Re: Sentience
From: Coby Beck (cbeck_at_mercury.bc.ca)
Date: 04/17/04
- Previous message: Coby Beck: "Re: How many functions do you know?"
- In reply to: André Thieme: "Re: Sentience"
- Next in thread: André Thieme: "Re: Sentience"
- Reply: André Thieme: "Re: Sentience"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:09:20 +1000
"André Thieme" <address.good.until.2004.jun.05@justmail.de> wrote in message
news:c5q2uu$aug$1@ulric.tng.de...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
> >>The universe has derterministic and random components. So I personally
> >>think that our brain also follows these patterns. And I see no room for
> >>a free will. The molecules of our brains have to follow some physical
> >>laws for their movement and this way determine to some degree of what
> >>can happen next. From this side we can't have a free will. Having one
> >>would mean that we can force some molecules to go into specific
positions.
> >
> >
> > I can do that.
>
> Where does the energy come from to do that?
Well, from the Big Bang ultimately. Before that is a more difficult
question!
Not meaning to be facetious, but I don't think it is a problem to trace the
flow of energy from muscle contractions to the food we eat to the sun etc...
> What is it that enables our brains to act completely different (not
> following the "laws of nature") than the rest of the universe?
Well, I don't think they do. We just need much more intricate "laws of
nature" if we wish to describe these things in those terms.
I'm reminded of some article or discussion where it was described how
applying what we know of cosmology and physics to our best understanding of
the very early universe (ie fractions of a second old) resulted in the
shocking notion that the probabilty of the very existence of life at all was
1 in 10^(very big number). Interesting to contemplate, but rather than
being overwhelmed by the philisophical implications of such an idea,
shouldn't we think that there is an even higher probability that we don't
know everything yet?
> >>In my opinion [manipulating molecules] is not possible. If we could
> >>do it there would be some patterns in the new molecule movement
> >
> > I see a pattern. I read your post and suddenly desire another sip of
coffee
> > and then all the molecules in my arm move together and bring the mug up
to
> > my mouth. Isn't that enough to convince you?
>
> Nope, because, if you see a pattern it means that (if you know the
> pattern well enough (which is not possible because this issue is too
> complex (which does not mean that magic is involved))) your behaviour
> was predictable.
But this is the essential concept of the uncertainty principle, it is not
that "if only we had accurate enough measurements" it is that there *is* no
precision. So it is not that it is so complex we can not model it precisely
it is that there is no precision.
> At least a billionths of a second before you took your
> coffee it was already certain that you will take it. Lets call it state
> X of your brain. A billionths of a second before it was certain that in
> a billionths of a second later your brain will be in state X, etc...
The naughty bits are somewhere in the cause of biochemical fluctuations and
all the firing of neurons, not in the actual motion of the matter.
> Of course, when looking at the issue of a free will from a macroscopic
> point of view then we have one. Anyway, if we go deeper and deeper and
> look more into it, then I personally am not convinced anymore, that we
> really have the ability to do "magic". Magic here means do things which
> should be impossible, for example forcing some billions of molecules
> into some specific states by creating energy out of nothing and using it.
Don't you think it is magic that particles can appear out of absolutely
nothing, even if they don't live long? They can, and do, according to
quantum mechanics. Life is just a bit more of that magic.
> > Honestly, I enjoy as much as the next guy philisophical discussions
about
> > "fate" and "free will" but trying to scientifically reason away your own
> > ability to think and to chose is madness.
>
> My arguments are much, but not scientific. However, for me they sound
> very logical. I see little building tools from which the universe is
> made up. Like some very basic (and orthogonal) functionality like Lisp
> offers. It is easy to understand them as a single concept. And when we
> start to build some complex structures by combining these basic (small)
> concepts we get something more complex which is still easy to understand.
> I see the smallest biological organisms and their highly algorithmical
> behaviour, so that no scientists says they think.
It is no more algorithmical than our own behaviour when analyzed as a
sufficiently large group. I don't agree with this. But they do live, I
think we would all agree with that. Yet can any scientist really describe
what the essential difference is between a live ameoba and a dead one?
> So if there are only
> very small life forms, they can't think and therefore have no free will.
Well, I don't know. If one can not predict which direction the ameoba will
swim next isn't it "chosing" at some level?
> Now the brain (the Lisp program) becomes bigger and bigger and our short
> time memory can no longer hold all necessary information about the issue
> at one time - things starting to look more complex.
> If someone would look at a Lisp application which counts maybe 700
> trillion lines of code it would surely not be an easy task to understand
> it.
>
> Perhaps my thoughts about free will have an emotional nature. I want
> that "real" artificial intelligence is possible and therefore create my
> own ideas about how the mind works and put it in a way how I like it
> more, just to feel better. If we really have a free will, then I see not
> many chances to transfer it to a computer.
> Anyway, I am very convinced that this is possible.
I too, like to believe it is possible.
-- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
- Previous message: Coby Beck: "Re: How many functions do you know?"
- In reply to: André Thieme: "Re: Sentience"
- Next in thread: André Thieme: "Re: Sentience"
- Reply: André Thieme: "Re: Sentience"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
