4 ms·

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/12-out-there-mysterious-fifth-force-atoms-galaxies http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/12-out-there-mysterious... > We kn

by yongjik 13y ago

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/12-out-there-mysterious-fifth-force-atoms-galaxies http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/12-out-there-mysterious... > We know a lot about the physics of the macroscopic world, but can we be sure that we aren’t missing one of those crucial ingredients? The answer is yes: In certain well-defined cases, we can be very sure. [...] And while there may be unknown forces waiting to be discovered, we can say with great confidence that such forces must be so feeble that only a professional physicist like me would really care. Not only the _detectable_ universe is entirely made of matter and energy (which is not a hypothesis: it's a tautology, if you think about it), but there isn't a single shred of evidence that our brain employs anything beyond chemicals and mundane electromagnetic forces. "Kuhnian revolution" happens when the evidences mount up to the point the old paradigm cannot explain them away without great contortion. What we have here instead is a very confused semantic hair-splitting (no pun intended) about whether computers can do "semantics". The modern materialistic science is supported by vast evidence and very alive and well, thank you very much.

yc-kjh 13y ago
Read, and then critique, Nagle's recent book: http://www.Amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755 http://www.Amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-... Please come back and post your response here, or start a new Hacker-News story.
- yongjik 13y ago
  I'll take it as you don't have any evidence that human brain requires anything other than electromagnetism, then.
  - yc-kjh 13y ago
    Au contraire. Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. (The same statement applies to all of the chemical processes involved in the human brain.) Please read Nagle's work. Read Searle's work. Read all of the philosophical literature on "intention".
    - Jtsummers 13y ago
      > Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. [emphasis added] Let's extend this to include chemical reactions (since we know that it's more than just wires and currents in our skulls), and my question becomes: what evidence do you have that this is true? A few hundred year ago if you had claimed the sun was illuminated by the energy from the massive number of fusion reactions occurring under its surface, no one would have believed you, not least because there was no language at the time to even discuss the physical mechanisms that actually occur. At best you may have been able to persuade people that it was a giant flame, akin to the fire and candle they knew. That doesn't mean that there is some other supernatural thing going on, just that the natural goings on weren't understood.
    - Groxx 13y ago
      >... since the human obviously has both intentions and goals ... You're just arguing past people. Humans obviously do this, computers obviously don't, therefore computers cannot do what humans do. There's nothing "obvious" about this. It's a completely subjective interpretation. How do you respond to people who say humans obviously do act precisely like a very-complex computer?
      - vidarh 13y ago
        In fact one of the reasons I bothered answering him on this, is that the more I learn about how humans respond, the less I am inclined to consider the possibility that we're not machines, and I find it extremely fascinating how someone can feel so sure we're not. More and more, I am coming to terms with seeing humans as far simpler machines in many respects than what we'd like to think, on the basis of how many response patterns appears to be largely "hard-wired" and require little to no higher thought processes, even though we often make up elaborate explanations after the fact if challenged (as can be demonstrated by asking people why they did <insert random thing that the person in fact did not do, but wouldn't remember conclusively they didn't>)
        13y ago

by yongjik 13y ago

yc-kjh 13y ago

Read, and then critique, Nagle's recent book: http://www.Amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755 http://www.Amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-... Please come back and post your response here, or start a new Hacker-News story.

yongjik 13y ago
I'll take it as you don't have any evidence that human brain requires anything other than electromagnetism, then.
- yc-kjh 13y ago
  Au contraire. Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. (The same statement applies to all of the chemical processes involved in the human brain.) Please read Nagle's work. Read Searle's work. Read all of the philosophical literature on "intention".
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    > Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. [emphasis added] Let's extend this to include chemical reactions (since we know that it's more than just wires and currents in our skulls), and my question becomes: what evidence do you have that this is true? A few hundred year ago if you had claimed the sun was illuminated by the energy from the massive number of fusion reactions occurring under its surface, no one would have believed you, not least because there was no language at the time to even discuss the physical mechanisms that actually occur. At best you may have been able to persuade people that it was a giant flame, akin to the fire and candle they knew. That doesn't mean that there is some other supernatural thing going on, just that the natural goings on weren't understood.
  - Groxx 13y ago
    >... since the human obviously has both intentions and goals ... You're just arguing past people. Humans obviously do this, computers obviously don't, therefore computers cannot do what humans do. There's nothing "obvious" about this. It's a completely subjective interpretation. How do you respond to people who say humans obviously do act precisely like a very-complex computer?
    - vidarh 13y ago
      In fact one of the reasons I bothered answering him on this, is that the more I learn about how humans respond, the less I am inclined to consider the possibility that we're not machines, and I find it extremely fascinating how someone can feel so sure we're not. More and more, I am coming to terms with seeing humans as far simpler machines in many respects than what we'd like to think, on the basis of how many response patterns appears to be largely "hard-wired" and require little to no higher thought processes, even though we often make up elaborate explanations after the fact if challenged (as can be demonstrated by asking people why they did <insert random thing that the person in fact did not do, but wouldn't remember conclusively they didn't>)
      - 13y ago