilbert Space...
just where is that space, anyway?
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2015 - 03:27am PT
|
castenada's energy body interfacing with quantum foam
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2015 - 04:51am PT
|
Crikey Largo, you spew endlessly about what you don't believe - we get it, you're all metaphysical and panpsychic - bummer you can't simply cut to the chase, explicitly own your sh#t and say something specific about what you do believe.
Are you embarrassed by the common language of those beliefs?
It's all getting pretty boring at this point, particularly the whole computer and matter schticks where you are clearly way out of your depth given your misinterpretations and attempts to [painfully] bend what's going on in those fields to your argument. And that's mainly because you're arguing against a bunch of strawmen of your own warped construction rather than simply arguing for whatever it is you believe.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2015 - 07:01am PT
|
Wild accusations and intemperate speech will get you nowhere, MH2. And you have to quite drinking that cheap sh#t on Fridays. It's making you surly.
You were better with chuckling and moving on.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2015 - 11:48am PT
|
Good observation Timid.
So, what is "mind"?
What is "soul"?
What is "personality"?
What is "heart"?
If there is a sub-conscious, shouldn't there be a super-conscious?
Are you your mind?
Do you control your mind or does it control you?
Is control even a valid term?
How does "brain" and "body" fit into the mix?
Do constructs determine how we function in the arena of choice?
Do we really choose anything?
Can we relinquish "choice" if we have it?
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2015 - 01:22pm PT
|
Just where is that space, anyway? (Ed)
I developed a little Hilbert space for John, but never heard from him.
JL's Hilbert space
Where is this space?
Where is Ed's space?
What is space? Is it like awareness and sentience, extending to eternity?
Where is eternity?
Please bring the above to the attention of the Car-pool Prodigies.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!