4 ms·
>> following the laws of physics The question is, which laws of physics, and are the interaction between those laws of physics, interactions we already know, o
by meric 10y ago
>> following the laws of physics
The question is, which laws of physics, and are the interaction between those laws of physics, interactions we already know, or new ones we have not discovered yet?
Otherwise we might as well say consciousness follows the will of God.
- golergka 10y agoIn terms of brain, it seems that the classical physics and electromechanics is quite enough — we don't really need to invoke quantum physics to explain the basic neurons (except as by proxy with all chemical reactions), and current progress with neural networks shows that these structures can indeed result in extremely complicated behaviour.
- zamalek 10y agoConsciousness must exploit growing entropy somehow - otherwise we'd be completely deterministic and consciousness (as an orthogonal consequence of free will) could not exist.
- deutronium 10y agoDoes having consciousness mean we can't be completely deterministic?
- zamalek 10y agoI struggle to determine how we would evolve into that minima without opportunity for free will, without producing a complex solution.
- tremon 10y agootherwise we'd be completely deterministic Why? The engineering definition of deterministic implies predictable outcomes given a known internal state. Are you suggesting that we're already at the level where we can accurately and fully measure a human brain's internal state?
- zamalek 10y agoThis is a philosophical discussion because neither the deterministic mind nor the non-deterministic mind can be disproven for exactly the reason that you specify. Scientifically measuring consciousness could be a fool's errand: the very nature of it is subjective. That does not mean that we cannot discuss the likelihood of each explanation, keeping in mind that both explanations could be incorrect. We have Drake's Equation even though, for all we know, nobody has ever seen an extraterrestrial life-form. We have flight because nature demonstrated flight to us: nature continuously demonstrates the capability to evolve quantum machines (e.g. the nose and various other organic processes[1]). Finally, the engineering definition of determinism is not the only definition.[2] [1]: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160715-organisms-might-be-quantum-machines http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160715-organisms-might-be-q... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosop...
- collyw 10y agoSo we can't measure, touch or see conciseness (not brain activity - consciousness). We can't observe it, only experience it. Why do we expect classical physics to be up to the job of understanding this?
- dilemma 10y agoIt's the opposite. Neural networks show that the human mind cannot be a recreated computationally.
- acqq 10y agoThey don't, as they are many orders of magnitude simpler simpler and many orders of magnitude less parallel than most of the brains.