Ultimate Constituents and their Actions

[Hal]

I don't know what you think I mean by "processing information."  All I mean is that the brain takes multiple inputs and adds them together to give an output. 

But this applies to pretty much everything in existence. What makes the brain special?

it seems that there is a clear and intuitive way to determine what is information

What is it? I think it would help if you explained how are you using the word 'information' - are you using it in the technical sense (ie it's meaning within the branch of applied mathematics known as Information Theory), or in a more 'everyday' sense?

Just because information itself is not physical, quantum particles and abstract ideas aren't in different "layers." 

I would say the the mind and the brain are in different layers simply because the objects of our phenomenological experience are different from the objects which physics studies. My experience of seeing a tree is caused by the interactions in my brain, but it doesnt make sense to say that the tree I see, including all its colours, is identical to particles in my brain. Perhaps 'aspects' is a better word than layers.

But the interaction of quantum objects can be processing of information.  That is what a computer is.

No, strictly speaking computers dont process information any more than brains do. There is what happens physically (the interaction of particles), and then there is the interpretation of this physical data which goes on in our minds. 'Information' is produced by conscious observers interpretating certain data as being significant - it doesnt make sense to say that some collection of data is information 'in itself', apart from how any entity is viewing it. Data in itself is just data - the 'random' string of numbers 3452343 contains just as much intrinsic information as the string 1234567, the latter only seems more significant to us.

The difference (and it is a very big difference, not just arbitrary) between a computer and a human being–or a thermometer/animal for that matter–is the level at which abstract ideas can be processed

What does this mean?

Human beings can comprehend their own existence What is 'human beings' referring  A computer cannot logically comprehend its own existence from the input given to it, while a person can

...

Why doesn't a dog have free will?  Because it doesn't realize its own ability to make decisions.

So, just to make this clear, free-will is dependent on an organism comprehending that it has the ability to make decisions?

What does this comprehension consist of? The idea of free-will has only been around for 2000 years in the West - did humans before that not have free-will? Or does comprehending your ability to make choices not require explicit formulation of the concept of free-will?

Edited June 29, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

You should rethink what "information" is.  What does it mean for something to be "abstract."  Just because everything is physical it doesn't mean things can't carry different amounts of abstract value. 

I know how the words 'abstract' and 'information' are used in certain contexts. But I dont know what it means to talk about something carrying abstract value, or to intrinsically contain abstract information.

Interaction of quantities, whether or not they exist, is abstract.

Well, something that doesnt exist cant interact with anything. But again, I dont know what it means to say the interaction of existing quantities is abstract. When 2 particles transfer a force, is this an abstract interaction? How about when I throw an apple at a wall?

Rocks and trees don't do math, brains do. 

 

But brains dont do math - minds do. When I perform the sum 32 + 41, I would be surprised if the physical process in my mind explicitly involved one group of 32 particules interacting with another group of 41 particles. Whatever processes actually occur are sufficient for my mind to arrive at the answer, but I dont think its correct to say that those processes themself constitute 'doing math'.

Let's put it this way - does a computer or a calculator do math? I perform the sum 32+41 on a calculator, and it gives me the answer. I think this is similar to the brain example - some physical processes occur in the calculator that result in the correct answer being produced. But suppose that instead of using a calculator I perform the sum by using rocks - I find a group of 32 rocks, place them next to a group of 41 rocks, and then count the total. Is this an example of rocks doing math? And if not, what is the fundamental difference between this process, and the one involving a calculator or a brain?

I would say that the rocks and calculator arent doing math - I am doing math by using them. The physical processes involving electronic circuits or rocks allow me to discover the correct answer to the sum. Similarly I would say that my mind is doing math via processes occuring in my brain.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Hal

[fitchmicah]

I know how the words 'abstract' and 'information' are used in certain contexts. But I dont know what it means to talk about something carrying abstract value, or to intrinsically contain abstract information.

Well, something that doesnt exist cant interact with anything. But again, I dont know what it means to say the interaction of existing quantities is abstract. When 2 particles transfer a force, is this an abstract interaction? How about when I throw an apple at a wall?

When I say abstract value, I'm talking about the level to which something is abstract. The concept of numbering things is somewhat abstract. The idea that numbers can be split up in to groups which can then be counted is even more abstract. The reason that I say the brain carries more "abstract value" is because it can be used to process ideas that are highly abstract. You are probably going to say "the brain doesn't process things, the mind does." Well what is the mind? I'm pretty sure that what you are calling "the mind" is really just your consciousness, and your consciousness is actually particles in your brain constantly interacting with each other over and over again.

This is exactly how a computer works. Current flows through the circuits in a computer over and over again, doing slightly different things during different cycles (clock cycles).

Why are the transferring of energy, the cycles in a computer, and the cycles in your brain different?

Perhaps it would help to break the abstract complexity of each of these down quantitatively:

Let's say that the number of basic concepts involved in a process directly corresponds to the level of abstract complexity a process has. With transferring of energy, there is basically one idea; particles act on one another with mass and energy. The process of a computer running takes the number of ideas supporting it a step further: not only are there particles transferring energy (electrons), but the particles only move through certain parts of space (the conductive material); what's more, the energy that the particles are transferring to one another is moving faster than the particles themselves (drift speed of electrons is slow, as with the domino effect). Without even going in to the patterns which electrons move in (circuits), the ways they are manipulated (resistors), the numbers used to describe their movement (resistance, current, power), and most importantly, binary logic and the construction of complex logical circuits and patterns and the ways computers are able to input and output patterns that have some complex significance, we already have 2 more complex concepts supporting the process of a computer operating than the process of two particles colliding.

As the level of complexity involved in processes grows, so does the level of abstractness. I will give the process of a particle transferring force an arbitrary "abstract value" of say, 5, because there might really be 5 basic ideas supporting this process. If a particle force transfer has an "abstract value" of 5, then the computer operating might have an abstract value of say, 50 to 100 (this is arbitrary, and no one really does this, I'm just showing you a possible way that abstractness could be quantitatively "measured"). I would guess that if this system were to be actually used, perhaps what we call "information" would typically arise with "abstract values" of say, over 100.

It seems that information can be defined as a highly complex, yet still transferable part of a process; just as different processes can share supporting concepts (the CPU and the particles both use the concept of mass and particles acting on one another), information can rest on different supporting concepts. A person might have an idea that is kept and supported by the brain. This idea can also be kept and supported by a computer, which is a totally different supporting structure. This seems to be a main part of what defines information; people and computers do not share the supporting concepts of a central nervous system or digital logic gates, but numbers (information) are can be common to both.

But brains dont do math - minds do. When I perform the sum 32 + 41, I would be surprised if the physical process in my mind explicitly involved one group of 32 particules interacting with another group of 41 particles. Whatever processes actually occur are sufficient for my mind to arrive at the answer, but I dont think its correct to say that those processes themself constitute 'doing math'.

I'm pretty sure there isn't an explicit group of particles in the brain used to add 32 and 41, but there isn't in a computer either. This doesn't mean that the physical particles in brains aren't crucial to the process of "adding" and that only "minds" are. The way circuits evaluate 32 + 41 looks nothing at all like 32 particles mixing with 41 particles, but there most certainly is a physical process going on here. Yes, brains physically do math. They also comprehend math (they "do" math). You thinking? That's your brain.

Let's put it this way - does a computer or a calculator do math? I perform the sum 32+41 on a calculator, and it gives me the answer. I think this is similar to the brain example - some physical processes occur in the calculator that result in the correct answer being produced. But suppose that instead of using a calculator I perform the sum by using rocks - I find a group of 32 rocks, place them next to a group of 41 rocks, and then count the total. Is this an example of rocks doing math? And if not, what is the fundamental difference between this process, and the one involving a calculator or a brain?

The calculator doesn't consciously "do" math like you "do" in math class, but it is the physical system responsible for manipulating the particles that represent the numbers 32 and 41 to perform the abstract concept of addition. The only difference between using rocks to add and a calculator is the complexity of the situation. Just because they accomplish the same thing it doesn't mean they have the same level of complexity (think of a Rube Goldberg machine). The calculator takes some of the load of manipulating particles representing abstract ideas (numbers) off of the brain.

I would say that the rocks and calculator arent doing math - I am doing math by using them. The physical processes involving electronic circuits or rocks allow me to discover the correct answer to the sum. Similarly I would say that my mind is doing math via processes occuring in my brain.

This is very true. While they are physically "doing math," they are doing it for your conscious, which seems to be the only system capable of comprehending information (besides low level comprehension with animals). That is why I didn't assign informational concepts to processes without human interfaces (The energy transfer and the plain CPU).

PS: I know that my "system" for measuring "abstractness" is oversimplified, I just made it to show that it can generally be done. I like deconstruction because breaking things down to their simplest building blocks allows for more "quantitative" analysis.

Edited June 29, 2005 by fitchmicah

[fitchmicah]

Nobody has anything to say?

[ewv]

What is there to say about speculative, rationalistic rambling "deconstruction" -- beginning with the irrelevantly introduced "context of Christian theology" -- all of which has nothing to do with the scientific or philosophical topic under discussion?

This was apparently your first post at this forum. You really ought to find out its purpose and background before posting here.

[HaloNoble6]

What dost thou babble, fitchmicah? Are you here to inquire about Objectivism and its applications? If yes, please concisely state your question. If not, why are you really here?

[DavidOdden]

Nobody has anything to say?

No, not until you offer something meaningful to discuss. You have no evidence that the brain adds inputs together to give an output, and if you're going to talk as though that were a fact, you won't get any disagreement, or interest, around here. Start with meaningful, relevant, and true statements. Get your epistemology in order first.

[fitchmicah]

Well Hal seemed to object to what I was saying, then he stopped talking to me.

What dost thou babble, fitchmicah? Are you here to inquire about Objectivism and its applications? If yes, please concisely state your question. If not, why are you really here?

I wasn't asking questions, I was continuing a discussion that I interpreted to be at least somewhat about compatibilism. My question could be more concisely stated as "Where are you Hal? We were having a discussion!" but if you wanted to, you could respond to my ideas as well.

What is there to say about speculative, rationalistic rambling "deconstruction" -- beginning with the irrelevantly introduced "context of Christian theology" -- all of which has nothing to do with the scientific or philosophical topic under discussion?

I'm sorry I offended you, but I think you're being a bit sensitive. Furthermore, the context of Christian theology is completely relevant to the topic. Maybe it is not the angle from which you are approaching the topic, but it is another angle that deals with the same issues.

Also, why do you say my "rambling" is "speculative"? I wish you could be a bit more clear! Thanks!

No, not until you offer something meaningful to discuss. You have no evidence that the brain adds inputs together to give an output, and if you're going to talk as though that were a fact, you won't get any disagreement, or interest, around here. Start with meaningful, relevant, and true statements. Get your epistemology in order first.

Could you please go in to a bit more depth with your criticism. Obviously I am operating with the epistemological "assumption" that brains work on input and output, but would you deny this? The whole field of psychology is based around the idea that brains operate in scientifically predictable ways. Please state your grounds for denying this idea so that your above statement doesn't look so much like a straw man (not that we were ever really debating in the first place).

I'm not talking about any of this as if it was a fact, but I am assuming it true because no one has given me a better explanation for any of this.

Really, all I am asking is that if you are going to criticize my "rambling speculation," please be clear about what you really are objecting to.

Edited July 10, 2005 by fitchmicah

[DavidOdden]

Could you please go in to a bit more depth with your criticism.  Obviously I am operating with the epistemological "assumption" that brains work on input and output, but would you deny this?  The whole field of psychology is based around the idea that brains operate in scientifically predictable ways.

Can I assume that you understand that these are quite different claims? Let's start from the end and work backwards. First, the implication that something is predictable means that you can predict; nobody in the field of psychology believes that you can predict the action of the brain. If you'd like to replace that with a more accurate statement, such as that the brain operates according to physical law, I would accept that. Second, an argument that's based on the self-justifying assumptions of an academic discipline is not the most brilliant argument -- for example, the field of sociology is based on the assumption that man is a herd animal and the field of literary criticism is based on the assumption that A is not A. The argument that you would like to offer would be more effective if you rpesent some facts, not unsupported assumptions.

Now I do have the pious hope that at some point in the distant future, we will have a model of the physical nature of the brain which is suffiently predictive that we can correctly predict causal chains in the brain, just as I have the pious hope that we will be able to accurately model the act of squashing a bug between your fingers. But this does not require that I have any concepts of "inputs" and "outputs" in my model of the brain. I am aware of no evidence at all that there are "inputs" and "outputs" in the brain, in fact I don't even know what that would mean. Separately, I might ask about the claim that the brain processes things dynamically, as opposed to statically, or what it means for the brain to "process" (replacing the word with "add" doesn't make any sense since addition is a high-level mathematical operation which surely cannot be a basic operation of the brain).

But you have enough on your plate that it would be just plain cruel of me to harass you further. Translate your ideas into statements using words with clear meaning, and if you depend on a non-self evident claim, provide the evidence that supports your claim.

[fitchmicah]

Can I assume that you understand that these are quite different claims? Let's start from the end and work backwards. First, the implication that something is predictable means that you can predict; nobody in the field of psychology believes that you can predict the action of the brain. If you'd like to replace that with a more accurate statement, such as that the brain operates according to physical law, I would accept that. Second, an argument that's based on the self-justifying assumptions of an academic discipline is not the most brilliant argument -- for example, the field of sociology is based on the assumption that man is a herd animal and the field of literary criticism is based on the assumption that A is not A. The argument that you would like to offer would be more effective if you rpesent some facts, not unsupported assumptions.

Yes I understand that they are different claims. Perhaps I should have used the word "factor" or "mix" instead of "add," but note that I am not using these words in a strict mathematical sense. Second, you misunderstand the context in which I am using the word "predict." The implication that something is predictable does not mean that anyone can currently predict it. I use this word hypothetically; if the brain is "operating according to" physical law, it is predictable, just not necessarily in a practical sense.

Now I do have the pious hope that at some point in the distant future, we will have a model of the physical nature of the brain which is suffiently predictive that we can correctly predict causal chains in the brain, just as I have the pious hope that we will be able to accurately model the act of squashing a bug between your fingers.

If I recall correctly, Richard Carrier (http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html) made the claim in a podcast interview that in 30 years the resolution of brain scanning techniques will be very high and this kind of thing will be more possible.

But this does not require that I have any concepts of "inputs" and "outputs" in my model of the brain. I am aware of no evidence at all that there are "inputs" and "outputs" in the brain, in fact I don't even know what that would mean. Separately, I might ask about the claim that the brain processes things dynamically, as opposed to statically, or what it means for the brain to "process" (replacing the word with "add" doesn't make any sense since addition is a high-level mathematical operation which surely cannot be a basic operation of the brain).

As for my description of how the brain works, I won't pretend to be a neurologist. Perhaps I chose the wrong words ("add"). Although nobody knows for sure how exactly the brain works, especially not me, my ideas only require that the mind is supported exclusively by physical processes in the brain.

I am aware of no evidence at all that there are "inputs" and "outputs" in the brain, in fact I don't even know what that would mean.

I will defend the system of "inputs and outputs" by asking you to ponder what "senses" and "actions" might represent in these terms.

When I use the word "dynamically," I mean it in an artistic sense. Just because basic processes in the brain might be "static" (certain parts of the brain are used only for certain processes), it doesn't mean the brain can't learn things (which I would consider to be a dynamic process).

But you have enough on your plate that it would be just plain cruel of me to harass you further. Translate your ideas into statements using words with clear meaning, and if you depend on a non-self evident claim, provide the evidence that supports your claim.

Stop being pretentious. I'm not trying to assume that I know more than you and I don't think you should do this to me either. Words aren't always perfectly defined in all contexts, and both of us need to take the time to understand what we are trying to relate to one another.

Edited July 10, 2005 by fitchmicah

[fitchmicah]

Here is the interview with Richard Carrier where he talks about how science is proving the physicality of the brain. He gives some very interesting examples, including an experiment demonstrating that consciousness is a physical process (23:00 in or so).

http://www.infidelguy.com/demo/infidelguy...._Naturalism.mp3

Edited July 10, 2005 by fitchmicah

[Hal]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread. I'll post something tomorrow.