flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > our thoughts if analyze from quantum subatomic level

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i thought of this question and hopefully somebody could insight me.

assume energy never created and never destroyed.

so, i use my energy to think (imagine like a fireball presents on my palm).

now, does this imagination affect physical in term of quantum level?

if no, that means the thinking energy gone missing... or ... we don't need energy to think...?

if yes, that means, we yet to explore something totally new...

what is ur views?
Post 24 Apr 2008, 21:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
we need energy to think.
exactlly as electronic memory need energy to be accessed, or a µP need energy to execute instructions.

in fact, it is the reverse, the technology only try to copy our natural mechanisms.
it is boring to think too much, because it use a lot of energy, and give pain as if you were running.
Post 24 Apr 2008, 22:31
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
It appears to me that you view energy in very vague definition, like aether or something. Our thinking is of course product of processes which needs some energy, and something happens with it.

We need energy to power our cells, they charge some electrical potential, change ratio of chemicals, etc., and product of that is our thinking. What happens with this energy? I am not sure myself, it would need some biologist to proprely answer, but basically it's same thing that happens to energy used for digestion, contracting muscles, etc...

For sure energy used by our neural system DOESN'T create that fireball on your palm, not even if you bring quantum physics in.
Post 25 Apr 2008, 04:23
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
But it does create the fireball on your palm, in your head.

For that matter, you know, every signal from your eyes goes to your head too. That means, a 'real' fireball is not so real -- it is also, the same process, only in your head.

Yes of course with common sense you can argue since it's visible by many people, it must be true (or very likely). But that's it. it's just common sense, nothing solid. No algorithm/formula to calculate the chances.

everything we see could be an illusion since it's processed by the brain. The chances of illusion are not calculated with a robust algorithm because it is impossible -- we use just, plain, common sense. However that common sense is not so solid, and everyone who disagrees with it is usually replied like "you think like shit" as if their Bible (common sense) was insulted. Smile

Simply put, you can only see relatively to yourself or what others say. But an infinite number of relatives does not yield the absolute. You can't be sure that a real 'fireball' is actually there, more than the simple imaginative fireball. Maybe we're in a Matrix after all, and everything is just our thoughts... but then, common sense-ists will argue that this is very improbable -- how do you know that? You can't calculate it, and really, not everyone has the same 'common' sense.

again, it's why i think our thoughts are as real as everything else, but not in the 'classical' term of 'reality' (in fact, it's not even defined the classical way, it's just more 'probable' by common sense). That's why math for me is not flawed -- because it represents pure thoughts, logic, etc.. in short, how we think.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" - Albert Einstein

'nuff said Razz


EDIT: Also to the OP: We can't analyze from 'the quantum level' our thoughts, because the analyzation includes our thoughts (everything goes through our heads, including the so-called God -- the eyes that we put so much faith in). Since we're not absolute, it's really hard (impossible I'd say) to get sense of what a 'real' fireball means
Post 25 Apr 2008, 11:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Grey Beast: Such subjectivism (everything can be illusion, we could be in matrix, etc...) can be technically correct, but it's not helpful phisophical stance at all. I prefer positivism here - "reality is what i perceive, and there is no point in phantasies that it's not, they'll never help us"
Post 25 Apr 2008, 13:48
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
You're sure right vid, and I agree with you.

But 'perception' also includes the brain, or for that matter, it is 100% the brain activity. So whatever you perceive with your eyes, you actually process it with the brain -- and it's the brain stuff that you perceive.

so the imaginative fireball is real Smile (i'm not sarcastic, I actually support this idea, even though you might not Wink)
Post 25 Apr 2008, 14:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Adam Savage on MythBusters wrote:
I reject your reality, and substitute my own!
Post 25 Apr 2008, 14:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2913
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
I've always wondered what the thought "quantum" is. My understanding of what is known about the brain could be metaphorically equated with knowing what parts of the CPU get warm during certain operations. Not that there isn't a bottom-up approach researched - it just seems masked by other layers - one of those being the power layer.

Studying the power supply of the CPU doesn't really help in understanding assembly language - I wonder if the same is true of the brain. Difficult to know without a better understanding of the thought "quantum". The energy no doubt acts as the transport for thoughts, but at what granularity (molecular/atomic/quantum/etc.)? Maybe, all of the above.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 25 Apr 2008, 15:26
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
bitRAKE: Just study basic concepts of quantum theories. Don't quess random analogies, study it.

And yeah, the whole "mind" is greater than sum of it's part ("neurons"), so analyzing it's part to understand whole is quite hard way.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 07:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2913
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Study until the end of time and all I'll ever have is random analogies. Usually, I just type until the post doesn't seem to say anything in particular - a skill I've obviously mastered.

Are you implying some basic concept of quantum mechanics is required by thoughts - a feature of thoughts which cannot be expressed with molecular biology?

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 26 Apr 2008, 08:37
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
Quantum mechanics is hardly analogous to anything, because it is something that we can't really imagine or understand. We can just describe it mathematically.

Quote:
Are you implying some basic concept of quantum mechanics is required by thoughts - a feature of thoughts which cannot be expressed with molecular biology?


No, didn't mean to say this. I am not aware of any process in human brain which would require quantum mechanics.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 09:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
Quote:
I am not aware of any process in human brain which would require quantum mechanics.

it's true that it is very hard to define it. but it is possible some times to "feel" these processes. not meaning you understand them, but just you feel the mechanisms in your own brain.

all the brain is virtually like a cloud. ideas connections, reflexions, etc... all is made by a change of the connectivity in the brain. the blocks disconnect and reconnects into another configuration.

but how it works??? hem, i doubt we can understand it. just feel it.
and maths require a lot of new concept to modelise it.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 11:30
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
We understand mechanisms how brain works, it the complexity that is problem for us. Evolved systems (compared to designed systems) tend to be overly complicated. Just like hand-crafted algorithm vs. evolved algorithm - evolved one would likely be very long and very hard to understand.

Quote:
maths require a lot of new concept to modelise it
Are you sure you know current ways of modeling brain activity? What exactly is wrong with them?
Post 26 Apr 2008, 13:28
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: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
vid wrote:
We understand mechanisms how brain works
Even the basic neuron is still not well understood, it is still mostly guess work for that one. I think it is too early yet to say that 'we' understand how the brain works. Experts have theories about the general overview, but even testing those theories is proving difficult.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 13:42
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
It isn't? So far I haven't seen any mentions of something about neuron not understood. And I remember seeing some very sophisticated neuron emulators.

What's not understood about neuron?
Post 26 Apr 2008, 14:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
Quote:
Are you sure you know current ways of modeling brain activity?

the official one? i don't know. i'll agree with science vision when it will be able to produce real artificial-intelligence.
the way i modelise brain activity is blur, but i am sure i'm not in the wrong.
Quote:
What exactly is wrong with them

i don't know. just i doubt the currents maths will be enough to.
and the maths cannot be the explanation of everything.
new quantic maths? why not!
old algebra? impossible!

neurons are cells.
cells are alive.
cells ahave their own life.
cells are individuals.
then, neurons are like us. orgajnised in populations.
our spirit is not a single entity, it is a composition of millions of neurons entities.
Quote:
Experts have theories about the general overview, but even testing those theories is proving difficult

i'm not an "expert", but...
the brain can be compared to a civilisation.
the body can be compared to a planet.
and this is not a poor idea, it is logic. everything follow the same rules, from the atom to the galaxies.
if expert means workinng in a laboratory, i'm not an expert.
if expert means testing, applying and analysing a lot of theories about brain, i am an expert.

to understand a little the brain, we need to know:

physics, psychology, informatics, electronics, politics and biology.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 14:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
vid wrote:
What's not understood about neuron?
Even the basic algorithm (if there is one) of transfer of signal to other nodes is not known. How does a neuron 'learn' new things? For sure there are a lot of theories around about how they need certain activation levels and things but that is not the whole picture.

How are memories stored? Even that simple Q cannot be answered with confidence today. Ask 10 different 'experts' and you will likely get 10 different answers. Most things involving learning and/or memory are very poorly understood.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 14:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
Quote:
Most things involving learning and/or memory are very poorly understood.

true. this is the obscure part of brain mechanism.

but maybe we still know that, and it is so simple that expert don't care about.
or so complex. like abstract connections...

what is sure about memory, is that we memorise with compression. and the compressor is our intelligence.
if you ear something is a langage you don't understand, you will never remember it.
if a picture have a lot of details, you will lose a lot of parts.
the brains remember with loss-compression.
based on it, how does this compression works?
(there, revolution, your knowledge about assembly compression is needed...)
it is logic, pure logic, the simplest way and the shorter possible, that is the faster and uses the less "ram" possible.
our memory is finite, as time goes, we start to lose informations.
but there are cells that never lose information, expept in uncommon amnesic cases.

then, how works this memory? is analog? is in binary? is it trinary? ...
i think it is of many natures. some times, it is analog ( pictures, sounds ) some times, it is binary ( yes or no), some times, it is trinary ( stop, reverse, forward ).
etc.
the brain is not a simple machine, it is very complex, and the main goal of electronics and informatics is to reproduce this.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 14:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2913
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
The first thing to understand is that a great deal of processing takes place within the sensory organs themselves - before reaching the nervous system. I believe the neurons are mostly just the wires of the brain - they do effect the signaling dynamics, but are not where the information is stored. Sure, connectivity is also a type of information, but there are no collection of neurons for "blackberry jam", imho. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glial_cell - outnumber neurons 10 to 1, manage communications in the synapse gap, and modify rate of learning.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 26 Apr 2008, 15:29
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
revolution wrote:
Even the basic algorithm (if there is one) of transfer of signal to other nodes is not known.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse
What is missing in this explaination? Or, are there any other competing explainations?

How did they manage to hookup devices to existing neural network and cooperarte with them, if they don't understand how neuron works?
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/26/6931
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_limb#Robotic_Limbs

How did they manage to reconstruct image that cat sees from watching it's neural activity?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/286/5442/1079d


Quote:
How does a neuron 'learn' new things?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_potentiation

Most likely this is also "How are memories stored".

I agree the high-level mechanisms are still poorly understood, due to complexity I mentioned, but low level mechanisms are AFAIK well understood.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 15:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  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.