Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

In article
<98653a13-3c78-435f-bac9-5e89f161c917@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ursa Gamma <ursagamma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 29, 9:58 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<676a878b-9d47-4c6a-9581-085d91ca0...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ursa Gamma <ursaga...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On the other hand, a man suffering from neurosis could cope with it if
he knows how to deal with it. And of course, you might have also heard
of placebo (fake meds). By believing that he could be cure, a man
naturally cures himself even without the aid of medications. Aren't
these a wonder of what a mind can do? This is mind over matter cases,
and it defies physics on some level.

No, it doesn't. Nothing in physics defines a neural network's high-level
behavior.

Oh I see. However, this doesn't show that the phenomenon is within the
boundaries of physics either.

Well, all that means is that "physics" is a theory (or set of theories)
that describe a certain somewhat arbitrarily bounded set of
observations. One could, for instance, describe the action of
cyanoacrilate glue either from a "physics" standpoint or a "chemistry"
standpoint. If you want to discuss the actions of insect neurotoxins,
it's best done in the realm of biochemistry, through chemistry would do
and, at a difficult stretch, physics.

I could write a binary search algorithm and explain it entirely in terms
of physical interactions of electrons in the logical gates used to
implement it, but it would be a tedious waste of time, both yours and
mine, for the "physics" way of describing it would completely obfuscate
the logic of what was happening.

So. The best theories to describe the actions of a neural net are not in
physics.

So back to your original claim: a man who cures himself of neurosis
does not "defy physics" in any sense of the phrase.


Well, you're wrong. There are four forces of nature: gravity,
electromagnetism, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear. "Polarity" is a
property of of the electromagnetic force. Whereas gravity has one "pole"
(all masses attract one another) electricity and magnetism have two
(positive and negative charges interacting with magnetic fields that
have "north" and "south" directions.

Now it's time for you to read "Six Easy Pieces" by Richard Feynman.

Ok, thanks. And sorry. My mistake..

I'm sorry, what do you mean by what is? Thoughts are thoughts. It's
metaphysical, yet we can think. I am now thinking freely and this
freedom does not bind me to any physical laws.

I'm sure you will grant me that the physical you is bound by physical
laws. But your thoughts are also so bound. I do not mean that you cannot
think of situations that contradict physical laws; I mean that the
physical processes in your brain that underlie your thoughts are so
bound. If you stop breathing or eating; if all or a part of your brain
is injured; if, heaven forfend, you die, your thoughts will be affected.

If we should suffer a nearby gamma ray burst, your ability to think
freely will be most severely curtailed.

I agree. If they are not, I wouldn't be needing a physical brain.
Well, I am not arguing with this, what I'm trying to say is that
somehow the mind and brain are interconnected, and both have
influences over each other, and as separate entities.

What does "separate entities" mean? What does "mind" mean?

I believe that the "mind" emerges as an activity of the brain. It is
similar to the way that music emerges as the activity of an orchestra or
that culture or language emerge from a lot of people. But a brain and
the "mind" it creates are far more intimately bound, and much more
obviously than "somehow".


Using the placebo and nocebo effect examples. I could say that the
mind and brain are two different entities. Check this out:

[quoted from Wikipedia] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

<snip definition of placebo>

It's kinda strange that our mind have an influence over our body. You
see, while the brain attempts to preserve the body through involuntary
functions, a positive or negative thought still influences it.

Why is that strange?

And why is it that we are only limited to thinking. and moving the
outer parts of the body, while the rest occurs inside us without even
noticing it?

Because those of us who can't walk chew and bubblegum at the same time
would die when faced with the need to keep breathing and the heart
beating as well.

We have the ability to decide even if it's against logic. This freedom
is not present on any computer. Computer thinks the way it is
programmed to think (well, it's not even thinking), in humans, this is
not the case, we think what we wanted to think.

Human thinking is based on a logic, but the way were'e "wired," it isn't
formal logic but a mixture of emotions and desires and other complicated
stuff. But that's a result of the way our brains evolved and it's not
proof of nonmaterial mind.

And I am yet to find an answer as to why we're wired that way.

I'd look to humans' evolutionary history for an answer.

A logic
that has no definite pattern,

Sure, it has a pattern!

which is biological, and can criticize
its own self. It's really is complex.

I think you find it more comfortable to believe that there's some
special nonphysical entity driving your brain than to believe that the
special essence of you is an emergent property of a neural network.

Well, you're right. I have to admit that it's much easier to
understand and believe it that way. Moreover, I hate to think that
when I die, my consciousness dies with my brain. Forgive me but this
where my views differ. Though I understand what you are trying to
convey, it's a strong possibility..and I wouldn't deny it.

We'll, you're not the only one who has wondered about that.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... If it's 'secret' or driven by God it's not free will is it? ... developments in physics and neuroscience. ... Eccles's philosophy of mind: ... has shown that the mind is created by the brain... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?
    ... energy coming from the "soul" to the physical organism. ... the heart and another part of the brain. ... to the relationship of the mind and the world. ... the way to their lawyers too and I need the physics of qi to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Stating the obvious...... or a stretch
    ... phenomenalogy, which implies that machines can be as intelligent as ... human mind. ... occurring in your brain, this is not to affirm some version of identity ... reflection in the physics of our brain, and that the physics of our ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)
  • Re: consciousness
    ... The mind is the brain. ... because the other person doesn't have the same pattern detectors in their ... because of the normal laws of physics. ... and memory chips that store the picture of the car. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... Sure, if I didn't know what I know about the brain, I would have made that ... > creates an explanatory gap between the physical and mental. ... >>mind and the body, physical and mental), when in our universe, there is ... > Just as physics wants to ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)