Re: Stack Overflow
From: Keynes (Keynes_at_earthlinkspam.net)
Date: 12/11/04
- Next message: johnson: "Re: Binary number representation in ANSI C"
- Previous message: Brian: "Re: Simulate Web Form Input."
- Maybe in reply to: Keynes: "Re: Stack Overflow"
- Next in thread: AngleWyrm: "Re: Stack Overflow"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:25:33 -0600
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:15:08 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Chris Thomson coughed up:
>> Let's say we try to understand the mind. We imagine a universe full of
>> people, and those people have minds, in those minds these people can
>> imagine a universe full of people, who have minds, etc, etc.
>>
>> Or you can go the other way, let us imagine the whole universe. Now we
>> can imagine that this idea of the universe that we have just imagined,
>> is in our minds, and our minds are in the universe. But then that idea
>> of the unvierse with our mind in it, that idea itself is also just an
>> idea in our mind which is in the universe.
>>
>> In either direction you can keep going forever, there is no
>> theoretical limit. Every step is exactly as valid or true as the last,
>> it looks identical to the last except that it's one step higher up the
>> ladder of reasoning.
>
>I've snipped out the majority of this not because it isn't apropos to my
>response, but for brevity.
>
>The ladder of reasoning you refer to is part of what I refer to as a "ladder
>of abstractions". I'll try to keep this as brief as possible not only to
>keep from boring you but because I *really* believe in my humblest of
>opinions that usenet is precisely the /wrong/ place for this kind of
>discussion. You're lucky that the thread was as short lived as it was. If
>it had grown much larger you would have spent much of your time explaining
>and re-explaining and fending off knee-jerk reactions to things that you've
>already thought through.
>
>I also refer to these observations as a layers of abstraction, since that is
>what most folks think of them as, and when I formed these ideas in 1981 I
>then dug up and discovered that Douglas Hofstadter had used similar terms in
>GEB. So folks largely get the terminology. Phew.
>
>Here's the rub. Let's show why random numbers exist and don't, and why
>there is no mind/brain conundrum, free will exists and doesn't, and that
>everything is really "without much ado".
>
>Start with the following abstractions of I, Thomas G. Marshall, and of the C
>function printf(). Note that these layers are the ones that most stand
>out----there are possibly non-discrete layers in between, but I really don't
>wanna go there now.
>
>Also, let's keep the quanta guys outta this. Go away. Einstein was right
>:) But his determinism arguments don't matter for this----I just don't want
>it to confuse the issue needlessly.
>
> 6. Thomas G. Marshall's mind
> 5. Neural pathways w/feedback loops
> 4. Sodium/potassium interchange conduits
> 3. Ion interaction
> 2. molecular interaction
> 1. quarks
> 0. who knows
> -1. who knows
> etc.
>
>And here is the abstraction ladder for "printf()":
>
> 8. printf()
> 7. assembly in printf + underlying system calls
> 6. CPU instructions
> 5. microcode used in constructing CPU instructions
> 4. TTL like logic
> 3. analog logic
> 2. electron propagation
> 1. quarks (again)
> 0. who knows
> -1. who knows
> etc.
>
>Given this let's look at what folks often say (particularly in computer
>science):
>
>"Random numbers don't exist"
>
>A person is likely to say that he can pull a number out of thin air. This
>is of course ignoring the deterministic constructs of the layers beneath
>him. But /at his layer/, layer 6 (first ladder above) where *the me* lives,
>I certainly can. The random number is a denizen of layer 6, where my mind
>is. Free will is a similar denizen.
>
Free will is an illusion based on our power to do what we want.
We Always do what we want. We can't do what we don't want.
We love what we love and hate what we hate and haven't the
slightest desire to reverse them. We are determined to do as
we please, without exception. We are narrowly confined to
only our best choices. That's how free the will is.
Our likes and dislikes are instictive, cultural, and based on
personal experience, none of which was ever chosen in the
first place.
>But here is what I'll hear (which is mistaken in that it isn't the whole
>story):
>
> "You cannot choose a random number because
> your brain is deterministic because it is only made
> of atoms, which behave deterministically, ..." (etc.)
>
For general purposes that would be random enough.
Could it be ultimately random, or random enough for statistics?
no. We tend to think in non-random patterns.
In fact, we can see faces in the clouds.
>or rephrased:
>
> "You cannot choose a random number because
> the choice you made is merely the actions of your
> brain which are the actions of atoms, ..." (etc.)
>
>The /retort/ is then:
>
> "Well, does printf() exist? It cannot, because it is
> merely assembly which is merely CPU instructions
> which is microcode..." (etc.)
>
printf() exists. I've used it myself. 8-)
>Basically "free will" vs. determinism follows the same arguments.
>
Not really.
>I've kept this overly brief, but it all boils down to this:
>
>1. Free Will and Determinism exist or don't exist based on the layer you're
>looking at, and is not hard to understand at all and is certainly no
>conundrum.
>
>2. Similarly, random numbers exist or don't exist based on the layer you're
>looking at, and is not hard to understand at all and is certainly no
>conundrum.
>
>3. And the same for mind/brain arguments.
>
If only.
>There is simply nothing mystical about any of this. You come to grips with
>this early on when you spend much of your time in AI and AL.
>
>...[rip]...
- Next message: johnson: "Re: Binary number representation in ANSI C"
- Previous message: Brian: "Re: Simulate Web Form Input."
- Maybe in reply to: Keynes: "Re: Stack Overflow"
- Next in thread: AngleWyrm: "Re: Stack Overflow"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
