Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   universe- why is it here?
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 46 of 144 (122994)
07-08-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by sidelined
07-08-2004 9:15 AM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
True. In the old days, philosophers were often the ones that told people what's what.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 07-08-2004 9:15 AM sidelined has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 47 of 144 (123075)
07-08-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by contracycle
07-08-2004 5:10 AM


Difference between computer and human is?
Contra,
But putting that aside, if the machine REFERENCES ITSELF - like doing a table lookup of some kind - and also has a mechanism to monitor that self reference, then it MUST be self aware. Thats what the system is built to do. And that, I contend, is the sense of knowing that you are.
I'm going to focus on this one example hoping we can callibrate our terms a bit more. Awareness and consciousness tricky terms to use.
Do you see a difference between a human and a computer with self monitoring feedback? The sense in which you "know" yourself, your feelings, your sensory experience do you think it differs in any way from a machine using feedback loops, look up tables etc to reference it's state?
I obviously do. I don't think a computer "experiences" itself in the same way a person does. That a machine has feedback and responds to it's own state seems very different from the way I experience myself.
If you want to use the word "awareness" for self referential circuits or actions by a machine and a human, okay. But do you see any further distinction, and if you do what would you call it?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by contracycle, posted 07-08-2004 5:10 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by contracycle, posted 07-16-2004 9:27 AM lfen has replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 48 of 144 (123080)
07-08-2004 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by sidelined
07-08-2004 9:15 AM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
Sorry Lam I should have placed a smiley face at the end of that sentence.
Okay, I respect your opinions and I hope you respect mine, but next time could you please apologize to the person who you aimed the agressive remark at in the first place?
I do believe that science is hardly non-philisophical but that scientists do not concern themselves with the things that philosophers do.When science discovers phiosophers argue the ramifications of the discovery like tourists following the explorers.
Please don't generalize; the last sentence appeared to encompass all philosophers, not just a few. Not all philosophers are like stupid tourists.
They seldom pick up on the just how much a change of the view of the world is involved in the discovery of new knowledge.
Again, 'they' would refer to the last plural subject, which was 'all philosophers'. This is just not right.
Of course scientists are no better than phlosophers as people in their relations with the world.
I agree, no class of people are better than any other in that respect.
However, you really need to think about why we have philosophers; they're not just around to try and impede scientific progress like you're portraying them to be in your posts.
I'll do some amateur philosopher to explain my point, althought we should probably start a new thread if this discussion continues.
Knowledge, Wisdom, Wit. The three pillars of enlightenment in my opinion. Science deals with the first and only the first, and philosophy the second.
Knowledge is raw, nuetral information. It can potentially create wonderful things, like vaccine and electric cars. But it can equally well create terrible things like poision gas and atom boms. Wisdom incompasses the understanding of right and wrong, adding the 'why' to all these incredible discoveries; without it we'd have long made nuclear winter.
A little off topic, but please understand that both these people have their equally important places.
This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 07-08-2004 06:08 PM

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 07-08-2004 9:15 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by coffee_addict, posted 07-08-2004 7:01 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 52 by sidelined, posted 07-08-2004 8:51 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 49 of 144 (123082)
07-08-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by One_Charred_Wing
07-08-2004 6:58 PM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
It is my opinion that B2P is a moron.
By the way, I'm sorry for calling you a moron

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-08-2004 6:58 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-08-2004 7:11 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 50 of 144 (123084)
07-08-2004 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by coffee_addict
07-08-2004 7:01 PM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
It is my opinion that B2P is a moron.
Please enforce your statement with concrete evidence.
By the way, I'm sorry for calling you a moron
Apology accepted, you imbecile. Oh, sorry about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by coffee_addict, posted 07-08-2004 7:01 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by coffee_addict, posted 07-08-2004 7:22 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 51 of 144 (123087)
07-08-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by One_Charred_Wing
07-08-2004 7:11 PM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
B2P writes:
Please enforce your statement with concrete evidence.
[qs]

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-08-2004 7:11 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 52 of 144 (123110)
07-08-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by One_Charred_Wing
07-08-2004 6:58 PM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
B2P
Knowledge is raw, nuetral information. It can potentially create wonderful things, like vaccine and electric cars. But it can equally well create terrible things like poision gas and atom boms. Wisdom incompasses the understanding of right and wrong, adding the 'why' to all these incredible discoveries; without it we'd have long made nuclear winter.
Just to clear up something here.Are you stating that knowledge can create poison gas or atomic bombs vaccine and electric cars or are you meaning to say that the people who employ knowledge, which you state is neutral,can create terrible or wonderful things.
Again I must disagree in the discernment of what constitutes good or evil.We can imagine contexts where the poison gas or atomic bombs may indeed be "good".
Philosophers who engage in science work need to understand that science well enough to take a problem applicable to that science and correctly work it out before they may comment on the philisophical ramifications of the knowledge gained.
By the same token your comment here directed at the deceased Richard Feynman,
I've said it to a lot of people before, and I'll be more than happy to say it again(directed at the proverbial Feynman, not you ofcourse):
NO AMOUNT OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE CAN CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOUR PHILOSOPHY IS FULL OF SHIT
is a puzzle to me as you are generalizing on his philosophy without pointing out what his philosophy is.
I apologize to you as well for my previous statement and for using Lam as proxy to do so earlier.I had a feeling that you might tag me on that.

You see a book lying on a table. You know there's a force due to gravity acting on that book. If you take that force (on the book and due to gravity) as the "action," what then is the "reaction" as required by Newton's third law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-08-2004 6:58 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-09-2004 2:48 AM sidelined has replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 53 of 144 (123181)
07-09-2004 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by sidelined
07-08-2004 8:51 PM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
Just to clear up something here.Are you stating that knowledge can create poison gas or atomic bombs vaccine and electric cars or are you meaning to say that the people who employ knowledge, which you state is neutral,can create terrible or wonderful things.
I wasn't specific on that, sorry. I meant people can use the knowledge to create the items mentioned.
Philosophers who engage in science work need to understand that science well enough to take a problem applicable to that science and correctly work it out before they may comment on the philisophical ramifications of the knowledge gained.
I agree completely.
(what B2P said about Feynman)is a puzzle to me as you are generalizing on his philosophy without pointing out what his philosophy is.
I pointed it out in the post that you first replied to. I realize I didn't quote him exactly, but the quote you gave me did nothing to change my opinion that the philosophical point he gave is not a good one.
I apologize to you as well for my previous statement and for using Lam as proxy to do so earlier.I had a feeling that you might tag me on that.
Apology accepted, and I'm sorry if my responses were a little cocky. I do that sometimes.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by sidelined, posted 07-08-2004 8:51 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by sidelined, posted 07-09-2004 8:58 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 54 of 144 (123292)
07-09-2004 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by One_Charred_Wing
07-09-2004 2:48 AM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
B2P
but the quote you gave me did nothing to change my opinion that the philosophical point he gave is not a good one.
Man was that guy full of it! No amount of space could be big enough for there to not be evil, and some good to challenge it. And since disorder increases with time naturally that means intelligent life will inevitably become corrupt with time. So after all this time, you'd think we would have killed eachother off. But for some reason this 'disorder' keeps getting supressed somehow. Now if that's not something to ponder about I don't know what is; so in short I believe this universe is a stage for something huge, and who wouldn't want to be a part of something that big? And besides, too bad! They live in it .
and Feynman's quote
"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil, which is the view that religion has.
The stage is too big for the drama."
The stage is too big for the drama?
That is what I am curious about.I get the impression that you do not understand just how much space he was talking about.The entire Earth is less than a drop of water in the oceans of our planet in comparison to the amount of space that is simply not being utilized by God in His drama.Much of that space is not even accesible to us and plays no part.
Your opinion is of course your own and you need not defend it but I am really curious, as I think that we learn best from those with a different point of view.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 07-09-2004 07:59 AM

You see a book lying on a table. You know there's a force due to gravity acting on that book. If you take that force (on the book and due to gravity) as the "action," what then is the "reaction" as required by Newton's third law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-09-2004 2:48 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-09-2004 7:13 PM sidelined has replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 55 of 144 (123451)
07-09-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by sidelined
07-09-2004 8:58 AM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
The stage is too big for the drama?
That is what I am curious about.I get the impression that you do not understand just how much space he was talking about.
Please, I know you're not trying to insult my intelligence, but I understand just how big the universe is. From this, I get the impression that both you and Feynman just don't understand how big this all-to-real drama is.
The entire Earth is less than a drop of water in the oceans of our planet in comparison to the amount of space that is simply not being utilized by God in His drama.Much of that space is not even accesible to us and plays no part.
Hey now, just because we can't see it doesn't mean God can't. How do we know there aren't other things going on in other parts of the universe? I really doubt this 'drama' as we're calling it will all take place on earth; there's a great big universe out there and if God is any fun he'll allow us to take the battle to the next level, because divine space battles rule.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by sidelined, posted 07-09-2004 8:58 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by sidelined, posted 07-13-2004 8:48 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 56 of 144 (124208)
07-13-2004 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by One_Charred_Wing
07-09-2004 7:13 PM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
B2P
I really doubt this 'drama' as we're calling it will all take place on earth; there's a great big universe out there and if God is any fun he'll allow us to take the battle to the next level, because divine space battles rule.
You really like your video games don't you? Fighting on universal scale would be boring in the exteme.Fighting in real combat is also obviously not the ambition of a sane mind but regardless of that having to plod along at the limits of speed that are imposed on us by the universe would make a fight even within our local star system futile.
Anyhow we are way off topic and I do suppose I might start a related topic to debate these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-09-2004 7:13 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-13-2004 5:06 PM sidelined has not replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 57 of 144 (124267)
07-13-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by sidelined
07-13-2004 8:48 AM


Re: Richard Feynman is a woozle
Fighting on universal scale would be boring in the exteme.Fighting in real combat is also obviously not the ambition of a sane mind but regardless of that having to plod along at the limits of speed that are imposed on us by the universe would make a fight even within our local star system futile.
I didn't mean a literal battle. Please don't take me seriously when I say things like "divine space battles rule". I meant that we may only be a small part of a divine plan that expands throughout the universe.
But this is only speculation, so I don't think we could get a full topic going on this. And no, I don't really enjoy violence on the level of a full-scale war or anything where people get killed; my bloodlust is limited to wrestling and boxing, which are great because you get to hit people. I can't complain, and if you or anyone else are going to deny that we all have a primal desire to hurt once in awhile, then you're crazy.
P.S. He's still a woozle!

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by sidelined, posted 07-13-2004 8:48 AM sidelined has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 144 (124964)
07-16-2004 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by lfen
07-08-2004 6:31 PM


Re: Difference between computer and human is?
lfen,
quote:
Do you see a difference between a human and a computer with self monitoring feedback? The sense in which you "know" yourself, your feelings, your sensory experience do you think it differs in any way from a machine using feedback loops, look up tables etc to reference it's state?
The short answer is "no". I cannot detect any essential feature that seperates our information processing fro theirs. Please note I am not claiming they are identical, in that the have different historical origins, but in principle they are the same device.
quote:
I obviously do. I don't think a computer "experiences" itself in the same way a person does. That a machine has feedback and responds to it's own state seems very different from the way I experience myself.
Really? Why is that? I'm not being sarcastic, thats a serious question. If you cut your finger, you would react precisely because a dumb sensor in your skin sent a message along an electrical circuit to the central processor that then gave what amounts to a warning or error message.
We are even aware to an extent of our automated nature. If you need to test something to see if its hot, its best to do so with the back of your fingers - because if you get burned youre fist tends to close. If your palm is facing the hot object,m your hand may close on it just because of this reflex. Not only is this mechanical, but we are well aware its mechanical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by lfen, posted 07-08-2004 6:31 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by lfen, posted 07-16-2004 10:14 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 144 (124967)
07-16-2004 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by lfen
07-08-2004 10:19 AM


quote:
A very thought provoking reply. I've too little time this morning to reply to it. I'm wondering if you could recommend a book or two that you consider a good introduction to information theory? I did a brief google search and found some sites on the internet. The impression I got was that it was very mathematical analysis of entropy, noise, and data transmission arising from the computer field. But that is a first impression based on maybe 10 minutes of poking around on the net.
Unfortunately I don't know of anything usefully coherent; lets say I have not seen a discussion as yet as to the philosophical implications of informaiton science.
Your analysis above is not wrong, and unfortunately this is a technical, matehmatical discipline. It helps to have some familiarity with statistical methods, for example. You usually don't need more math than algebra for basic information science concepts such as logical arithmetic, which forms the basis of circuit design. But for the sruff thats relevant at the kind of scale needed for biological systems, the math is rough indeed.
Where this overlaps with living systems is ecology. Mathematical models are used in detecting and analysing changes and developments in organic systems. All of these are entropic systems with lots and lots of noise; thats what makes the mathematics of data applicable. Equally, quite a lot of actual process biology is similar; very large entropic systems with millions of moving parts and millions of signals. Of all the hormones flowing in your bloodstream, how does a particular cell pick out the one it needs? Thats an information science problem: how to distinguish signal from noise.
A brief search indicates that a recommended starting text is J.R. Pierce's "An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise" in being not too heavy mathematically. Its long enough ago that I can;t quite recall if this was one of my textbooks but it rings bells.
But another very interesting example of the signifcance of information theory is the research into artificial life systems, the most famous of which is John Conway's 'Game of Life'. The significance of this work is that it demonstrated that very simple rules iterated over large numbers of instances can produce very strange effects. That is, such simple rule systems can produce outputs so complex they look as if they were designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by lfen, posted 07-08-2004 10:19 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by lfen, posted 07-16-2004 10:34 AM contracycle has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 60 of 144 (124970)
07-16-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by contracycle
07-16-2004 9:27 AM


Re: Difference between computer and human is?
Not only is this mechanical, but we are well aware its mechanical.
Yes. But I'm trying to get at the distinction between "mechanical" and "aware". What is it that is aware of the mechanical? and that seems conceptual, so also what is aware of the sensory information?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by contracycle, posted 07-16-2004 9:27 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by contracycle, posted 07-16-2004 11:19 AM lfen has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024