Re: Sentience
From: Rahul Jain (rjain_at_nyct.net)
Date: 04/19/04
- Next message: Rahul Jain: "Re: Delaunay Triangulation in Lisp"
- Previous message: Rahul Jain: "Re: OpenGL will never catch on"
- In reply to: Thomas Stegen: "Re: Sentience"
- Next in thread: Thomas Stegen: "Re: Sentience"
- Reply: Thomas Stegen: "Re: Sentience"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:46:17 GMT
Thomas Stegen <tstegen@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
> But what is that decides which direction to push the molecule in the
> first place? Ok, so it depends on which direction the force is applied.
> What determines the direction of this force?
The configuration of ions the neuron has maintained.
> Rearranging the electrical fields necessarily cannot happen just out
> of the blue, it needs to be caused by something. And that something
> needs to be caused by something else again. I cannot see past this
> infinite regress at the moment.
Ok, but you can't conclude that the brain can't possibly have enough
energy to do this from what you have said.
> Free will seems to depend on some actions happening without being caused
> by something else, and for me that does not seem to work. Maybe the
> complex behaviour we see are just a result of state and input? Seems
> plausible to me really. There is nothing that really indicates that
> self awareness, conscioussness and intelligence is special in any way.
As I said, there is much we don't know, and quantum decoherence could be
significant here.
> It is clear that our brains are at least as powerful as Turing machines,
> who is to say that self awareness is not just another state or set of
> states? I don't know, the last few days I have been thinking that it
> certainly feels like I have free will, but then again, once I make a
> choice there is no way to know if I could have made a different choice.
Sure, it's possible. That's why people are still doing research into the
matter. :)
> So essentially, indeterminism does not in any way result in free will.
It depends on what it's indeterminate relative to.
> Maybe human interaction is just quantum physics at a macroscopic level.
Well, that's all we know, so as far as we know, that's all it can be.
> All the randomness which comes from the uncertainty principle and
> friends
Actually, uncertainty adds no randomness. It's decoherence that causes
it, and we have no clue how it behaves.
> ultimately results in amazing structures such as stars, planets,
> rocks, whatever. Maybe once a structure exists which allows these
> quantum effects to escape the microsopic level and enter the macroscopic
> domain they will result in a different type of amazing structures.
I don't know what you mean by "macroscopic", but we surely can measure
the macroscopic effects of quantum mechanics. Just listen to a geiger
counter... or look at a light bulb... or watch billiard balls bouncing
off each other. There mere existence of discrete pieces of matter is a
quantum effect.
-- Rahul Jain rjain@nyct.net Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
- Next message: Rahul Jain: "Re: Delaunay Triangulation in Lisp"
- Previous message: Rahul Jain: "Re: OpenGL will never catch on"
- In reply to: Thomas Stegen: "Re: Sentience"
- Next in thread: Thomas Stegen: "Re: Sentience"
- Reply: Thomas Stegen: "Re: Sentience"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|