Re: Sentience

From: Rahul Jain (rjain_at_nyct.net)
Date: 04/18/04 

Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:23:22 GMT

André Thieme <address.good.until.2004.jun.05@justmail.de> writes:

> the molecules in your brain are following the "laws of nature" and
> therefore it is (aside from the random part) certain where they have to
> move in the next moment. If it is always certain where the molecules will
> be in the next moment then it is already certain for any amount of time.
> The shorter the period of time we are looking at, the more probable our
> prediction would be, as the random behaviour of molecules have less
> possibilities to work. Anyway, if it is determined how the molecules will
> move we cannot have a free will. So to have one we would need to be able
> to influence the flow of molecules in our brain, because a specific state
> of molecules means a specific thought/action of us. As we need to move
> the molecules in our brain into specific states we need energy to do so.
> Although molecule X should move to the "left" it needs to fly to the right
> side to allow us to think about a special thought or to start some
> specific activity. We first need to break the "laws" of normal behaviour
> (the molecule should fly to the left) and we need some extra energy for
> doing that. And we can not use the energy we are usually using for making
> the brain work, as exactly this energy forces the molecule to fly to the
> left.

In other words, even though the expected behavior of the brain would be
to send the molecule to the right, its normal behavior would be to push
it to the left? Eh? Why do you assume that the brain is only allowed to
send molecules in one direction and not the other? All it needs to do is
rearrange the electrical fields inside of it in order to effect that
change. Why can't the brain have any energy to do that? Why can it have
the energy to push the molecule in the other direction?

> Obviously we have some determined part inside us. The uncertainity of
> the universe has not an overly big effect on us, as we don't act very
> randomly. Imagine how crazy the world would be if only 2% of our behaviour
> would be controled by quantum mechanics. The randomness which comes from
> there has only an extremly low impact on us.

Quantum mechanics is just the best explanation of how we understand the
universe to work. If less than 2% of our behavior is explainable using
the physics we know, then how do we know that the other 98+% is not
random? We don't know anything about it.

> But as I pointed out even the random parts, the last chance where free
> will could hide, does not offer us this room. Even if it would, it would
> mean that the impact of our free will influences us to less than 1% I
> guess. The sad thing I see is, that we don't even have this 1% of free
> will, at least when looking at it from a very deep level, from the base
> of molecule movement in our brain.

Just because we don't understand quantum decoherence doesn't mean that
it's irrelevant to the question of free will.

> But if we would then use the control to do something specific it would
> no longer be random. The uncertainity principle would no longer be in
> effect as we could exactly measure a particle. With our free will we
> could force it to be exactly observed.

Free will doesn't mean that we get to choose the laws of physics. This
is a common misconception espoused by mathematicians who were let out
into the real world. :)

> The question is how a neuron is built up. I suppose it also is built up
> out of some basic matter (which we understand).

Why do you assume we are omnicient?

> These basic parts which are easy to understand if we look at them
> alone

A particle that never interacts with any other particles isn't worth
understanding, as it doesn't have any effect on the universe. It didn't
come from the universe, for one thing.

> get some new abilities as soon many of them are mixed and get
> organized in some specific pattern (for example in a neuron).

Indeed the "only" abilities they get are in the ability to interact with
each other as well as other particles and have some effect on the
universe.

> The firing is also some electricity which also consists of quantum
> particles, mostly electrons.

Ok... what do you define as a non-quantum particle? Electricity does not
consist of electrons, but rather, of photons.

> For our constricted mind it is of course not possible to understand the
> functionality on such a basic basis.

Speak for yourself. ;)

But you're right. We can't even reason fully about the behavior of a
system of two electrons and one proton. And that's once we assume that
the proton is atomic (as opposed to being part of an atom -- (ObLisp) a
symbol instead of a string).

> But I guess that in 100 years, when
> some ultra intelligent computers exist there are ways to come closer to
> such an understanding.
> (if these computers will exist *g*)

Maybe those will help. Maybe not.

>> 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?
>
> Very good question, I don't know the answer (I guess you know that they
> can't tell it?). In fact there are so many things we need to learn.

Or maybe we'll learn that the distinction is just a figment of our own
imaginations (but we may understand those in much more concrete terms as
a result ;). 

-- 
Rahul Jain
rjain@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sentience
    ... If it is always certain where the molecules will ... to influence the flow of molecules in our brain, ... the molecules in our brain into specific states we need energy to do so. ... some ultra intelligent computers exist there are ways to come closer to ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Sentience
    ... >>would mean that we can force some molecules to go into specific positions. ... Nope, because, if you see a pattern it means that (if you know the ... X of your brain. ... Like some very basic functionality like Lisp ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Re: Freedom 101
    ... So at some point in the functions of the brain, atoms and molecules receive ... I woul dbet good money that you would fail it with a lower score than ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Freedom 101
    ... So at some point in the functions of the brain, atoms and molecules receive ... because cause and effect is a principle that ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No Grace Period for Metabolism Either
    ... I don't expect any life without the sun (or other source of energy). ... What if the chances for 'sponanious creation' of selfreplicating molecules ... >>I expect that the spot where this first happened had a good environment ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)