Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 01:13pm PT
|
Perhaps we are dark energy or something else science has failed to observe . Perhaps the "ghost in the machine" is real.
My favorite hypothesis which is admittedly VERY weak is that "we" or "i" is something real but not made of anything science has yet discovered. Something that does interacts back and forth with matter as we know it but in ways so far undetected or measured.
So far that is the only explanation that seems to fit my experience.
Pretty useless and unprovable at this time unfortunately. Easy to consider it a desperate reach towards some sort of religion or immortality. I don't mean it that way at all ..I just think we are missing something fundamental because nothing so far explains well to me the reality that there is a "me" experiencing stuff right now.
That how we perceive is affected by our physical bodies is an obvious reality. that this perception can be modified greatly. That this in turn has come about via evolutionary principles that constrain us to useful survival behaviors and input data is all quite reasonable.
While these things affect what I perceive they don't seem to affect my experience identity. I still recognize myself as me. I am still experiencing each moment.
What the heck is this me? Still the biggest question I have after decades.
An odd thing about it.. there are periods of time that quite apparently existed.. such as before I was born (actually seems to me like quite some time after I was born) or when I was dreamlessly asleep sometimes and when I have been under surgery.. the universe apparently exists sometimes without me. The me that exists does not seem exist at all times that the physical universe exists.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 02:42pm PT
|
I too am of the Dennett Camp (a) when it comes to understanding volition, agency and moral responsibility and their inter-relationships; and (b) when it comes to being a member of the Moral Agent Club. There's no better alternative, it seems to me. Over time we can hope and strive to optimize it. Moreover, we can teach our offspring it's the rules of the game, like it or not, for better or worse, and to make it known it is their choice in the end whether to play along and in what style or manner.
"I don't think we have to change a lot of laws. We should certainly change our whole system of punishment. It is, as I say, obscene." -Dan Dennett
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 06:39pm PT
|
science is just science.. To say believing in verifiable facts is religion.. well that seems kinda disrespectful to religion.
I suppose some folks get their knickers in a bunch about it kinda like some folks do with religion or for that matter many strongly held opinions. Some people do overstate the completeness of sciences body of knowledge or its limits regarding types of inquiry.
As for creation and history of the universe.. science has a verifiable narrative. Still plenty of questions too.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 07:31pm PT
|
feralfae
I offer this for consideration:
Quantum mechanics explains efficiency of photosynthesis
which appeared earlier this year in Nature Communications
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140109/ncomms4012/full/ncomms4012.html
The paper does a calculation on a model system built to represent the essential mechanism of photosynthesis and then shows that a type of non-equilibrium dynamics can explain features of photosynthesis that have remained puzzling.
"What is clear is that exciton energy transport depends not only on the topology of electronic couplings among pigments but is critically determined by exciton–phonon interactions: molecular motions14 and environmental fluctuations14, 15, 16 drive efficient transport processes in light-harvesting antennae. In fact, it is well known that exciton–phonon interactions in these complexes have a rich structure as a function of energy and generally include coupling to both continuous and discrete modes associated to low-energy solvated protein fluctuations and underdamped intramolecular vibrations, respectively14. Moreover, evidence is mounting that the interaction between excitons and underdamped vibrations whose energies commensurate exciton splittings may be at the heart of the coherence beating probed in two-dimensional (2D) photon echo spectroscopy17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Although some insights into the importance of such resonances can be gained from Förster theory24, the wider implications for optimal spatio-temporal distribution of energy19, 25, 26, for modulation of exciton coherences19, 20, 21, 22 and for collective pigment motion dynamics23 have just recently started to be clarified."
It is quite possible that this model has some validity, and it goes on to propose a way of measuring it:
"These non-trivial quantum phenomena are predicted for a variety of initial excitation conditions including statistical mixtures of excitons indicating that such non-classicality can be activated even under incoherent input of photoexcitations. Transient coherent ultrafast phonon spectroscopy29, which is sensitive to low-phonon populations of high-energy vibrations30, may provide an interesting experimental approach to probe the phenomena we describe."
and the generalization of the idea:
"We have also illustrated how in our prototype dimer with biologically relevant parameters, exciton–vibration dynamics can lead to non-exponential excitonic energy distribution whereby dissipation into a low-energy thermal bath can be transiently prevented. From this view, coherent vibrational motions that do not relax quickly and whose fluctuations cannot be described classically may be seen as an internal quantum mechanism controlling energy distribution and storage. Further insights into the advantage of these non-trivial quantum behaviour may therefore be gained in a thermodynamic framework62, 67."
which is a way to overcome the objection that I had voiced above.
How this relates to mind would be why we would consider such an article, accepting the physical manifestation of "mind" to be related to the physical mechanism of the brain, which I take as a totally reasonable hypothesis.
The article is very specific about the types of bio-chemical structures for which these quantum effects might appear. But importantly, the work is based on various experimental findings on photosynthesis, similar work does not yet exist for the brain.
The physics we don't know about that would explain "life" is very likely to be along this line of research to understand non-equilibrium, finite temperature systems. We don't yet understand these systems, and by understand I mean we are not able to calculate the behavior of these systems and predict the outcome of observation and experimental measurement.
And in this thread, we (the participants) are a long way from even agreeing that "mind" could be so explained. Invoking an apparently mystical phenomenon like quantum mechanics to provide another mystical phenomenon, like "mind", side steps all the hard work that has to be done to makes it relevant.
...over 100 years of research on this important biological process still has us searching for a complete explanation of what is going on...
It would be nice if the paper cited above provided the final pieces. We'll see.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 07:38pm PT
|
Ward,
I like.
Your language is a bit erudite and stifled, but what you say sometimes strikes home.
(Why are you picking on Mr. Obama?)
HFCS: Really, how could the dots be any closer?
Probabilities? Is this your argument? Are you about to argue for “likelihood”?
. . . you should at least be able to see that there is a narrative there, one based in fact, . . .
Could you show me one of those, without a theory or a model or an abstraction underlying it?
Any of you? Please?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:42pm PT
|
can anyone take a crack at analogizing what Ed posted for us dummies? the photosynthesis stuff that is.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:15pm PT
|
Moosedrool:
I hold people responsible for their actions, but I don't think it's their fault. Which in turn, means, we should educate rather than punish.
Isn't it possible that in some cases education would not work? What then?
When people do something good, do you give them credit? Or do you educate them?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 10:23pm PT
|
um...yeah. got that part all by my lil ole self.
i was hoping a physicist would explain the science for us mere mortals.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 11:45pm PT
|
Sounds to me like Ed is saying that recent developments in quantum mechanics have shed light on aspects of the process of photosynthesis, and perhaps similar developments could do so for the brain as well.
actually, feralfae referred to the article as an counter argument to my skepticism that quantum mechanics provides the "randomness" that has been proposed here as a possible explanation of "free will."
While we can say that it is self evident that there is a "physical theory of the mind," it is quite another thing to come up with it. This extends to a physical theory of life, also... to those who would protest I would simply ask that they provide the theory, this is just the question Largo has asked, and it is a legitimate question.
The paper addresses the issues which are probably important, but I do not have the time to give the paper a thorough reading to see if it actually accomplishes what it set out to do.
But our current science does not adequately describe important details, which is what science is all about. Failing to do so, one cannot yet claim that there is a physical theory.
Arguing that there must be a physical theory is a philosophical issue, not a scientific issue. Science will continue whether or not the philosophers can agree what it is that science is and what it is that it does.
One might consider whether or not "randomness" gets you where you want to be in terms of free will. If your action is ultimately determined by the "roll of the dice" you can't claim absolute responsibility for the intent.
Let's say the mind is some quantum device where the "ideas" are superpositions of various quantum states. You encounter a situation where you have two choices, but the quantum mechanics that would make the action non-deterministic would have those two choices "entangled." The action forces the intent into one or the other choice, but you don't have any way of determining which it is going to be...
...how could you claim "free will"?
So, why does this "randomness" help with your argument of having "free will"?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 02:03am PT
|
if by theory of life you mean how life first evolved from inanimate molecules - no, we dont have a complete theory, but science is closing in one one. if one starts with the definition of life - a multi criteria description of bioligical systems, one must describe the steps by which these criteria were first satisfied on early earth given the materials at hand and the environment. how were life's first containers constructed? how was genetic information first stored, replicated, and shuffled? what was its energy source?
then, we need to create the story of how those first biological systems evolved to create the components shared by all life today.
does this story have multiple possible beginnings and trajectories? a discovery of life on, say, Europa would indicate a yes.
its a fantastically complex business and, in the end, we'll have experiments and simulations for plausibility, and the ability to create life from our version if scratch, but we'll never be able to go back in time, or have the time necessary for a more complete verification.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 02:06am PT
|
im still interested in deciphering the role quantum mechanics plays in photosynthesis, btw, but the language presented is far too dense for my paygrade to even get a toe hold.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 02:13am PT
|
as for our choices, we do know that the mind creates lists of options from which we choose by some scoring system - much like any AI system (or killer robot from the future) does. complex and dynamic, but mysterious and inscrutable?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 07:01am PT
|
I'm curious does randomness help with problem solving? Seems like a game theory type question. Anyway..Whether a decision is random or not does not quite equate to free will.
Where I was coming from is that from an observational point of view if a structure Allowed for randomness it might be something that instead allows for free will. But that still requires a "ghost in the machine". Ghost in the machine is about as unscientific as "god". Requiring reliance on some imagined but so far unknown unobserved characteristic of the universe.
Free will seems hard to define even if it feels like we know what we mean. One semi satisfactory way to do it is to simply define it as the experience of feeling like we have a choice. The widespread common impression that we have of being able to choose (whether or not we actually do) has been found to be important in psychological studies. Negative behaviors are shown to quickly arise when people lose belief in it.
Seems like real chicken or the egg stuff. I get the impression I am looking at things the wrong way .. kinda like a new physics student usually does.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 07:52am PT
|
I think the point is that there is no free will...
the difficulty (an impossibility) is to twist things around so that you can argue that there is.
on a physical theory of life, the major problem is that life is a meta-stable phenomenon. This isn't unusual, but such things aren't usually so robust. The history of life on Earth indicates that it has been going for about 3.4 billion years.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 08:07am PT
|
One has the free will to run a stop sign when there's no one around at 1 am in the morning on an rural road.
Stop sign means stop at all times.
One has the independent free will to go against any rule, law, any so called enforcement, any govt. and anything created by man including God himself.
One never has complete absolute free will, only limited free will, just as every living entity is limited in all opulances.
Thinking there's no free will is completely unscientific and just plain guessing and pure mental speculation due to poor fund of knowledge of to the true origins of ones own self ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 08:14am PT
|
NASA the most advanced research center in the world for cutting edge technology has discovered that Sanskrit, the world’s oldest spiritual language is the only unambiguous spoken language on the planet.
Considering Sanskrit’s status as a spiritual language, a further implication of this discovery is that the age old dichotomy between religion and science is an entirely unjustified one.
It is also relevant to note that in the last decade physicists have begun to comment on the striking similarities between their own discoveries and the discoveries made thousands of years ago in India which went on to form the basis of most Eastern religions.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 09:26am PT
|
My long post magically or randomly disappeared as I was typing. I am not blaming that on poltergeists or G*d, however.
But I wanted to make a couple of comments:
What we see today as randomness may yield up its patterns or structures to our observations when we are able to better comprehend its character, much as the study of fractals has yielded up patterns heretofore unrecognized, although existing;
QM, or its derivative, may have more variability in its expression than we presently comprehend, and may be a part of a pattern or structure related to the creation of existence. I do not know. I think about this sometimes, but it seems to me that while QM may anticipate some interface between consciousness and brain, which we have yet to identify, it may not be the ultimate, or even penultimate, structure or pattern identifying that interface;
Being in the same sentiment camp with Einstein, Jefferson, and Aquinas on this question, I have no problem seeing the orderliness of the Universe as proof of the existence of some Creator. Because it is convenient in western society, we call this G*d, but you could call it the Guy in the Sky, and it will not change the perception. We discover more and more frequently that what we once perceived as randomness (or the actions of some angry god) are beautifully and elegantly integrated parts of a larger system. None of this do I understand well. Most of it I understand very poorly, but I admire the Artist;
I remain concerned with the question of efficacy with respect to brain activity. While we can sincerely and somewhat effectively describe the process of vision, we have little comprehension of the decision-making process which causes one individual to prefer to look at clouds, another to prefer to look at rocks, and yet a third to prefer to look at handsome men. We are each incredibly unique at one level, and yet incredibly alike in many ways. Yet I think there is a relationship between the choices we make, our imagination, and what we call free will, even if our perception of our efficacy is perhaps illusory. (I will search for a good definition, but tend to think of free will as the exercise of a sense of efficacy in the face of situations and choices—that we have the ability to make choices to save ourselves from a burning building, or to choose to exercise or not exercise our bodies, or to choose this mate or someone else);
We are beginning to see how trauma can cause actual physical changes in the human brain. And how to fix it. This is a relatively new field, one where chemical intervention has worked poorly compared to compassionate intervention by other humans. And this contrast in intervention protocols has been measured scientifically. Is there an accounting for cultural evolutionary shifts within the mechanistic model? Is it possible that globally shared information is shifting the evolutionary model to one of more conscious intervention in what were heretofore considered random acts and outcomes (among humans) with little if any remediation?
I am working on formulating a question, which will probably end up as a synthesis of some of the following questions: Is there a factor in the brain's processing of data that is unaccounted for by (known) (mechanistic) evolutionary considerations? Can this factor's existence be demonstrated through replicable experiments? How can it be determined that this factor does or does not have an evolutionary basis? Is evolution limited to physical shifts in the organism?
And where, if anywhere, does the issue free will fit into this discussion? To think about this, I may need to narrow the corridor of thought down to a question of free will about some specific. Obviously, we have little free will concerning all that is outside of our control, but we may have free will to choose to look at clouds or rocks, or even handsome men. If we define free will as the ability to make choices when choices are available, perhaps we begin to approach a working definition of free will. And as one physicist once asked me, "Does it matter?"
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 10:50am PT
|
To say that science might one day make sense of it all just doesn't work for me.
Science is a way to answer certain kinds of questions. It is up to you to make sense of as much or as little of your world as you are motivated to. Once you have left formal education behind you, I guess. I cannot see why someone would want to make sense of everything but if you manage to, please help me with my income taxes.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 10:52am PT
|
Science IS the only method that actually reveals the truth.
But if you don't do the science correctly then the true results are never revealed .....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!