Oh yeah there is even more to the story.Well you stopped at the point where the electron (or more easily undedrstood the photon) hit the two slits. Let's continue that reasonable thought experiment.
"After i go through the two slits, sometimes i will go to the right, and other times i will go to the left, and still other times i will go to the far right, or even farther right, or even farther, etc., or go farther to the left or even farther, etc., but there are some directions in which i will never go, and i do this because i interfere with myself in different systematic and random ways, This self-interference is hard for humans to understand."
If that isnt complex i dont know what is. It's so complex in fact that we cant quite understand it.
Before one can express "I am xxx and that thing in front of me means risk/pleasure/...", one must be able to express "I". This is much more difficult than might seem at first glance. Human babies understand pleasure/pain long before they understand that the thing receiving the pleasure/pain is different from the thing giving the pleasure/pain. The notion of a distinct self is a very complex idea to hold.Consciousness always seemed to me the capability of a being able to express "I am a dog/man/ameba/whatever and that thing in front of me means risk/pleasure/benefit/whatever"
I am xxxx, alone, seems not useful in the mainframe of Nature.
Not aimed at you- just a general observation about this kind of thinking...There is a new view into consciousness that is coming up that sort of mimics old world views of soul.
The problem was that using the idea of a soul means separating the mind from body and that was not very well received because that brings spiritulism into the picture and we dont want to have to view sometime like an electron as being spiritual.
The idea with pansychism is that everything is conscious to a greater or less degree. For example, a human is more conscious than a cow but a cow is more conscious than a clam. Taking this down farther, an electron would be considered conscious but to a very very less degree than that of any animal or even a plant.
The reason for thinking about this is because it was realized that physical science is not as physical as we would like because it is all based on how matter behaves not what matter really is. This is now being thought of as a possible reason why we have trouble understanding some experiments that can have different outcomes from the same stimulus.
The idea is not that far fetched because recall that when we try to describe some particle interactions we end up saying that it may not be there until we look at it (in a manner of speaking). How could something not be there until we look at it? Also recall that color is not a property of the universe, it is a property of our own minds. We have grouped certain wavelengths into categories so that we can deal with them faster and dont have to identify them all uniquely every time we want to describe the wavelengths they reflect. I also like to bring up the hole in the ground discussion where we give a name to something that isnt really there just to make it simpler to deal with. The hole itself is not there only the ground around it is there, in a completely physical view. If we did an experiment at LHC to determine where holes were in the world, we would have to go by the particles that surround the 'hole' we could not look for the hole itself because we would never find one existing on it's own.
There is a lot more to this though i'll look up some links. Note however this is not science fiction it is a new start to understanding what consciousness really is.
Actually it isn't. I can't reveal how I know that (proporietary work-related), but 'self aware' is actually a very simple algorithm in the mind.Before one can express "I am xxx and that thing in front of me means risk/pleasure/...", one must be able to express "I". This is much more difficult than might seem at first glance. Human babies understand pleasure/pain long before they understand that the thing receiving the pleasure/pain is different from the thing giving the pleasure/pain. The notion of a distinct self is a very complex idea to hold.
As for the evolutionary benefit of sense of self, it's very likely a byproduct of the evolutionary benefit of social groups. Brain size is well-correlated with social complexity, as increased cognitive capability allows for more complex social interactions, such as group hunting with communicated strategies and improvised tactics. The group's adaptability (and hence its success rate) greatly increases when each member can act independently (within the parameters of the group's goals). Independence within a group requires a concept of distinct self -- self awareness -- and so in this light consciousness can be seen as evolutionarily favorable.
There's an interesting connection between self awareness and self reference, as in recursive functions or languages that are powerful enough to describe themselves. In various disparate fields -- e.g., information theory, computational complexity theory, formal language theory -- there is a clear threshold between "moderately powerful" and "explosively powerful", and the capability of self reference seems to be an essential property of this threshold. Once a system becomes capable of self reference, it's as if a universal power has been unlocked. This is, however, a double-edged sword: along with the power comes less desirable aspects, such as necessarily being incomplete (ala Gödel), the capability to contain paradoxes, the capability to ask questions that cannot be answered, etc. It all feels uncannily similar to the human condition.
You're missing the point. It's all well and good to say that matrix multiplication is a simple algorithm, but you can't ignore the complexity of the hardware necessary to run it.Actually it isn't. I can't reveal how I know that (proporietary work-related), but 'self aware' is actually a very simple algorithm in the mind.
Yes i understand your point of view and mine has been different as long as i can remember also. Mine view is that reality stems from a statistical analysis and that is our way of explaining things. But i have to admit that before we get to any average we get some very strange behavior that can not be handled statistically because we dont have enough samples to do that. It is impossible to get statistical results with just one sample, yet one sample exhibits the strange behavior.Not aimed at you- just a general observation about this kind of thinking...
_This_ is the sort of think that keeps people so far behind. :: throws hands up and walks away ::
I dont own a sandbox but i guess you still doOkay! Just so you know...
It was me who threw the wrench in your sandbox! I love reading extravagant statements & assertions not intended to be understood literally! Sooo... I'm bringing the heat.
Consciousness mandates two things: that you be aware of your existence, and that you’re able to respond to your environment. This awareness and arousal make up all that we experience. So pick up all of your toys and get out of my sandbox and go home... it's time for bed.
Well it seems obvious that some members here just dont want to talk about it.As with all philosophical discussions, definitions of terms is a pre-requisite. Making claims about what is required to be "conscious" is just arbitrarily defining the word. As obvious as it may seem to us that it's correct, those things that are self-evident are those with no proof whatever.
A productive discussion in this area needs to hinge on the meaning of the sentences, not the words in the sentences. It doesn't matter if you believe a word is a poor choice, the salient question is, "what does the person mean when they say it?"
In this discussion it is particularly vexed. "Consciousness" is not something we've reduced to math. There's no proof for it, there's no fixed definition for it in the context of a philosophical exploration.
That's why I choose to stick a pin in "human experience" and anchor things there for the time being. I have some idea what it is like to be me, and I have a good reason to believe that other humans share something like that experience. The sense of self—of identity, the experience of qualia which emerge from but are not themselves the physics that I believe underlie everything we can possibly know about.
In any case, it's really fraught to say, "consciousness is X, therefore you can't be right about Y" since the first part is simply an assertion not matter how deeply you believe it is self-evident.
The philosophers who debate these things, and try to progress in this domain, are extremely rigorous and spend many, many years developing ways of teasing out the underlying assumptions. One may have no time for professional philosophers and find their work useless, many people do, but since it takes a very long time to understand what they are up to, I would suggest that could be largely from ignorance.
This is not to say philosophers are a monolithic thing. Because of the inherent ambiguity they range from cranks to brilliant thinkers. But, in the core of the philosophical work humans do, there is deep insight and actual progress has been made over time, at least in paring away what clearly isn't going to improve our understanding of epistemic questions.
The trouble is, in order to test for something you have to describe what it will be if you find it. That’s the root of the philoosophical problem. If you agree on the definition of what you are looking for, you can move forward—testing or not. But the arguments concerning definitions of consciousness are circular. They are just assertions of what it is, and in the negative space that creates, what it is not.So if somebody wants to post a link or two on how we can test for consciousness that would be great, i'd love to see it. It would have to come in the form of a line of questioning i guess, because that's how most tests like these are done.
I cant really agree on the implication that we are all too dumb to discuss anything. But i do agree that this subject is a little harder to grasp then say some electronic circuit, and that is my real area anyway. I just cant help finding philosophy interesting sometimes because it forces us to see things we never realized before.
We all know the sensation of being alive. Isn't that "proof" enough of what it is? And trying to validate it with logical thought is fruitless - the mind itself springs forth from consciousness! That's why it's so difficult to describe in words. No concept could possibly contain it.So if somebody wants to post a link or two on how we can test for consciousness that would be great, i'd love to see it. It would have to come in the form of a line of questioning i guess, because that's how most tests like these are done. Then we could try to poke holes in it and if not successful it might fly. We need dialog to work from though in order to apply serious logic.
The last i read was that it is not possible to do that, but who knows someone may find something out there.
It's not about "proof" or "validation", it's about understanding. We all know the sensation of gravity. Should we have stopped with that?We all know the sensation of being alive. Isn't that "proof" enough of what it is? And trying to validate it with logical thought is fruitless - the mind itself springs forth from consciousness! That's why it's so difficult to describe in words. No concept could possibly contain it.
It helps when your employer is a practicing physicist. Cuz we write the books so others may read.Oh thing i could never figure out is how some people think that they can be the authority on subjects that have been argued for years to be indeterminant. The only answer is that they must have not done enough reading
One of my employers a Princeton University professor best known for linking the concept of a black hole to gravitational collapse, believes that the observer effect shows that our observations can alter reality.We all know the sensation of gravity. Should we have stopped with that?
What more is there to understand? It has no name. No color. No shape. It is simply "this". The only way to truly study it is with one's own spirit. The articulating mind cannot grasp it.It's not about "proof" or "validation", it's about understanding. We all know the sensation of gravity. Should we have stopped with that?
Is the professor 200 years old? Gravitational black holes have been postulated since the late 1700s. In 1799, Laplace used Newton's law of gravitation to work out the maximum radius a mass could have before light would be unable to escape its gravity well. So I think the professor was a little late to the party.One of my employers a Princeton University professor best known for linking the concept of a black hole to gravitational collapse, believes that the observer effect shows that our observations can alter reality.
I wholeheartedly disagree. It certainly has a name -- consciousness -- and, as we can each attest, it is an aspect of the universe, as real and tangible a phenomenon as gravity. It has no color or shape, but neither does gravity or electromagnetism or politics, but these things are worthy of study, yes? We have much to learn about consciousness.What more is there to understand? It has no name. No color. No shape. It is simply "this". The only way to truly study it is with one's own spirit. The articulating mind cannot grasp it.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|M||Does a higher concentration of electrons mean a stronger electric field in a battery?||General Science, Physics & Math||6|
|M||Does a capacitor store electrons||General Electronics Chat||5|
|How many electrons are there||Homework Help||14|
|When electrons that are moving through a wire come to a "crossroads," do they divide or choose?||General Electronics Chat||66|
|Returning electrons without copper wire?||General Electronics Chat||3|
|Does a higher concentration of electrons mean a stronger electric field in a battery?|
|Does a capacitor store electrons|
|How many electrons are there|
|When electrons that are moving through a wire come to a "crossroads," do they divide or choose?|
|Returning electrons without copper wire?|
by Jake Hertz