flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > i really don't know what is life

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8870
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Post 08 Jul 2008, 07:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Oh my, looks like another "god of the gaps" argument... hey, there is some kind of uncertainity in quantum mechanics, let's place things we want to be real there. well, we don't have no evidence for it, but at least it is not falsifiable (yet). When it becomes falsifiable, we'll just move it to another gap, no problem...

Even from reading wiki it is obvious...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know#Academic_reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

Few thousand years ago people placed mysticism into weather, storms, mountains, because they didn't understand it. Few hundred years ago, people placed who didn't have enough intellectual honesty to admit they were wrong, moved this mysticism into life beings, diversity of life, it's adaption, etc., because we didn't understand it yet. Few dozen years ago same sor of peple people were moving mysticism into brain because we understood it very poorly due to it's complexity. Now the we are starting even to understand the brain, and we produce analogous machines to brain, same people moved mysticism (the same one rooted in misunderstanding natural events thousands of years ago) to quantum mechanics. What will be next? Is there end to this?
Post 08 Jul 2008, 15:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
vid wrote:
Is there end to this?
No, it is human cultural nature.
Post 08 Jul 2008, 16:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
vid wrote:
Is there end to this?
No, it is human cultural nature.
Actually there would be an end, if you would let others do what they think Wink

Mysticism? When will mysticism end for you? Well, it's easy (and applies to everyone): when you don't 'argue' with it being wrong and saying how truth you know Smile (I doubt things that don't get in our way are not "end" for us)

Robert Penrose's theory. Of course the theory has to be false because it cripples our "mechanistic" beliefs.

Yeah, everything is computable, everything is predictable, everything is reproducible, logic of induction applies everywhere, and everything is also falsifiable... if it isn't, then (even though there is no counter to it) it's obviously fake, right? speaking of close-mindeness Rolling Eyes

(oh and please don't bring New Age stuff because I am hardly speaking about it, and wouldn't care either!)
Post 09 Jul 2008, 13:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Yeah, everything is computable, everything is predictable, everything is reproducible, logic of induction applies everywhere, and everything is also falsifiable... if it isn't, then (even though there is no counter to it) it's obviously fake, right? speaking of close-mindeness

Not obviously fake. Without ability to test claim, we simply can't know if it is true. And there are infinite such claims. Untestable claim about 3rd eye is just as much true as untestable claims about fairies and invisible pink unicorns.

There are countless people who claim countless conflicting ideas unsupported by any evidence. Since they are conflicting, they cannot be all true. Based on what criteria should i pick specific set of unsupported claims to hold, and dismiss rest of unsupported claims?

As for Robert Penrose arguments:
1. Adding on criticism contained in wiki, human brain works in pretty different way than deductive reasoning, whose limitation was proved by Goedel. Things that are "obviously true" for human brain are based on previous experience.

But still, Penrose only asserted there is something in human brain that theoretical Turing machine is incapable of. He has yet to show some evidence of his assertion.

2 and 3. Penrose proposed new quantum physics model. For any such theory to be taken seriously, it has to make some testable predictions, apart from other things. Otherwise, it didn't really bring any new information and is useless, like in this case. Only new thing added in his model that I see is to support some thousands years old superstition presented in modern coat.

But still, you have the best argument there in wiki:
Quote:
However the most cogent attack on Orch OR and quantum mind theories in general was the view that conditions in the brain would lead to any quantum coherence decohering too quickly for it to be relevant to neural processes.


Quantum processes are only relevant on extremely small scales - that's why we discovered their existence so lately. Yes, it is possible to construct some form of Schroedinger cat box, but thse rarely occur naturally, if at all (otherwise we would have noticed some unexpected unexplainable effects much sooner than we did). If you claim there is some mechanism in brain through which quantum uncertainity can relevantly affect neural-level processes, please present your evidence for it.
Post 09 Jul 2008, 14:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Not obviously fake. Without ability to test claim, we simply can't know if it is true. And there are infinite such claims. Untestable claim about 3rd eye is just as much true as untestable claims about fairies and invisible pink unicorns.

There are countless people who claim countless conflicting ideas unsupported by any evidence. Since they are conflicting, they cannot be all true. Based on what criteria should i pick specific set of unsupported claims to hold, and dismiss rest of unsupported claims?
Actually we can't "test" them with reproducible or computable results. We CAN test them, but it requires a different method than the 'scientific experiments' simply because that method needs something to be quantifiable or computable, which is NOT the case here (or at least so his theory says).

That was the whole point of my post. People usually say religious people are close-minded (and I would agree to most extent, obviously I'm generalizing, not talking about everyone). But since most scientists require so-called "testable" stuff (see below what I mean by 'testable'), then they are close-minded as well.

Testable means, actually, something which they can reproduce EXACTLY (that is, randomness is usually invalid), and which they can QUANTIFY (in other words, using the assumption that everything is computable).. These two assumptions lead to a "mechanistic" religion (of some sort), where there are two (actually 3, induction being there as well) core beliefs.

I'm not saying that the core beliefs are WRONG or that the method is BAD. I'm only saying that those who dismiss immediately anything else that goes outside this 'method' are pretty close-minded. Beliefs/assumptions (about the world) are good as you don't expect them to work in all cases, or you don't use them to dismiss anything outside them immediately.

Things can be "testable" without the above core beliefs, depending on how you define testable (most scientists don't agree and think that does not yield a "conclusive" evidence).

vid wrote:
Quantum processes are only relevant on extremely small scales - that's why we discovered their existence so lately. Yes, it is possible to construct some form of Schroedinger cat box, but thse rarely occur naturally, if at all (otherwise we would have noticed some unexpected unexplainable effects much sooner than we did). If you claim there is some mechanism in brain through which quantum uncertainity can relevantly affect neural-level processes, please present your evidence for it.
I thought a theory is valid if it isn't proven false, and this one is certainly not. You may not like the theory, hell we all have preferences, but you can't bash others using it since it hasn't been "proven" false yet Wink
Post 09 Jul 2008, 17:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Things can be "testable" without the above core beliefs, depending on how you define testable (most scientists don't agree and think that does not yield a "conclusive" evidence).

All tests with lower standards than scientific standard that I have seen to day were very prone to producing invalid results. Of course, I don't say what we have now is only and best way, that would indeed be closemindedness. If people in past would think like that, we would never have science.

I only am not aware of any better method than scientific one, that would produce more valid results and fewer invalid results. If you know any other methods of gaining proper knowledge, comparable to science, please tell us about it, and about results it has achieved to day.

It is just bad to use limitations of science to support superstitions. So far as I remember you haven't stood up for any particular claim, you just keep opening possibilities for various vague concepts, often suspiciously close to superstitions.

Quote:
I thought a theory is valid if it isn't proven false, and this one is certainly not.

In strictest sense yes, but in practice you have higher standards for theory. Theory is useless if it doesn't have predictive power. New theory replacing older one is useless, unless it can explain or predict something previous one couldn't. Otherwise we could postulate goddidit theory of everything and forget about inquiry at all.
Post 10 Jul 2008, 04:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
All tests with lower standards than scientific standard that I have seen to day were very prone to producing invalid results. Of course, I don't say what we have now is only and best way, that would indeed be closemindedness. If people in past would think like that, we would never have science.

I only am not aware of any better method than scientific one, that would produce more valid results and fewer invalid results. If you know any other methods of gaining proper knowledge, comparable to science, please tell us about it, and about results it has achieved to day.

It is just bad to use limitations of science to support superstitions. So far as I remember you haven't stood up for any particular claim, you just keep opening possibilities for various vague concepts, often suspiciously close to superstitions.
I wasn't talking about the video/movie/whatever, I was talking about Robert Penrose's theory.

I wasn't criticizing the scientific method for being wrong in any way! Only that it doesn't accept, for example, things that are not computable or not reproducible exactly (e.g: randomness), or things that are not quantifiable/inductable.

If a given theory (Robert Penrose's in this case) implies that things aren't computable at the quantum level (at least the theory says), then you can't criticize it with normal "scientific" arguments, that are valid only when things are computable or reproducible exactly. The theory may not be true, or may be true (people, for example, like Robert, might have a reason to support it, I'm NOT going to say he is wrong, simply because I haven't been there).

What bugs me is when people call themselves open-minded and then say that they can use the computable/reproducible exactly argument for things (theories) that are implying the very fact that it's not that way. For example, it's ok to say that you don't believe Robert's theory to be true (no reason to), but it's NOT OK to say that it's wrong, simply because it doesn't adhere to your standards (computable/quantifiable/etc).

My only own opinion is that we have been "blessed" with a lot more than five sense or alternative ways of thinking (other than the so-called "logical" one), but with today's science we limit ourselves to like 0.1% of our capacity.. bad Sad


oh, and I'm NOT talking about New Age, I don't even care about that kind of thing Razz
Post 10 Jul 2008, 12:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Only that it doesn't accept, for example, things that are not computable or not reproducible exactly (e.g: randomness), or things that are not quantifiable/inductable.

Doesn't it? I think it is exactly what latest scientific quantum theory (in fact, more of them) states. At the smallest level, we haven't discovered any kind of determinism, nor any "hidden variable" (due to Bell's theorem), so the best theory was one with randomness, and science did accept it. This also invalidates rest of your argument - no, science doesn't need to reproduce results completely "exactly", there is always margin of error, even when not in quantum area.

By the way, this one very nice example that scientifical body of knowledge is not headed by opinions of scientist, as you asserted in past. Vast majority of scientists didn't like this quantum theory. They wanted determinism, not "backing off" to simple randomness. But the best theory out there was one with randomness, and no one could produce anything better, so scientists simply HAD to accept it even though very few liked it.

Quote:
What bugs me is when people call themselves open-minded and then say that they can use the computable/reproducible exactly argument for things (theories) that are implying the very fact that it's not that way.

Randomness *is* computable and reproducible, with statistical methods. That is how they were able to prove there is no "hidden variable", but that it is true randomness. Read up on Bell's theorem if you haven't already, I think it might be interesting for youl.

You know, there is randomness in casino, but still they can compute they have 47.5% to win, and they in fact do. If you throw dice once, you have 1/6 chance of proper quessing, very bad odds. If you throw dice million times, you know with almost 100% certainity that every number will come 1/6 of million times, with dismissable little error. That is how randomness is quantifiable, and thanks to this predictable property of randomness we can dismiss it on larger scales (such as dismissing quantum randomness on nerual scale, in our example). If there wasn't this property of randomness, it would never appear there is some determinism on larger scale.


Quote:
For example, it's ok to say that you don't believe Robert's theory to be true (no reason to), but it's NOT OK to say that it's wrong, simply because it doesn't adhere to your standards (computable/quantifiable/etc).

Problem with Robert Penrose however, according to his criticism in wiki, is that he grossly misrepresented quantum mechanics in order to support his assertions (which are suspiciously close to thousand years old mysticism). No one said that it is false. They just said there is no evidence for it to be true, and that evidence put up with him is false. Who knows, maybe one day, he will provide proper evidence, and science will have to accept it. Until then, he remains on same level with fairies and leprechauns.

Quote:
My only own opinion is that we have been "blessed" with a lot more than five sense or alternative ways of thinking (other than the so-called "logical" one), but with today's science we limit ourselves to like 0.1% of our capacity.. bad

What do you base this opinion on?
Post 10 Jul 2008, 15:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
vid wrote:
... he grossly misrepresented quantum mechanics in order to support his assertions ...
This is known as a straw man argument.
Post 10 Jul 2008, 15:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Crap, somehow while deleting 3 of 4 identical posts, I deleted all 4 of them. grrr. Here is original GreyBeast post I deleted:
GreyBeast wrote:

vid wrote:

Randomness *is* computable and reproducible, with statistical methods. That is how they were able to prove there is no "hidden variable", but that it is true randomness. Read up on Bell's theorem if you haven't already, I think it might be interesting for youl.

You know, there is randomness in casino, but still they can compute they have 47.5% to win, and they in fact do. If you throw dice once, you have 1/6 chance of proper quessing, very bad odds. If you throw dice million times, you know with almost 100% certainity that every number will come 1/6 of million times, with dismissable little error. That is how randomness is quantifiable, and thanks to this predictable property of randomness we can dismiss it on larger scales (such as dismissing quantum randomness on nerual scale, in our example). If there wasn't this property of randomness, it would never appear there is some determinism on larger scale.


Sorry to be so lame in descriptions. Computable and Randomness are two different things, I agree. I never said they are the same!

The randomness stuff was when I used the "reproducible exactly" argument, that is when something is random you can't expect the same results, but you CAN COMPUTE it, I agree.

What I said with non-computable stuff and randomness was only an enumeration of the things that go against the "classical mechanistic view" Wink


vid wrote:
What do you base this opinion on?


Honestly? On my experiences in the world I guess Smile

if I find a way to explain it to my friends, then perhaps I'll also post in the forum Wink


My reply:

Quote:
What I said with non-computable stuff and randomness was only an enumeration of the things that go against the "classical mechanistic view"

Current science goes against "classical mechanistic view" too. Ascribing "classical mechanistic view" to science is nice example of strawman argument that revolution mentioned.

Quote:
Honestly? On my experiences in the world I guess

Personal experiences unfortunately aren't very objective. You know, people over the world have all sorts of conflicting experiences, all of which can't be true. That means many experiences are simply false. People in insane asylum have lot of false experiences too. Many people in past experienced their god telling them to kill, and many experienced their god telling them killing is against god. There are countless examples of how experiences can be invalid.

Accepting something by experience alone into body of knowledge would cause us to accept lot of things that are simply not true. Science tries to prevent accepting false knowledge, even at price of not accepting some true knowledge. Quality of knowledge is more important than quantity. As I said before in this post:
vid wrote:
All tests with lower standards than scientific standard that I have seen to day were very prone to producing invalid results.
Post 10 Jul 2008, 17:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Crap, somehow while deleting 3 of 4 identical posts, I deleted all 4 of them. grrr. Here is original GreyBeast post I deleted:[/i]
The board is having some problems, or maybe it's my FireFox, I don't know, but I keep getting "error" messages when I click post Sad

vid wrote:
Accepting something by experience alone into body of knowledge would cause us to accept lot of things that are simply not true. Science tries to prevent accepting false knowledge, even at price of not accepting some true knowledge. Quality of knowledge is more important than quantity.
I understand and obviously I did not ask you to believe me, I'm just presenting my opinion (it's why I used that "my opinion" text in the first place).

Of course, if you were to saw aliens, I doubt you would not believe (even if you had no proof) -- and consequently you won't even expect others to believe you, and it's perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean you can't describe what's your opinion on the matter Wink

Smile
Post 10 Jul 2008, 19:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Of course, if you were to saw aliens, I doubt you would not believe (even if you had no proof) -- and consequently you won't even expect others to believe you, and it's perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean you can't describe what's your opinion on the matter

Yes. And exactly same thing would happen if I had illusion of seeing a alien. I myself would be 100% convinced of course, but others would realize they can't rely only on my experience, as it can be false however strongly I am convinced. So they would require some more objective (or more reliable) evidence.

Anyway, I think we reached common conclusion on this... nice to finally agree on something :]

Continuing on your opinion... I think that your opinion COULD be at least a bit testable, if you could make it more explicit. Is your opinion only vague "there is something more, no idea what", or is there something specific you think there is, that is overlooked by science?
Post 10 Jul 2008, 19:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Continuing on your opinion... I think that your opinion COULD be at least a bit testable, if you could make it more explicit. Is your opinion only vague "there is something more, no idea what", or is there something specific you think there is, that is overlooked by science?
I'm trying to get this "Testable" to scientific standards, but most times I fail. (in real life obviously it's easier than on the net, where articles can be considered "fake" no matter how you look at it) Smile

I'm wondering, is it possible to be acceptable if it isn't computable (or at least, I don't know how to compute or measure it)? Question
Post 11 Jul 2008, 12:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
I'm wondering, is it possible to be acceptable if it isn't computable (or at least, I don't know how to compute or measure it)?

Well, depends on how you define "computable", I am not exactly sure what you mean. As I already told, even perfect randomness is "computable" in some manner.

I personally don't see problem with world in which there are completely unpredictable events... in fact, that is what quantum mechanics says. I also don't have any problem imaging world where there are completely unpredictable events on large scale. Of course unpredictable events at large scale are "possible", it just seems that it's not our case. We are doing great job on predicting most of events happening at large scale. If it was our case, we would of course have to accept it, just as we have accepted unpredictable events at quantum scale.

But still, I'd like to know answer to this question:
Quote:
Is your opinion only vague "there is something more, no idea what", or is there something specific you think there is, that is overlooked by science?
Post 11 Jul 2008, 13:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Well, depends on how you define "computable", I am not exactly sure what you mean. As I already told, even perfect randomness is "computable" in some manner.
Yes randomness can also be quantifiable (probabilities I mean). But I was talking about non-computable as in "non-algorithmic" or something that isn't quantifiable? Don't know if it makes much sense.

vid wrote:
But still, I'd like to know answer to this question:
Quote:
Is your opinion only vague "there is something more, no idea what", or is there something specific you think there is, that is overlooked by science?
Somewhere in between -- I could consider 100% but that would most probably not be correct, I'll have to do some more 'research'. I have some doubts I might clarify first.
Post 11 Jul 2008, 17:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Yes randomness can also be quantifiable (probabilities I mean). But I was talking about non-computable as in "non-algorithmic" or something that isn't quantifiable? Don't know if it makes much sense.

Can't imagine anything like that either. I think if there was something like that all around us, we would have noticed it, and it wouldn't be that problem to imagine it. Of course, something like that can be hidden in one of those "gaps", like time dilatation, which is not imaginable as well.

Quote:
Somewhere in between -- I could consider 100% but that would most probably not be correct, I'll have to do some more 'research'. I have some doubts I might clarify first.

Don't worry to post it and let others help you with 'research'. As long as you don't "100% claim" it, there is no shame to it. Other people may already know something important to your research, that will save you lot of looking for info.
Post 11 Jul 2008, 19:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Can't imagine anything like that either. I think if there was something like that all around us, we would have noticed it, and it wouldn't be that problem to imagine it. Of course, something like that can be hidden in one of those "gaps", like time dilatation, which is not imaginable as well.
Actually, as an example (it's an example), let's say the world did not follow "mathematical" relationships, that is non-mechanistic on a large scale. It's something like that (albeit at a small scale, quantum obviously).. hard to imagine I know (even though I can imagine 4D worlds with time, thus 5 dimensions), and I have difficulties with it.
Post 12 Jul 2008, 12:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I don't see how something can be non-mathematical. You know, math just describes reality, however reality is. If there is some order, math can describe it. If there is no order, math can describe it too. Math is sort of language, just more precise.
Post 12 Jul 2008, 15:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Everhest



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Russia
Everhest
Life is are shit. I live with grandmother. My grandmother goes under it self in toilet, parents see once a year. Food cook I It self.
Post 12 Jul 2008, 23:52
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.