Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2012 - 04:10pm PT
|
as for Gödel and Hilbert, I'll give my opinion but maybe a mathematician can provide something more compelling...
Hilbert's mathematical program was vast, and he proposed a set of mathematical problems that were milestones along the progress of that program.
see, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_problems
Hilbert's 2nd problem was: "Prove that the axioms of arithmetic are consistent."
And this is the point at which Gödel and Gentzen are relevant, that is see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
where it is shown that
First incompleteness theorem: no system of axioms where theorems can be produced by algorithms is capable of proving all truths about natural numbers
Second incompleteness theorem: those systems also cannot demonstrate their own consistency
apparently there is a debate as to whether or not this answers Hilbert's second problem.
Interestingly, if you take Largo's view that "mind" may not be an algorithmic system, then it is freed from the constraints of Gödel. That is a lovely irony to contemplate.
have a look at the proof of consistency, however
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentzen%27s_consistency_proof
maybe jogill or goldstone could inform us...
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2012 - 07:05pm PT
|
maybe jogill or goldstone could inform us...
You did good, Ed. I've always assumed that the classical complex analysis that interests me is pretty far removed from this sort of thing. But then again it might give me an excuse for not solving a problem I've been contemplating for several months . . . but I think not. As an old guy I may not be seeing the solution when it's right there in front of me!
;>)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 21, 2012 - 09:55pm PT
|
I think that may be an overstatement of the general idea... and perhaps it is the difference between a scientific (or physicist's) view of reductionism and a philosophical view. The language is very much a philosophers, as I said, physicists are open to the idea that the "real world" might actually be different from the current, provisional model we have adopted.
-
I wasn't trying to posit reductionism as a philosophical concept, but rather I was playing out a logical idea that simply wonders out loud if Nature was simply one big alogrithm. By this I mean a finite material string of causes with tangible effects resulting in the creation of predictable functions and things. In this strictly mechanical view, there are beginnings and endings and new things arsing from old things perpetually. The transitions from one thing to another are problematic, however, as we can all see, and they say that moving from state to state, for example, might not necessarily be deterministic. Randomized algorithms incorporate random input. But even here, we have input that "causes" or creates output.
If this wasn't the case, if there were gaps, if one thing did not lead to or "produce" the next - an idea we can hardly fathom - this might not mean we have the wrong alogrithm, but rather, the whole classical causation model of infinitely linked cause and effect might be mistaken. We can hardly doubt that it is, but there as it stands, the alogrithms that would produce life out of random chemicals and self-
replicating DNA out of nothing, owing to funkier "hot house conditions," or that "mind" simply jumped off the brain because it got sufficiently complex and so would "naturally" arise, are ideas verging on magical thinking.
That much said, I think it is almost certain that an alogrithm can explain objective brain functioning in terms of a data stream. But self consciousness and sentience itself seem of another order from my experience. If we ruled out "God," our minds can start the heavy lifting.
Perhaps John Gill can work up something. We're not buying the "old" thing.
JL
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2012 - 11:28pm PT
|
But then again it might give me an excuse for not solving a problem I've been contemplating for several months . . . but I think not.
There. That's math as we know and love it. Don't wanna do it, but did it anyway. Maybe.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2012 - 11:31pm PT
|
I was playing out a logical idea that simply wonders out loud if Nature was simply one big alogrithm. By this I mean a finite material string of causes with tangible effects resulting in the creation of predictable functions and things.
What hunter said, though the corpse might be more than 80 years mouldering.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2012 - 11:42pm PT
|
...are ideas verging on magical thinking.
I don't think so... really. If one takes the view that everything is physical, and that, therefore, life should have a physical explanation, it is just a matter of learning about biological systems and trying to "reduce" those systems down to their elemental properties...
...we're well along that path. We just don't know what to propose as a likely process that gives rise to life abioticly, which is a major challenge but not something which is viewed as an impossibility.
Once you've taken the step of understanding evolution it seems quite natural that something like "mind" is the product of that physical process. Now of course we view mind as something special, but actually we are only one species among very many living today, and being alive is the first sign of success, reproducing is yet another, important one... the continuation of the species. We share that distinction with a lot of other organisms. Mind is our adaptation, but it is not the only successful one. Time will tell if it is a more successful one.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 22, 2012 - 02:08am PT
|
Once you've taken the step of understanding evolution it seems quite natural that something like "mind" is the product of that physical process.
-
"Natural" actually has many subtle meanings but the one that seems best to fit this belief refers to something "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature."
This is the part that has always thrown me about the Natural argumennt - the incredible qualitative difference between living and non living, between sentience and anything else - not declaring it "special," but so wildly different than any other aspect of nature. So the idea that sentience is "quite naturally" a product of antecedent physical processes, just because evolution is so bitchin' and astonishing, is still to me, wishful and magical thinking. But even more magical and Mr. Sandmanesque is the idea that sentience is itself, inherently, a physical thing.
What's more, I can't help but notice the dodging of the question if there is anyone out there who believes the whole is greater than the parts, and can never be entirely explained by the parts. Or is the whole simply the collection of the parts.
JL
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2012 - 10:27am PT
|
What's more, I can't help but notice the dodging of the question if there is anyone out there who believes the whole is greater than the parts, and can never be entirely explained by the parts. Or is the whole simply the collection of the parts.
Yes, there is someone out there who believes that the whole is greater than the parts. There is someone else who believes the whole is simply the collection of the parts.
But in the real world there is a lot of work to be done learning about what constitutes the whole (remember dark energy/matter?) and the parts (Higgs boson?). The greater-than-or-equal-to question has no meaning until you know what you are talking about.
|
|
hunter
Trad climber
NYC
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2012 - 10:46am PT
|
To me, evolution isn't all that astonishing, it is simply the logical consequence of thermodynamics, game and information theory acting on the available chemistry of our universe. That life exists, where it exists, doesn't surprise me, though I am fascinated by its variety and the intricate ways in which it adapts (and perhaps even more so by its sloppiness).
I'm a neuroscientist, and though I don't work on consciousness professionally, I am inclined to agree with the mechanistic scientific attitude towards the subject, if only because the data we have tends to agree with it. We can induce mystical states by stimulating the temporal lobe, we can alter visual perception by doing the same in the occipital and any number of other things. Consciousness, as I understand it, is directly manipulable via the brain. That said, though I think you may be a bit attached to an anti-materialist perspective on the subject, your skepticism is warranted. We don't really know what consciousness is as a global phenomena, we haven't explained it. When I teach the subject I try and remind my students that the Brain=Mind equality is a working hypothesis in the neurosciences, one that really hasn't run up against that much data to challenge it, but a hypothesis nonetheless.
Another thought, what I find interesting about our minds is not how amazing they are but how constrained and feeble they are. Think about how hard it is for many of us to say, quit smoking, and you'll see what I mean. Even more interesting is the emerging idea in the study of learning and memory that our brains spend a lot of effort forgetting things, perhaps more than they spend remembering. From this you may begin see why I find that human consciousness is not so great a leap as it would like us to believe.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2012 - 02:16pm PT
|
I find that human consciousness is not so great a leap as it would like us to believe.
I like that perspective.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 22, 2012 - 02:31pm PT
|
I'm a neuroscientist, and though I don't work on consciousness professionally, I am inclined to agree with the mechanistic scientific attitude towards the subject, if only because the data we have tends to agree with it.
--
I was aware of "data" about objective functioning, but so far as I have seen per awareness and raw sentience, every neuroscientist I have read says they have "no idea" how that arises whatsoever. This is another aspect related to but not the same as "content" or qualia such as mystical states, and tweaking perception per brain manipulation, which might be the equal of turning the knob on the radio. We can smash the radio and destroy the signal but does that mean the radio creates the signal or what? I don't say this to be mystical in any way, rather in strictly practical terms, all the research pertains to objective functioning and content, not sentience per se. The evolved brain mechanically processes information - we got that part. But is sentience data, or a state, or information, or a signal? Not in my experience . . .
Also, MH2 says: The greater-than-or-equal-to question has no meaning until you know what you are talking about.
I would advise that you be a little more circumspect so as not to posit this belief as an objective fact. The above statement seems to imply that "know what you are talking about" can be addressed with some quantifications, a rather tall order when the "all" cannot be divided and still be "all." I trust these are challenges requiring innovative solutions, though there is every reason to want to try and wrangle it the old fashioned way. The question is - if and when that fails, then what?
He wrote: "I find that human consciousness is not so great a leap as it would like us to believe."
I think when you look at what personality can accomplish, or not, and the way content is handled by the brain, I agree with you somewhat. But when it comes to the part that we are aware of any of this going on, and know that we are - THAT seems spectacular, and unlike anything known in the universe. So the leap from brain to objective processing seems not so far, but the jump to self consciousness is a billion times past that, and can only be imagined by our discursive minds as a minds as a kind of digital scanner, a function, not the illuminated presence that we actually experience. Not saying it's something "special," but rather it is not "content" nor yet objective processing. Treating sentience as a function is simply a handy cognitive device of the discriminating mind, and had nothing to do with sentience itself.
JL
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2012 - 10:14pm PT
|
1. climber approaches rock band
2. twin couloirs slice through rock band, each equally fraught with danger
3. climber's brain uses stored data to make a prediction about which is safer
(climber's brain doesn't yet have confirmation of which couloir is safe, brain is simply making predictions based on stored data)
4. visualizations of climbing couloir A or climbing couloir B create a morphic resonance in time / space with all possible versions of the outcomes that exist in time space
5. visualization of climbing couloir A resonate with many many versions existing in space / time of the climber ending up with his modern tiny styrofoam lightweight toy helmet cracked and his brains hemorrhaging with his or her partner trying to quell hyperventilation
6. visualization of couloir B resonates with not nearly as many versions of the doom existing in time / space
7. climber feels vague unease pondering couloir A, (brain in intuition mode can only deal with limbic emotions, intuition function itself not a product of cerebral cognitive function)
8.climber chooses couloir B
9. as he or she is climbing, he or she hears the thunder of rockfall in couloir A
the more times something happens, the more it is likely to happen
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 23, 2012 - 06:44pm PT
|
In the first vid, we "learn" that once again, a brain "region," part or component does not "create" sentience. Fehmi and Stearman knew that back in the 1980s at the Brain lab at UCLA. Hard to believe people are still working off that model instead of looking at signal coherence and other meta functions. But there's little hope this is really going to pan out as hoped for. Recall that neurofeedback could train people to have roughly the same brain "state" as Zen masters and 40 year meditators but this didn't do what they expected at all.
In the second vid, it should read, "you are looking at the neurological effects that emotional energy exerts on biology."
It's no wonder they get the sequence wrong because they believe the whole thing works bottom-up on an involuntary level, which is half true. In the real world it's a two-way feedback loop. What's more you can't separate out the limbic (emotional) and neocortex as though they operated independently.
Merely thinking about a slippery off width gets our palms sweating. What does that tell you about the process?
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2012 - 07:32pm PT
|
Well, too bad they're, uh... wrong, hey? But it's interesting stuff.
Maybe someday the bottom-uppers and the top-downers will meet in the middle.
Or maybe they'll just go right past each other, all oblivious.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 23, 2012 - 11:41pm PT
|
Those were sober words, Cintune. I went off again . . . Thanks for reminding me.
Per your question, the HBP (human brain project) is at least saying they are going to try and answer your question.
"One way of looking at the brain is to work from the bottom up, beginning with its most basic components – molecules, synapses, neurons and tiny circuits connecting neurons together. The alternative approach is to look at the brain from the top down, developing theories of the kind of machinery necessary to produce the behavior we observe when we study humans and animals. A key goal of the Human Brain Project is to bring these two approaches together, establishing the crucial theoretical link between the detailed properties of neurons and neural circuitry and the higher level computations at work in cognition and behavior. An equally important practical goal is to find out how much biological detail is necessary to model specific capabilities, making it possible to design simplified models that can be used as the basis for practical technologies."
My personal sense of this is that the more mechanistic approach they take, the less likely they are to come up with anything beyond robotics. We'll see.
I do know that the Blue Brain Project, in the works since 2006, "is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level."
Their ultimate goal is to build a detailed, functional simulation of the physiological processes in the human brain, and the dude in charge is a proto-Swiss hustler (by way of South Africa, by way of Israel), smooth daddio New Age shtick Dr. Frankenstein named Henry Markram, who's gotten various sources - including his own government - to pony up millions of Euros already. It would be fascinating to see the exact accounting on that money.
But the Mench is fixing to cash in to the tune of €1 billion (US$1.3 billion) as one of the European Union's two new decade-long Flagship scientific initiatives.
"It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years," said Markram, at the 2009 TED conference in Oxford. Later, in a BBC World Service interview he said: "It should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does."
It will tell jokes, post on Supertopo, hustle the cute laptop two stalls over and dream of electric sheep. Uh huh . . . Check you wallet around this dude.
Markham might be one hell of a scientist but he's a hustler first and foremost. And a terrific one at that as he has people actually believing in the "singing machine."
But I have to cheer the guy on for the sheer balls and moxie it takes to ever try something that so many fellow neuroscientists are calling "crap." But I think a majority of these statements are from those who don't want to to see all the limited Euros going to Markham's pipe dream.
It's a regular carnival, for sure . . .
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2012 - 11:50pm PT
|
Real men read the fuking manual.
WTF are all these clowns trying to do by guessing?
Their whole discipline succession is rooted in guessing.
400 to 500 hundred years of guessing and their sum substance of the bottom line is "we don't know sh!t".
But we've isolated some of the components of sh!t so we have some "idea" (guessing again) where this sh!t came from.
Time will tell they say. (Post dated check) again.
LOL
No sane man would ever take to such a system full of defects.
In your dictionary the word perfect exists.
Thus Absolute truth exists.
But not for the mental speculators ever .......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 24, 2012 - 02:58am PT
|
That she blows . . .
Professor Henry Markram, a doctor-turned-computer engineer, announced that his team would create the world's first artificial conscious and intelligent mind by 2018.
And that is exactly what he is doing.
On the shore of Lake Geneva, this brilliant, eccentric scientist is building an artificial mind. A Swiss - it could only be Swiss - precision- engineered mind, made of silicon, gold and copper.
The end result will be a creature, if we can call it that, which its maker believes within a decade may be able to think, feel and even fall in love.
Professor Markram's 'Blue Brain' project, must rank as one of the most extraordinary endeavours in scientific history.
If this 47-year-old South-African Israeli is successful, then we are on the verge of realising an age-old fantasy, one first imagined when an adolescent Mary Shelley penned Frankenstein, her tale of an artificial monster brought to life - a story written, quite coincidentally, just a few miles from where this extraordinary experiment is now taking place.
Success will bring with it philosophical, moral and ethical conundrums of the highest order, and may force us to confront what it means to be human.
But Professor Markram thinks his artificial mind will render vivisection obsolete, conquer insanity and even improve our intelligence and ability to learn.
---
I especially like the part about Frankenstein falling in love. Markram simply read Marry Shelly and cooked up his own Super-Frank. He only wants a couple three billion and he'll have old Frank writing odes and sonnets and throwing vases and drinking too much owing to that coy mainframe with all the REM and the titanium UBS port.
My boy "Professor" Henry Markram is my new hero. I don't use the term lightly this guy is a financial genius. Totally. Have you seen him? Those ain't cheap suites the guy's wearing.
JL
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
um, is this the Friday Night Posting While Drunk thread?... oh, why does my head always surface in this one instead? oh well, as long as i'm here, thank you for the read, i've followed pretty much every word, for a long time been seeking the unified field theory through the climbing metaphor, so when stumbled upon this thread took it for a great revelation, mental process as evidenced through the act of climbing
mentioned Gregory Bateson many posts back, no one ever spray-echoed this key text, surprised, Mind and Nature fairly leapt off the shelves at Moe's, once more here is Bateson's 6 Criteria for mental process, uh:
1. A mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components.
2. The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference
3, Mental process requires collateral energy.
4. Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination
5. In mental process, the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (i.e., coded versions of events which preceded them)
6. The description and classification of these processes of transformation disclose a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena
In particular a read of Bateson's description of Jung's pleroma (matter) vs. creatura (process) might be the key hold for Largo to surmount this metaphysical mantle.
but when climbers stray from the strict climbing metaphor, we are doomed- the topic has to be climbing or we will never discover the truth
I tried to nail it in a blog post: http://kigsblog-allapa.blogspot.com/ but i couldn't get it right... the Heisenberg's thing interferes with the scientific evidence, alas....
swaying drunken madness on a friday,
ian
|
|
TWP
Trad climber
Mancos, CO
|
|
Time to attempt to revive a good thread in the face of the farcical, topical threads on the top page of ST right now.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!