Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
That picture of the cat tearing up the puzzle brings an idea to mind.
Petroleum Geophysicists can glean an amazing amount of information from a 3D seismic set, particularly if the survey uses shear waves, which is more expensive (and impossible in offshore surveys for obvious reasons).
I went to a seminar on seismic attribute analysis. Now, with easy access to computing power, you can pull all sorts of things out of what is simply bouncing sound waves off of underlying strata.
The really cool thing was when the teacher began to talk about pattern recognition. Anyone can see a meandering stream deposit, but a computer has trouble with this simple task.
A lot of these datasets use up to 25 or so attributes: from the old Amplitude vs. Offset to the newer Spectral Deconvolution. The point being, you can start working a dataset, putting in a dose of coherence, a little deconvolution, a little this and a little that, then BANG. A pattern emerges. It might be fracture directions or that meandering stream deposit. You have to check your settings just to remember how you got there in the analysis software (which is industry made and licensed on an annual basis. It is very expensive), and note it. You might work the dataset again for weeks to arrive at the same conclusion.
So this professor ran a consortium that constantly develops new attributes.
But the eyeball test is often the key. The human mind can easily recognize patterns, but the computer cannot...without a lot of additional work and computer power.
He was big on the eyeball test.
So the brain is a big part of the very computing intensive interpretation process.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Ah, thank you jGill.
an equilateral three-sided pod
He discusses them here:
Symmetry: Culture and Science Vol. 13, No.1, page_first-page_last, 2002
THE JOURNEY: PANDORA’S SPHERE - A PARADOX
Jim Lehman
thank you
ff

|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2015 - 07:55pm PT
|
I fear that JL wore himself out on that lengthy post some pages back. Here's hoping he has recovered by now . . . if so, he and his Magical Car Pool might explain functional integration.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2015 - 08:08pm PT
|
particularly if the survey uses shear waves, which is more expensive (and impossible in offshore surveys for obvious reasons).
Ummm... pray tell, what are the obvious reasons? :)
DMT
There he goes. Leading with his queen.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2015 - 08:17pm PT
|
Largo said way up thread somewhere it wasn't worth arguing with someone who was fixed in their perspective...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2015 - 08:56am PT
|
What is "Mind?"
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2015 - 09:03am PT
|
Ask your brain.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2015 - 09:27am PT
|
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6266/1332.full
Science 11 December 2015:
Vol. 350 no. 6266 pp. 1332-1338
DOI: 10.1126/science.aab3050
Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction
Brenden M. Lake, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Joshua B. Tenenbaum
Abstract
People learning new concepts can often generalize successfully from just a single example, yet machine learning algorithms typically require tens or hundreds of examples to perform with similar accuracy. People can also use learned concepts in richer ways than conventional algorithms—for action, imagination, and explanation. We present a computational model that captures these human learning abilities for a large class of simple visual concepts: handwritten characters from the world’s alphabets. The model represents concepts as simple programs that best explain observed examples under a Bayesian criterion. On a challenging one-shot classification task, the model achieves human-level performance while outperforming recent deep learning approaches. We also present several “visual Turing tests” probing the model’s creative generalization abilities, which in many cases are indistinguishable from human behavior.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2015 - 09:36am PT
|
MH2: Ask your brain.
How could that be done? Who’s asking?
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2015 - 11:23am PT
|
How could mind be anything but your immediate experience in this very moment?
You can say it is the result of neuron activity but is that your actual experience? I don't think so.
IMO people become so dependent on the explanation they lose touch with their actual experience.
As we always go back to; what is climbing and the equivalent of MH's prior answer would be to provide a scientific explanation of climbing. What is more accurate ? going out and actually climbing or reading about it?
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2015 - 12:52pm PT
|
Good point DMT. So maybe we are just talking apples and oranges AGAIN.
The apples being, mind is a personal experience only to be looked into personally.
The oranges being, mind is something to be studied and defined and most likely not personally affecting or changing your personal experience.
Personally I practice the apple method through meditation and the major question asked is what is "I" and the result of the process is your perspective of your experience can change from a dualistic to a non-dualistic view through this process. Being able to experience both the dualistic and non-dualistic point of view is a milestone event because your prior perspective of only having a dualistic view is exposed as being very limited which cannot be perceived if you are only in a dualistic POV.
So it may be the some scientists have the same experience doing the orange method but my guess is most just shift their opinions based on new facts and stay in the dualistic view.
Just like climbing you are almost guaranteed to have a deeper POV shifting experience by climbing then by reading about it.
I guess I am more interested in widening the point of view and find the dual vs nondual view to be the adventure I find most exciting.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2015 - 03:16pm PT
|
Personally I practice the apple method through meditation and the major question asked is what is "I" and the result of the process is your perspective of your experience can change from a dualistic to a non-dualistic view through this process. Being able to experience both the dualistic and non-dualistic point of view is a milestone event because your prior perspective of only having a dualistic view is exposed as being very limited which cannot be perceived if you are only in a dualistic POV.
This is my experience as well. I love how PSP can say so much in so few words! Perhaps this is a particular benefit of Zen over other methods. To me, the point of meditation like most of my other activities in life, is to broaden my perspective. That's why I traveled extensively, learned other very different languages, lived intimately in other very different cultures, work in two different academic disciplines, one of them itself split into very different sections. This is not however, the best career path in our current society. I have done ok but could have done much better with super specialization in something "practical". I see that kind of specialization as personally limiting however.
On the other hand, one of the many things I have learned on this and similar threads is that I need to be careful about borrowing from the various meditation cultures and extrapolating that to the cosmos. I have been made sensitive to the idea that just because something happens in my head doesn't mean it has greater significance to anyone else or to "reality" assuming that exists and whatever it is.
The dualism of the subjective-objective dance is the essence of being human. The duality of the dual-nondual experience may just be a more abstract version, or it may be a door to something larger. I try to keep an open mind either way.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2015 - 03:23pm PT
|
So it may be the some scientists have the same experience doing the orange method but my guess is most just shift their opinions based on new facts and stay in the dualistic view
Scientists, like mathematicians I suspect, become "lost" in their investigative adventures, with hours flying by like minutes. The reflexive "I" may drift off during this time period, and, like climbing, they become "one" with the adventure. On the other hand, the feelings related to competition with their peers might disrupt this fascinating process, either temporarily or permanently.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2015 - 06:41pm PT
|
MH2:
Who is the “who” in my query?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2015 - 07:01pm PT
|
Who is asking who is the "who" in your query?
Deep waters here . . .
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2015 - 10:11pm PT
|
Who is the “who” in my query?
Let us live with ambiguity.
Indeed, it’s almost impossible for folks to live in an unrestrained dynamic environment.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2015 - 09:40am PT
|
It should be obvious that a central problem in the so-called problem of mind-body is the felt sense of that there is an “I” that is autonomous with free will. (HFCS brings this to our attention regularly.)
Most folks on these threads claim that it’s the brain that accounts for the autonomy of consciousness or awareness of the “I”: i.e., “mind.” This would seem to lead to some kind of self awareness loop that is regressive. If the brain is the seat of consciousness or awareness, then “who” is simply “what”; mind is purely a function. But that is not how we act, talk, or think. Almost no one in this thread presents themselves purely as a function. Almost no one claims no control; almost no one claims that thinking or the effects of their thinkings (beliefs) are uncontrollable outputs. Instead, people claim the results of their thoughts are concrete, important, and meaningful rather than unsubstantial, trivial, and insignificant.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to see the question of “who’s asking?” put to a materialist as leading to a deeply spiritual and existential conundrum.
Who Are “You?” Is there really a “you” at all? If there isn’t, why persist as if there were? If there really is a “you,” then how does it square with what some argue is a material, mechanical device?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2015 - 10:08am PT
|
you can think deeply on this,
or you could just take it a face value...
the perception of "I" and of "free will" are excellent approximations that explain behavior, and those perceptual models are valuable for our social interactions.
there is nothing at all mysterious about these perceptual models, the exist on all levels of animal behavior and span the range of "complexity" in all life.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2015 - 12:21pm PT
|
It shouldn’t be too difficult to see the question of “who’s asking?” put to a materialist as leading to a deeply spiritual and existential conundrum.
No conundrum.
There is what is called "you" and the experiences associated with that mental construction, and then there are the biological processes which underlie it. There is no more conundrum than there is in the fact that you can drive a car without knowing how the car is constructed. The question of, "who's asking?" is not all that different from asking, "what is a car?" Or you could ask, "Who's driving the driverless car?"
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!