Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:42am PT
|
Check it out...
With the right app in his mobile, I bet this guy could snap a picture with his mind, too. And more!
Those electrical artifacts and how they can be harnessed are amazing.
But I think I'll wait for the (deep brain) implants, more selective and higher signal to noise ratios, my guess, lol!
.....
Largely through science edu and training... when one has come to terms with motive want (cf: "free" want) being entirely mechanistic and obedient to physics, then it's easier for him to come to terms with motive will (cf: "free" will) being the same.
As a society, we are powerfully confused between (a) ability to decide (or, ability to choose) and (b) so-called "free" will (or "free will"). With scientific understanding however, the confusion goes away.
It's understandable though: ability and freedom (a kind of ability) are easily confused.
.....
Argue all you want about the physical world, but Nature is the ultimate arbiter: serving as judge, jury, & executioner.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:50am PT
|
I've always found the anatomy and physiology of the brain and the mind in observable action much more interesting than the mind as metaphysical speculation...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 11:07am PT
|
Good one!
Actually, good two!
.....
Remember this one?
How apropos.
.....
Remember (and Sam Harris alludes to this as well in his YouTube lecture on free will), with in-depth study and understanding of "free" will in its many aspects, the so-called "illusion" of "free will" gives way to simple confusion or misunderstanding over it, the motive will, that is. Years ago, this was certainly my experience, as well. So, today, to hear it called an "illusion" and to see "illusion" persist in thinking and in conversations as a pop idiom is a bit discouraging.
Would you speak of the "illusion" of divine creation? esp if you weren't a creationist, in other words, an evolutionist. Maybe once or twice or once in a while, but I wouldn't think persistently.
Use of "volition" in lieu of "will" can also help clarify the subject. Thus, (1) "free" volition and (2) the question: what would "free" volition actually mean in a world of cause n effect (the kind in which we live) where everything according to science is obedient to physics? Makes no sense, as Harris points out, if by "free" one means with respect to natural laws or antecedent causes, since there is no such thing as contracausal freedom or supercausal freedom of any kind according to science and evidence. Outside of this, a "free" volition might make sense in conversation in just a few ways: for instance, in the (fantasy) world of theism or theology where one's volition might or might not be free of demons (demonic possession; go-B and Blu, probably believe in this to some extent, even in these modern scientific times) or again in the fantasy world where one's volition is or somehow represents (by a little molecular lever, eg, or membranous interface) a ghost or spirit or other immaterial force, none of which today has any support whatsoever by science or objective evidence.
Of course "free action" or freedom as commonly used is different from "free will." (ref: sociopolitical freedom, prison, injured or aged bodies; freedom (ability) or not to climb 5.11 OW). So too is "forced will" in the case of a gun being held to one's head, for instance.
Blasts from the past...
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1319557&tn=100
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1386860&tn=580
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1386860&msg=1400763#msg1400763
Have we learned anything. I think I have, lol!!
.....
If you're a naturalist (cf: supernaturalist), here's a really good read...
http://www.amazon.com/Encountering-Naturalism-Worldview-Its-Uses/dp/0979111102
A+.
.....
An aside:
Maybe this so-called "dark energy" is teleological? Maybe it's a teleological force, or teleological device, set up by the mind of God (Diacrates or Hypercrates, maybe; Jehovah/Jesus, no)? To run the universe. Wouldn't that be a hoot! :)
Is the universe stranger than we CAN imagine?
.....
Bill Moyers: "Don't you sometimes feel SAD about breaking all these myths apart?
Neil deGrasse Tyson: No. No. Some myths (Christian myths) deserve to be broken apart. Out of respect for the human intellect. No. When you're writhing on the ground and froth is coming out of your mouth you're having an epileptic seizure, you have not been invaded by the devil. We've got this one figured out... Discovery moves on.
Time we got real. On a host of subjects. "Free" will - in its various conversational forms - included.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 05:55pm PT
|
Thank God climbing is autotelic.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 07:54pm PT
|
Canine mind mystery...
Why dogs can smell aromas from far away, yet are compelled to sniff each other’s butt at a fraction of an inch. (ndt)
I don't get it either.
What is it like to be... a dog.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 08:22pm PT
|
nature got a sex change?
I've always known him as "Doug"....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 08:29pm PT
|
I have to admit that after reading the posts some of you have made I am changing my mind about free will, a subject of little interest to me before. A simple example that occurred today: I was sitting at the dining room table pondering a math problem when I became aware of being thirsty. I started to rise, then decided to wait a few minutes. After a couple of minutes the solution to the problem came to me. It is tempting to think I had made the decision to stay put of my own free will, and clearly the physiological origins of my thirst and the need to get a drink of water were beyond my volition, but the fact that the solution to the problem appeared lends credence to the argument that the unconscious or subconscious was grinding away and preparing me for the conscious thought that led to the solution, and made the decision for me to stay seated.
A trivial example, but illuminating for me. This brings me back to the question I asked JL about where any degree of free will can exist once one accepts this form of determinism. Where is the line of demarcation?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 08:49pm PT
|
Sounds exactly right to me. Your conscious awareness is just the front man, reading a script he gets handed.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:02pm PT
|
I posted this on another thread, but since free will has kicked up again, I'll repost it here (the other thread is devoid of my posts anyway)
http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/GodelFreeWill.pdf
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, free will and mathematical thought
Solomon Feferman
this is philosophy, and I think it has some interesting ideas (a statement that indicates that I generally agree with the conclusions)
The Formalist-Mechanist Thesis II. Insofar as human mathematical thought is concerned, mind is mechanical in that it is completely constrained by some open-ended schematic formal system.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:53pm PT
|
EdH, you never posted up a citation re exceptions to the "truth" of Ohm's Law. I'd still like to see it if you could cite one, I'd like to know.
it's freshman physics...
Electricity and Magnetism
Berkeley Physics Course, Vol. 2
Edward M. Purcell
page 123 (of the first edition)
4.5 Where Ohm's Law Fails
We can see now how Ohm's Law can break down. Suppose the electric field E is so strong that an ion acquires, between collisions, an added velocity comparable to the average thermal speed. That will seriously affect the average time between collisions...appearing in Eq. 16. These times are now functions of E, not constants, and Eq. 16 is no longer linear. That is, doubling the field strength E will not double the current density J if the [average time] has to change too. Let's see where this might set in, in a typical case. The mean free path of an ion in a gas at normal density is of order 10⁻⁸ m. The average kinetic energy of random motion is of order kT, where k is Boltzmann's constant that occurs in the kinetic theory of gases. Our velocity criterion can also be stated this way: We expect trouble if the additional kinetic energy the ion acquires from the field between two collisions is comparable to kT. Setting these two energies approximately equal:
eE x 10⁻⁸ m ≈ kT (18)
and putting in the numbers, we find E ≈ 2,400,000 V/m. That is a moderately strong field as fields go in the laboratory... Of course this limit depends on the free path. Ionized gases at low pressure, where the mean free path is very long, may show departures from Ohm's law under quite weak fields.
Very intense electric fields can lead to more drastic changes, such as changes in the number of carriers. That is what happens in an electric spark. The charge carriers already present gain so much energy from the field that their collisions with other atoms are violent enough to ionize the latter, making more charge carriers and so on. The resulting avalanche is a catastrophic breakdown of Ohm's law.
We can anticipate a breakdown in our theory, if not of Ohm's law, in another quarter. Suppose the E field to be applied for only a very short time τ, we clearly have to revise our picture. To make this quite evident, consider applying an alternating electric field, alternating with a period short compared to the time between collisions. Then the response of the carriers will be determined largely by their inertia as free bodies. Whatever the nature of the problem, and it is an interesting one which you may see in the future, the theory we have outlined above is inadequate for it. Notice, however, that the mean time between collisions in the gas we have just used as an example will be something like (10⁻⁸ m/molecular speed) for the positive ions, which is of order 10⁻¹⁰s, and even shorter for electrons. So our theory, although developed for constant field, ought to work for many systems, even with very rapidly varying fields.
The vacuum diode described in Sec. 4.2 is a conspicuously "non-ohmic" device. Under one set of conditions, when the supply of electrons is limited by their rate of emission from the cathode, the current is practically independent of of the voltage, if the anode is positive. If the anode is negative, the current is zero, for the anode cannot emit electrons at all. The diode passes current in one direction only. It is commonly used as a rectifier of alternating current. Under the condition of space-charge-limited current, explored in Prob. 4.25, the current in the diode is proportional to the 3/2 power of the voltage, instead of the first power called for by Ohm's law.
The junction between two semiconductor materials, or between a semiconductor and a metal, can be highly nonohmic and, like the vacuum diode, unidirectional. Nonlinear devices are indispensable in electronics (as in life). If everything commenced to obey Ohm's law, electronic technology would be wiped out.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:11pm PT
|
Imagination is crazy
your whole perspective gets hazy
it starts you asking a daisy
what to do, what to do
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:25pm PT
|
DMT: It was especially demoralizing, depressing, to know that there was nothing at all wrong with my leg. All of that pain I felt in my leg was a phantom... there was nothing wrong with it.
Interesting comment, this. On the one hand, something seems terribly out of order and horribly painful, while on the other hand, if the issue is not "material or functional," then there must be nothing to it.
I'm over-reaching here, but I'd suggest you get your priorities and sensibilities in order. Much of your life is immaterial. Unless it's physical, objective, concrete, external, then it's not important, real, worth taking into consideration equally?
If you scream in the night, should we pay attention?
Fruity--a spokesman for Sam Harris--wants to point out that a lack of free will could either be due to scientific functional activity or to gods and goddesses. I ask: if you don't have free will, what difference would it make who's in charge or control? What? . . . do you pray to another god? Angeles on the head of a pin. I see once again for this group, it's all about thinking and thoughts--as if they had any free will of their own! If decision making is without free will, then what could you make of your own arguments? How is it that you have choice over them but not what you will take from the refridgerator at 2 am when you get up and roam around looking for something to graze on.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Nature is the ultimate arbiter: serving as judge, jury, & executioner.
Plain unadulterated metaphor. There is no entity called Nature (find it; point it out to me); and as for decision making, that too is a metaphor. Not very good scientific thinking on either of your parts. :-)
The myth that deserves being analyzed is the one called science.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:27pm PT
|
The myth that deserves being analyzed is the one called science.
you've done this analysis... problem is that you find it quite a useful "myth," except for the problem of providing you Truth, which you seek.
Maybe "Truth" is the myth?
Feferman has a better idea, that the knowledge might be "open-ended" and therefore, there is no "truth"
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:59pm PT
|
So here's "Ohm's Law" at wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
Turns out, "Ohm's Law" is one thing (restricted to ohmic devices) and I=E/R another (applying to both ohmic and "nonohmic" devices). Note here a couple things: (1) that I=E/R or R=E/I holds whether device is "ohmic" or "non-ohmic" in standard electrical circuits, including semiconductors like diodes and transistors; and (2) in the "truth" discussion, the point was that the "true" relationship was I=E/R as opposed to something else like I= EE/R.
Anyways, I learned something here: 1) I=E/R is not considered "Ohm's Law" when dealing with nonlinear (nonohmic) devices.
Bottom line: It's yet another tricky discussion and I could've used a more straight-forward scientific discovery to illustrate "scientific truth."
Live and learn. :)
.....
Fruity--a spokesman for Sam Harris-
Not really. I cite Harris for context and because he's a ready reference. Further, from my perspective, he has described in his talks on "free will" many points and issues that I worked on, and worked through, 25 years ago now.
But nice try. :)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 11:11pm PT
|
(2) in the "truth" discussion, the point was that the "true" relationship was I=E/R as opposed to something else like I= EE/R.
for which Purcell gives a counter example... maybe re-read what I transcribed from his book?
I=E/R is not "true" for all electronic devices.
the statement Ohm's law is true except for nonohmic devices isn't very profound, and you might call it circular.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 11:17pm PT
|
Alright, I'll concede you the high voltage or vacuum states if that's what you're alluding to from the Purcell reference. But if our device is a semiconductor - let's get specific with a "non-ohmic" diode - then R=E/I holds whether we call it "Ohm's Law" or not.
Further...
the statement Ohm's law is true except for nonohmic devices
Ha! Now you re-read. I didn't say this. I didn't say "Ohm's Law" as you just did, I said I=E/R.
Thus the "tricky" part I alluded to in previous post. :)
(btw, I'm not drawing on Purcell here, but my own remaining experience and intuition from 6 years owning and managing an electronics lab.)
Finally, even in your vacuum tube example, hands-on engineers in a lab - if they applied high voltage between anode and cathode and got ultra low or zero current flow would consider the vacuum tube as presenting high resistance in that case (Ohm's Law aside). Hope that makes sense. Because it's true. :)
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 11:27pm PT
|
Feferman has a better idea, that the knowledge might be "open-ended" and therefore, there is no "truth"
Or such advanced knowledge eludes us because we are so finite in comparison.
But isn't that very similar to the idea that God is infinite, or that Shakya Buddha who lived 2,500 years ago was just one of many Buddhas, that there are more Buddhas and Dharmas to come?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!