Can Mathematics Predict Higher Levels of Complexity?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I see no error in my line of reasoning.

First of all consciousness is NOT a scientific
assumption attributed to/theorized from observation,
and thus also has no clear definition.

Second, there is a fundumental quality to
the concept of consciousness (even in its
undefined state) that if an explanation, along
the lines of any reasoning system included in
science so far, is found - it will NOT be in fact
an explanation of consciousness. That is,
consciosness, as I see it, implies the lack
of any laws to explain it - at least in the
conventional meaning of the term explanation
as far as we understand it for now.

Yes, physics is the corner-stone of science -
observation. The other sciences are based
upon it's laws and indeed exist only due to
our semantic separation (like chemistry dealing
with atoms and anything larger) on the one hand
and the limmits of practical use due to our
limmitation in fully deciphering the complexity
of observation down to the basic level of physics
(like sociology). The so-called "laws" of sociology
or biology or even chemistry are eventually
the result of basic physical laws and are only
necessary for now because we find it difficult
to simplify the systems appropriatly. An additional
point to notice is that the "development" of
physical laws in complex systems is the
development of very complex patterns and thus
our ability of fully simplified explanation is
limmited further, for now and for current systems
in these additional sciences, by our limmited
knowledge of the theory of patterns - mathematics
which, so far, appears to be capable of discribing
all of the patterns we observe.

If you're talking about sciences like
sociology or psychology then they are
nothing more than rough statistical
approximations of the operation of complex
physical systems. They do NOT assume consciosness
exists, but they might use it as an "assisting
temporary assumption" to help explain
the great amounts of missing knowledge they
statisticly constitute. That is, despite the
complexity of such systems some general
correlation between basic physical laws
and the behavior of these complex systems
does exist(I "want" to eat because I need
energy from molecular interactions) - but since
it's so complex and as yet not clearly defined
and explained some may choose to veil this with
this "assisting temporary assumption" - since
they need a word for it (perhpaps such people
should've chosen a different word). There is
nothing "clear" in such "definitions".

Hmm... I'd think you know my answer to that...
First of all, I have no idea what you mean
by "material", I just know - "observed".
Second, consciousness does not appear to be observed.

Live long and prosper.

Consciousness we DO observe, at least the EFFECTS of consciousness, which is behaviour. We can study apes, people, we can even plug euipments in brains and scan brains, and make theories about which part of the brain is repsonsible for which/what behaviour and awareness, etc.

Remember that consciousness is just a term for large scale complex behaviour of matter, like that of humans. We "know" it exists, cause we witness the effects of it. But we should not be surprised that, when analyzing and studying it, the "thing" involved will completely dissolve and melt, and has at the same time the property of "not being there", cause it seems just an illusion.

In the same way, the computer screen I am looking at, is completely an illusion. If we carefully study it, it will dissolve into pixels with 3 basic colours, and nothing of the total picture we had before, will remain. That seems just an illusion.

Still if we look back again from a distance to the screen, it seems it still is some entity of it's own, and merits a form of existence.
Even though the image is't the "real thing", but composed of smaller things "pixels".

 

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
Remember that consciousness is just a term for
large scale complex behaviour of matter, like
that of humans.

Then this definition of yours matches
what I said about vague "assisting term"
for relativly higher complexity level stuff
sciences. And yet, it is clear then that it
has no precise definition or bounderies.

I'm glad we cleared this up because I
enitially assumed you were talking about
some super-natural stuff or something.

Peace and long life.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

From the mouth of scientists...

heusdens, I have no idea what you mean by
trying to impose such a separation within
science. Care to explain yourself, please ?

Mentat, QM is not "Allice's wonderland", while it
does include partial uncertainty it FULLY predicts
it - so no ferry tales beyond that, I'm afraid.

Peace and long life.

Yes, it fully predicts it, thus limiting the amount of "free will" that one can have.

Note: I'm not saying that I believe in Free Will (I happen to believe that it's unprovable, and therefore about as useful as Solipsism). I'm just making a case for it's also not being disprovable.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Drag is correct, consciouseness does not exist. It can not even be defined. And what can't be defined simply does not exist. There is simply no object (or subject) to exist yet.

Consciouness can, indeed, be defined. Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Consciouness can, indeed, be defined.

Please do, then.

Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.

Indeed.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

1. Drag - I see in some of your posts you continuously ask that once a person say X can be defined, you demand of them to define it.

You need to realize that one can prove that X can be defined without defining it.

Furthermore you continuously assume one means X has an ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE DEFINITION. We aren't making this assumption, you are.

Please look into this.

2. To the cat comment, the origon of this post. I will disregard your word PURPOSE, for the sake of an ecological answer.

The "purpose" of a cat in an ecological environment is extremely complex. But to see the basics, one must look at what the cat gives out that others take in. that's it's purpose. Simply put.

If you're not looking for an ecological answer, sorry purpose doesn't exist.

If you're looking for one in terms of HUMAN ecology, and the human based domesticated cat.

It's still the same answer as a template, but specifcs are so different.

The cat gives "out" something the human recieves.

1. attention from another organism
2. Pleasing sensations, licking, purring, warmth, furriness
3. etc...

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Alexander
Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

Why do you need to use this semanticly complicated
word to define something so simple that can
just be called that. btw, is that an official
scientific definition ?
Also, you do realize of course that consciousness
is then also, for example, the nerve from my
little finger connected to two active electrodes.
Not a great thing it is then, is it ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

To be fed by humans.

What is the purpose of humans? To feed cats.

 

[Alexander]

No, purpose of humans is to drink good beer.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Adam
What is the purpose of humans? To feed cats.

Originally posted by Alexander
No, purpose of humans is to drink good beer.

I really like both !

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Please do, then.

Indeed.

Live long and prosper.

That means that I needn't define it, in order for it to exist, right?

Anyway, I will define it: The state of being aware.


If you'd like an example, how about the fact that you are aware of my question right now?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

No, active state of neurons produces consciousness. There's a very big difference.

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
Anyway, I will define it: The state of being aware.

If you'd like an example, how about the fact
that you are aware of my question right now?

Then explain "aware"...
This chain breaks down in the end or is infinite
because you have no concrete explanation. And, the
simple fact is that because you only have
this singular unexplainable thing - which you
might consider your consciousness or the result
of physical processes as explained by science,
you can not make use of it due to lack of definition.
That is, maybe you're right (nothing is certain -
including this satement ), but even if you
are - while we have science which explains the
obseved by dealing with SEPARATE things in the
observed data, we do NOT, apparently, have anything
else with which to associate consciosness or
we do not have the appropriate reasoning system,
for now, to incorporate consciosness into
science. So, it may exist and it may not, but
at the absense of a system in which to put it
we probably can't deal with such a separate
and singular concept. And if we can't deal with it
or draw any data from it - we can't make use of
it and might just as well ignore it, until purhaps
it does appear in context with something else or
is discovered to have a structure we can deal with.

This is like receiving data input from the
Universe on totally different unconnected levels.
So, either one of the levels is not real at all
but a mere assumption and a result of the other
level, or - we're the connection but we have
not yet succeeded in fomalizing it. (Or, maybe
it's something comletly different...)


Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, active state of neurons produces consciousness. There's a very big difference.

Exactly what is the difference?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex. See the difference between these two statements...

Betty = Alex
Betty produces Alex

COme on now, it' sobvious!

BTW - active neurons don't produce "consciousness" unless your definition of "consciousness" is "the active state of neurons". Get it?

Define terms...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Exactly what is the difference?

The difference is that the active state of neurons is a physical phenomenon, while consciousness is a metaphysical consequence of that physical phenomenon.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Then explain "aware"...
This chain breaks down in the end or is infinite
because you have no concrete explanation.

No, it does so because language is dependent on it's own definitions. I could take any word, and follow the "define that new term" road forever, if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the use of the word lacks concrete explanation.

That is, maybe you're right (nothing is certain -
including this satement ), but even if you
are - while we have science which explains the
obseved by dealing with SEPARATE things in the
observed data, we do NOT, apparently, have anything
else with which to associate consciosness

Not ture, we have the active "firing" of neurons, which happens during "conscious thought".

BTW, I think you should see some of my responses to Manuel_Silvio about his Uncertainty idea (that nothing is really certain), in the thread "I think therefore I am", because I clearly explained that it is a paradoxical (and completely unusable) concept.

 

[drag]

Greetings once again, Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
No, it does so because language is dependent
on it's own definitions. I could take any word,
and follow the "define that new term" road forever,
if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the
use of the word lacks concrete explanation.

I am referring to SCIENTIFIC explanation - the
only type most of us consider likely acceptable
because it is a direct consequence from the
data input we have - observation. You can not
provide me with a SCIENTIFIC explanation for
that term, for now at least, can you ?
Otherwise, it indeed makes no sense of picking
on words.

Originally posted by Mentat
Not ture, we have the active "firing" of neurons,
which happens during "conscious thought".

Which happens as a response to another "firing"
discribed in space-time by well defined particles
from QM, or science in short, an so on...
So ?
How do you make a clear distinction between
this observed happenning in your brain and
this observed happenning in a rock ?

Originally posted by Mentat
because I clearly explained that it is a
paradoxical (and completely unusable) concept.

It is, indeed. But it just so happens
to be that this concept is the only one
that, so far, seems to always make sense.

Fascinating ! How DO you PROVE that a
concept is paradoxical ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I am referring to SCIENTIFIC explanation - the
only type most of us consider likely acceptable
because it is a direct consequence from the
data input we have - observation. You can not
provide me with a SCIENTIFIC explanation for
that term, for now at least, can you ?
Otherwise, it indeed makes no sense of picking
on words.

A scientific explanation for what term?

Which happens as a response to another "firing"
discribed in space-time by well defined particles
from QM, or science in short, an so on...
So ?
How do you make a clear distinction between
this observed happenning in your brain and
this observed happenning in a rock ?

By what happens on a macroscopic level. I am no different, at the subatomic level, than any other physical entity, but that doesn't mean that I am no different altogether.

It is, indeed. But it just so happens
to be that this concept is the only one
that, so far, seems to always make sense.

No it doesn't. It's paradoxical, and thus unusable. A paradox is the end of a rational path. When one comes to paradox, one either abandons the path they are on, or resorts to complacency and acceptance.

Fascinating ! How DO you PROVE that a
concept is paradoxical ?

See "I think therefore I am" for a detailed debate on the matter.

Basically, I showed that trying to doubt everything must include doubting the premise that tells you to doubt everything. Thus you have no reason to doubt everything, and (in fact) cannot take for granted that you should do so. But, the reason you cannot take for granted that you should do so is that you have already taken it for granted.

This is much like the paradox of limitlessness, and I think wuliheron would probably be better at explaining it than I.

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
A scientific explanation for what term?

Consciousness. If you wish to participate in a
discussion it may be usefull to remember what
it's about, or at least a matter of good manners.

Originally posted by Mentat
By what happens on a macroscopic level. I am no
different, at the subatomic level, than any other
physical entity, but that doesn't mean that I am
no different altogether.

You are implying a fundumental difference
of the same entities and laws taken on a different
scale. I see no scientificly supported reasoning,
for now, that can justify such a claim.

Originally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't. It's paradoxical, and thus unusable.
A paradox is the end of a rational path.

Indeed. However, any rational path we ever
took so far(except one ), has some end - a limmit.
Thus, this concept always applies so far. It's
usefullness is another issue and can be discussed
once all sides support this idea as likely, since
usefullness is a subjective term.

Originally posted by Mentat
Basically, I showed that trying to doubt everything
must include doubting the premise that tells
you to doubt everything. Thus you have no reason to
doubt everything, and (in fact) cannot take for
granted that you should do so.

Of course, so ?
Like I said to you once - there are turtles all the
way down... Wherever that is if at all...
That's why it's called a paradox - it makes no sense.

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Causality. If you wish to participate in a
discussion it may be usefull to remember what
it's about, or at least a matter of good manners.

My sincerest apologies, but your side-stepping the main argument has confused me.

You are implying a fundumental difference
of the same entities and laws taken on a different
scale. I see no scientificly supported reasoning,
for now, that can justify such a claim.

How about the fact that Meteorology and Biology are entirely different practices. Think about it.

Of course, so ?
Like I said to you once - there are turtles all the
way down... Wherever that is if at all...
That's why it's called a paradox - it makes no sense.

Then what is it's use?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
My sincerest apologies, but your side-stepping the
main argument has confused me.

Bloody hell ! I got cunfused with the other thread,
I meant CONSCIOUSNESS not causality. SORRY !

Originally posted by Mentat
How about the fact that Meteorology and Biology
are entirely different practices. Think about it.

I have. Thay are not different in terms of
physical laws. The are different in terms of the
concepts we use to discribe them (different
verbal/mathematical/whatever discriptions) because
they display different levels and types of
order within the very wide bounderies that these
laws allow for.

Anyway, I want to understand clearly once and for
all - Do you think that consciousness is something
beyond/in addition to the laws of physics or not ?

Originally posted by Mentat
Then what is it's use?

wuli dedicated whole threads to this.

One potential use, that I believe is indeed
very usefull (but I can't absolutely prove it )
is that such a perspective means that you
must respect all views and opinions (because
tomorrow they might just turn out to be correct).
This is VERY important I think, both in life and
for a scientist, for example. Another potential
benefit is the seemingly likely chance that this
perspective will not allow you to make mistakes
when dealing with philosophical and sometimes
potentially other types of ideas. Because, as they
say - "Assumption is the mother of all f**k - ups." .
(I can "hide" more letters in that expression if
someone here feels I should. )

Live long and prosper.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Because, as they say - "Assumption is the mother of all f**k - ups." .
(I can "hide" more letters in that expression if
someone here feels I should. )

What does "fork - up" mean?

(Sorry my english is not so good...)

 

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
What does "fork - up" mean?

(Sorry my english is not so good...)

Are you serious ?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Bloody hell ! I got cunfused with the other thread,
I meant CONSCIOUSNESS not causality. SORRY !

That's alright. I've made the same mistake (but I edited, or erased just before posting).

I have. Thay are not different in terms of
physical laws. The are different in terms of the
concepts we use to discribe them (different
verbal/mathematical/whatever discriptions) because
they display different levels and types of
order within the very wide bounderies that these
laws allow for.

That's the point. The point is not whether they are physically different, at the subatomic level, but whether they are different.

Anyway, I want to understand clearly once and for
all - Do you think that consciousness is something
beyond/in addition to the laws of physics or not ?

Objection, this question is entirely irrelevant the discussion .

wuli dedicated whole threads to this.

One potential use, that I believe is indeed
very usefull (but I can't absolutely prove it )
is that such a perspective means that you
must respect all views and opinions (because
tomorrow they might just turn out to be correct).
This is VERY important I think, both in life and
for a scientist, for example. Another potential
benefit is the seemingly likely chance that this
perspective will not allow you to make mistakes
when dealing with philosophical and sometimes
potentially other types of ideas.

I urge you to read the last few pages of "I think therefore I am". Manuel_Silvio tried to argue for total Uncertainty (the doubting of all things), and it just doesn't work. The truth of the matter is: it is impossible to take for granted that you shouldn't take anything for granted. This should be obvious, but some people are just trying to hard to see the truth. It's like in the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance", where he said: "It's like truth knocks on the door, and you scream 'go away, I'm looking for truth', and so it goes away".

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point. The point is not whether they are physically different, at the subatomic level, but whether they are different.

Explain, please.

Originally posted by Mentat
Objection, this question is entirely irrelevant
to the discussion .

In light of what you appear to mean by consciousness
and purpose, I think it certainly is and could
save us a lot of time.

Originally posted by Mentat
The truth of the matter is: it is impossible to take
for granted that you shouldn't take anything for granted.
This should be obvious, ...

You do not understand what the PoE IS.
It is not true or false of something, it
can not be demonstrated by any clear claim
or argument. It can not be limmited or even
partially defined. If I say just one word of it
then I'm already denying its paradoxical nature.
This is the paradox of God, the Universe and
everything and that is precisely why the word
paradox is used (it's the closest thing we
have to call something totally undefinable).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Explain, please.

They are different at the macroscopic level, as you have agreed. This means that they are different (as a result order, connections, and the actions of the subatomic particles that make them up working together), even if not at the subatomic level.

You do not understand what the PoE IS.
It is not true or false of something, it
can not be demonstrated by any clear claim
or argument. It can not be limmited or even
partially defined. If I say just one word of it
then I'm already denying its paradoxical nature.
This is the paradox of God, the Universe and
everything and that is precisely why the word
paradox is used (it's the closest thing we
have to call something totally undefinable).

This means that the PoE, as a concept, is entirely impossible. You have said it yourself (repeatedly, if you ask me) in just this (quoted) paragraph.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
They are different at the macroscopic level, as you have agreed. This means that they are different (as a result order, connections, and the actions of the subatomic particles that make them up working together), even if not at the subatomic level.

I agreed to that ?!
I did not agree, at any time as far as I can
remember, that there is some different, from
normal - physical theory, thing called consciousness.

Originally posted by Mentat
This means that the PoE, as a concept, is entirely impossible. You have said it yourself (repeatedly, if you ask me) in just this (quoted) paragraph.

Hmm... Maybe wuli's way works better at times.

"On the surface of the ocean one can see unconcievable
depth or just a reflection."
Me (copyrights reserved )

P.S. I HATE most of these so-called meaningfull quotes.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I agreed to that ?!
I did not agree, at any time as far as I can
remember, that there is some different, from
normal - physical theory, thing called consciousness.

I never said that you agreed to anything like that. I said that you agreed that physical objects are different at the macroscopic level, than at the subatomic.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I never said that you agreed to anything like that. I said that you agreed that physical objects are different at the macroscopic level, than at the subatomic.

That depends on how you define "different".
To me the difference is the same as the difference
between the pieces of a huge puzzle which has
infinite solutions using the same pieces and
provided that the pieces fully respect the laws
of physics once the puzzle is set in motion.
Nothing more.

Peace and long life.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

why, to make more cats, of course. isn't that our purpose as well?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
That depends on how you define "different".
To me the difference is the same as the difference
between the pieces of a huge puzzle which has
infinite solutions using the same pieces and
provided that the pieces fully respect the laws
of physics once the puzzle is set in motion.
Nothing more.

No offence, but your sentence needs re-wording, or there is no chance of it's making sense to me. Again, I don't mean to offend, I just can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
No offence, but your sentence needs re-wording, or there is no chance of it's making sense to me. Again, I don't mean to offend, I just can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say.

What's unclear ?
I basicly said that for me the only
difference is the scale and accordingly
complexity of the entities and laws at work.
No fundumental differences involved.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
What's unclear ?
I basicly said that for me the only
difference is the scale and accordingly
complexity of the entities and laws at work.
No fundumental differences involved.

Live long and prosper.

Well, I disagree (and apologize for not having understood before). I don't think there would be such different branches of Science, if there was no difference between the behavior of something's fundamental particles, and the behavior of the [macroscopic] thing itself.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, I disagree (and apologize for not having understood before). I don't think there would be such different branches of Science, if there was no difference between the behavior of something's fundamental particles, and the behavior of the [macroscopic] thing itself.

Why is researching a single grain of sand called
chemistry and researching many sand dunes called
geology ?
Complexity.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Why is researching a single grain of sand called
chemistry and researching many sand dunes called
geology ?
Complexity.

You're just making my point. Complexity makes something of an qualitativly different order.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
You're just making my point. Complexity makes something of an qualitativly different order.

Not exactly. Mathematics (which is primarily
what modern science is) IS apparently capable of
predicting the higher complexity levels from
the lowest ones we have. It's just extremely
difficult for us today.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Not exactly. Mathematics (which is primarily
what modern science is) IS apparently capable of
predicting the higher complexity levels from
the lowest ones we have. It's just extremely
difficult for us today.

Live long and prosper.

While this is true, it doesn't change anything. Mathematics can describe anything (for the purpose of this argument, let's not argue that point, please), but that doesn't mean that everything it describes is of the same qualitative order.