Re: thoughts ?
On 20 Jun 2011, at 19:10, selva wrote: On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi selva, On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around him, ) ,affects his solution ? Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the answer is no. will there be different solution at different environments ? There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the situation that you are describing. 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't affect our environment..? You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a person is isolated from the environment. This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it doesn't exist at all ? It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the mechanist hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental science(s). I provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an emerging mind invariant. I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine that primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist believe the contrary. but noetic science has showed that our physical environment is affected by our thoughts. What do you mean by "noetic science". I use it in the sense of the (greek scholars): pertaining to the intellect or the mental. It is the third person describable cognitive process, and it is well described by computer science, or by the logic of provability (in the case of ideally correct machines). I think that noetic might come from the "noûs" (the divine intellect, the one played by G* in arithmetic). Now I can understand that the cognitive processes affect the physical environment (fears leads to atomic bombs, to give a trivial example, love gives rise to 'Mona Lisa', etc.). Definitely they are not doing it through our senses,not through our actions. You lost me, here. then how do they do it ?previously you mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and environment. In the situation you were describing, that is where someone is isolated from his local environment. If you are thinking to something like telekinesis, I don't believe in it. Nor do I believe it is impossible. Its existence is just an open problem, theoretically. So I am agnostic on it. If it exists, it would probably mean that the comp substitution level is much lower than what most empirical evidences suggest. I have never seen evidence for telekinesis, but I do have seen many evidences for it being debunked by a deepening of the statistics (a bit like the danger of cannabis). To be sure, I have also seen many incorrect arguments against telekinesis. They assume some high comp substitution level without making this precise, or they use some naïve notion of matter hardly compatible with comp or even the quantum data. Some weak quantum form of telekinesis are plausible, a bit like the quantum Zeno effect. But they will use interferences between superposed states (aka parallel universes). Bruno 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the solution ? As far as the local computations made by the brain are well described at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a role, no less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing (locally) its current brain state evolution. Bruno 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal human brain have computational similarities...then will they have similar response? or as they are made of different materials there would be differences in response ? It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological brain. The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on the substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
Re: thoughts ?
Two words: sharpshooter fallacy. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > On 20.06.2011 21:13 meekerdb said the following: >> >> On 6/20/2011 11:05 AM, selva wrote: >>> >>> it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and >>> not the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical >>> environment. >> >> Where are these proofs published? > > I was trying to understand what noetic science is (my first thought was no > ethic, but it happens to be wrong). Along this way I have found some strange > paper (see below). What do you think about it? > > Evgenii > > Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events > Nelson, R. D., Radin, D. I., Shoup, R., and Bancel, P. A. (2002). > Foundations of Physics Letters, 15, 6, 537-550. > http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/FoPL_nelson-pp.pdf > > The interaction of consciousness and physical systems is most often > discussed in theoretical terms, usually with reference to the > epistemological and ontological challenges of quantum theory. Less well > known is a growing literature reporting experiments that examine the > mindmatter relationship empirically. Here we describe data from a global > network of physical random number generators that shows unexpected structure > apparently associated with major world events. Arbitrary samples from the > continuous, four-year data archive meet rigorous criteria for randomness, > but pre-speci ed samples corresponding to events of broad regional or global > importance show signi cant departures of distribution parameters from > expectation. These deviations also correlate with a quantitative index of > daily news intensity. Focused analyses of data recorded on September 11, > 2001, show departures from random expectation in several statistics. > Contextual analyses indicate that these cannot be attributed to identiable > physical interactions and may be attributable to some unidenti ed > interaction associated with human consciousness. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: thoughts ?
On 6/20/2011 12:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 20.06.2011 21:13 meekerdb said the following: On 6/20/2011 11:05 AM, selva wrote: it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and not the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical environment. Where are these proofs published? I was trying to understand what noetic science is (my first thought was no ethic, but it happens to be wrong). Along this way I have found some strange paper (see below). What do you think about it? Dean Radin has been trying to find statistical evidence for the paranormal for decades. So far as I can tell his "analysis" is looking for faces in clouds. Brent Evgenii Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events Nelson, R. D., Radin, D. I., Shoup, R., and Bancel, P. A. (2002). Foundations of Physics Letters, 15, 6, 537-550. http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/FoPL_nelson-pp.pdf The interaction of consciousness and physical systems is most often discussed in theoretical terms, usually with reference to the epistemological and ontological challenges of quantum theory. Less well known is a growing literature reporting experiments that examine the mindmatter relationship empirically. Here we describe data from a global network of physical random number generators that shows unexpected structure apparently associated with major world events. Arbitrary samples from the continuous, four-year data archive meet rigorous criteria for randomness, but pre-speci ed samples corresponding to events of broad regional or global importance show signi cant departures of distribution parameters from expectation. These deviations also correlate with a quantitative index of daily news intensity. Focused analyses of data recorded on September 11, 2001, show departures from random expectation in several statistics. Contextual analyses indicate that these cannot be attributed to identiable physical interactions and may be attributable to some unidenti ed interaction associated with human consciousness. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: thoughts ?
On 20.06.2011 21:13 meekerdb said the following: On 6/20/2011 11:05 AM, selva wrote: it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and not the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical environment. Where are these proofs published? I was trying to understand what noetic science is (my first thought was no ethic, but it happens to be wrong). Along this way I have found some strange paper (see below). What do you think about it? Evgenii Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events Nelson, R. D., Radin, D. I., Shoup, R., and Bancel, P. A. (2002). Foundations of Physics Letters, 15, 6, 537-550. http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/FoPL_nelson-pp.pdf The interaction of consciousness and physical systems is most often discussed in theoretical terms, usually with reference to the epistemological and ontological challenges of quantum theory. Less well known is a growing literature reporting experiments that examine the mindmatter relationship empirically. Here we describe data from a global network of physical random number generators that shows unexpected structure apparently associated with major world events. Arbitrary samples from the continuous, four-year data archive meet rigorous criteria for randomness, but pre-speci ed samples corresponding to events of broad regional or global importance show signi cant departures of distribution parameters from expectation. These deviations also correlate with a quantitative index of daily news intensity. Focused analyses of data recorded on September 11, 2001, show departures from random expectation in several statistics. Contextual analyses indicate that these cannot be attributed to identiable physical interactions and may be attributable to some unidenti ed interaction associated with human consciousness. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: thoughts ?
On 6/20/2011 11:05 AM, selva wrote: it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and not the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical environment. Where are these proofs published? Brent "All those canes, braces and crutches, and not a single glass eye, wooden leg, or toupee!" --- Anatole France, on seeing the objects cast off by visitors to Lourdes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: thoughts ?
I don't believe per se to what is coined by "noetic science". But that the study of consciousness is primary in a computational theory of the mind, yes I do. Quentin 2011/6/20 selva > > On Jun 20, 10:57 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > It does occur when you have interaction with the environment... your mind > > obviously got feedback/input from the environment through the senses.. > .and yes it got the input and is not getting the input.we can think of > only what we have experienced.. > > so > > if no input is given, how can the mind can interract with it. > it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and not > the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical environment. > > > > And the mind act on the environment through the body. I don't know of any > > instance of deincarnate mind which would be the only way not to interract > > with the environment. > > > > Your setting which cuts off all 5 senses, obviously disconnect the mind > from > > the environment (input *and* output, because without senses how can you > feel > > your body and act with it ?) > > > > Quentin > > > > 2011/6/20 selva > > > > > > > > > by saying "it does not occur in the situation i am describing.."so it > > > does occur when our sense are present.in that case,it implies that our > > > thoughts are affecting the environment through our senses.now how is > > > that possible?senses are unidirectional. the situation i am describing > > > becomes insignificant when the converse (thoughts affecting the > > > environment )is considered > > > > > On Jun 20, 10:45 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2011/6/20 selva > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > >> Hi selva, > > > > > > > > >> On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 > senses > > > > > > >>> shut > > > > > > >>> down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. > Does > > > his > > > > > > >>> environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > > > > > > >>> him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > > > > > > > >> Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution > level, > > > the > > > > > > >> answer is no. > > > > > > > > >>> will there be different solution at different environments ? > > > > > > > > >> There is no reason. The environment can only play a role > through > > > > > > >> interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the > > > > > > >> situation > > > > > > >> that you are describing. > > > > > > > 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts > > > don't > > > > > > > affect our environment..? > > > > > > > > You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a > > > > > > person is isolated from the environment. > > > > > > This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. > > > > > > > > > in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it > > > > > > > doesn't exist at all ? > > > > > > > > It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the > > > mechanist > > > > > > hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental > science(s). I > > > > > > provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the > > > > > > noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an > emerging > > > > > > mind invariant. > > > > > > I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine > that > > > > > > primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically > > > > > > incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist > > > > > > believe the contrary. > > > > > but noetic science has showed that our physical environment is > > > > > affected by our thoughts.Definitely they are not doing it through > our > > > > > senses,not through our actions.then how do they do it ?previously > you > > > > > mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and > > > > > environment. > > > > > > It seems to me that he said "but this will not occur **in the > situation > > > that > > > > you are describing**. > > > > > > Not that it does not occur. > > > > > > Quentin > > > > > > > > > 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect > the > > > > > > > solution ? > > > > > > > > As far as the local computations made by the brain are well > described > > > > > > at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a > role, no > > > > > > less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing > (locally) > > > > > > its current brain state evolution. > > > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > >>> 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to > normal > > > > > > >>> brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a > normal > > > > > > >>> human brain have computational similarities...then will they > have > > > > > > >>> similar response? or as they are made o
Re: thoughts ?
On Jun 20, 10:57 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > It does occur when you have interaction with the environment... your mind > obviously got feedback/input from the environment through the senses.. .and yes it got the input and is not getting the input.we can think of only what we have experienced.. > so > if no input is given, how can the mind can interract with it. it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and not the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical environment. > And the mind act on the environment through the body. I don't know of any > instance of deincarnate mind which would be the only way not to interract > with the environment. > > Your setting which cuts off all 5 senses, obviously disconnect the mind from > the environment (input *and* output, because without senses how can you feel > your body and act with it ?) > > Quentin > > 2011/6/20 selva > > > > > by saying "it does not occur in the situation i am describing.."so it > > does occur when our sense are present.in that case,it implies that our > > thoughts are affecting the environment through our senses.now how is > > that possible?senses are unidirectional. the situation i am describing > > becomes insignificant when the converse (thoughts affecting the > > environment )is considered > > > On Jun 20, 10:45 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2011/6/20 selva > > > > > On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > >> Hi selva, > > > > > > >> On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > > > > > >>> 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses > > > > > >>> shut > > > > > >>> down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does > > his > > > > > >>> environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > > > > > >>> him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > > > > > >> Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, > > the > > > > > >> answer is no. > > > > > > >>> will there be different solution at different environments ? > > > > > > >> There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through > > > > > >> interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the > > > > > >> situation > > > > > >> that you are describing. > > > > > > 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts > > don't > > > > > > affect our environment..? > > > > > > You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a > > > > > person is isolated from the environment. > > > > > This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. > > > > > > > in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it > > > > > > doesn't exist at all ? > > > > > > It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the > > mechanist > > > > > hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental science(s). I > > > > > provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the > > > > > noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an emerging > > > > > mind invariant. > > > > > I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine that > > > > > primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically > > > > > incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist > > > > > believe the contrary. > > > > but noetic science has showed that our physical environment is > > > > affected by our thoughts.Definitely they are not doing it through our > > > > senses,not through our actions.then how do they do it ?previously you > > > > mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and > > > > environment. > > > > It seems to me that he said "but this will not occur **in the situation > > that > > > you are describing**. > > > > Not that it does not occur. > > > > Quentin > > > > > > > 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the > > > > > > solution ? > > > > > > As far as the local computations made by the brain are well described > > > > > at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a role, no > > > > > less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing (locally) > > > > > its current brain state evolution. > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > >>> 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal > > > > > >>> brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal > > > > > >>> human brain have computational similarities...then will they have > > > > > >>> similar response? or as they are made of different materials > > there > > > > > >>> would be differences in response ? > > > > > > >> It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of > > the > > > > > >> substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the > > > > > >> existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. > > If > > > > > >> the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your > > > > > >> "generalized brain", an
Re: thoughts ?
It does occur when you have interaction with the environment... your mind obviously got feedback/input from the environment through the senses... so if no input is given, how can the mind can interract with it. And the mind act on the environment through the body. I don't know of any instance of deincarnate mind which would be the only way not to interract with the environment. Your setting which cuts off all 5 senses, obviously disconnect the mind from the environment (input *and* output, because without senses how can you feel your body and act with it ?) Quentin 2011/6/20 selva > by saying "it does not occur in the situation i am describing.."so it > does occur when our sense are present.in that case,it implies that our > thoughts are affecting the environment through our senses.now how is > that possible?senses are unidirectional. the situation i am describing > becomes insignificant when the converse (thoughts affecting the > environment )is considered > > On Jun 20, 10:45 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2011/6/20 selva > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > >> Hi selva, > > > > > > >> On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > > > > > >>> 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses > > > > >>> shut > > > > >>> down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does > his > > > > >>> environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > > > > >>> him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > > > > > >> Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, > the > > > > >> answer is no. > > > > > > >>> will there be different solution at different environments ? > > > > > > >> There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through > > > > >> interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the > > > > >> situation > > > > >> that you are describing. > > > > > 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts > don't > > > > > affect our environment..? > > > > > > You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a > > > > person is isolated from the environment. > > > > This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. > > > > > > > in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it > > > > > doesn't exist at all ? > > > > > > It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the > mechanist > > > > hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental science(s). I > > > > provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the > > > > noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an emerging > > > > mind invariant. > > > > I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine that > > > > primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically > > > > incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist > > > > believe the contrary. > > > but noetic science has showed that our physical environment is > > > affected by our thoughts.Definitely they are not doing it through our > > > senses,not through our actions.then how do they do it ?previously you > > > mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and > > > environment. > > > > It seems to me that he said "but this will not occur **in the situation > that > > you are describing**. > > > > Not that it does not occur. > > > > Quentin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the > > > > > solution ? > > > > > > As far as the local computations made by the brain are well described > > > > at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a role, no > > > > less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing (locally) > > > > its current brain state evolution. > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > >>> 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal > > > > >>> brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal > > > > >>> human brain have computational similarities...then will they have > > > > >>> similar response? or as they are made of different materials > there > > > > >>> would be differences in response ? > > > > > > >> It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of > the > > > > >> substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the > > > > >> existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. > If > > > > >> the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your > > > > >> "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to > > > > >> describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most > neurophilosophers > > > > >> and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the > biological > > > > >> brain. > > > > > > >> The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on > > > > >> the > > > > >> substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a > lev
Re: thoughts ?
by saying "it does not occur in the situation i am describing.."so it does occur when our sense are present.in that case,it implies that our thoughts are affecting the environment through our senses.now how is that possible?senses are unidirectional. the situation i am describing becomes insignificant when the converse (thoughts affecting the environment )is considered On Jun 20, 10:45 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/6/20 selva > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >> Hi selva, > > > > >> On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > > > >>> 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses > > > >>> shut > > > >>> down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his > > > >>> environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > > > >>> him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > > > >> Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the > > > >> answer is no. > > > > >>> will there be different solution at different environments ? > > > > >> There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through > > > >> interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the > > > >> situation > > > >> that you are describing. > > > > 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't > > > > affect our environment..? > > > > You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a > > > person is isolated from the environment. > > > This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. > > > > > in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it > > > > doesn't exist at all ? > > > > It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the mechanist > > > hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental science(s). I > > > provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the > > > noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an emerging > > > mind invariant. > > > I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine that > > > primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically > > > incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist > > > believe the contrary. > > but noetic science has showed that our physical environment is > > affected by our thoughts.Definitely they are not doing it through our > > senses,not through our actions.then how do they do it ?previously you > > mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and > > environment. > > It seems to me that he said "but this will not occur **in the situation that > you are describing**. > > Not that it does not occur. > > Quentin > > > > > > > > > 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the > > > > solution ? > > > > As far as the local computations made by the brain are well described > > > at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a role, no > > > less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing (locally) > > > its current brain state evolution. > > > > Bruno > > > > >>> 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal > > > >>> brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal > > > >>> human brain have computational similarities...then will they have > > > >>> similar response? or as they are made of different materials there > > > >>> would be differences in response ? > > > > >> It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the > > > >> substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the > > > >> existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If > > > >> the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your > > > >> "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to > > > >> describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers > > > >> and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological > > > >> brain. > > > > >> The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on > > > >> the > > > >> substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. > > > > >> Bruno > > > > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > > > . > > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googl
Re: thoughts ?
2011/6/20 selva > > > On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> Hi selva, > > > > >> On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > > > >>> 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses > > >>> shut > > >>> down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his > > >>> environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > > >>> him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > > > >> Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the > > >> answer is no. > > > > >>> will there be different solution at different environments ? > > > > >> There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through > > >> interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the > > >> situation > > >> that you are describing. > > > 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't > > > affect our environment..? > > > > You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a > > person is isolated from the environment. > > This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. > > > > > in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it > > > doesn't exist at all ? > > > > It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the mechanist > > hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental science(s). I > > provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the > > noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an emerging > > mind invariant. > > I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine that > > primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically > > incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist > > believe the contrary. > but noetic science has showed that our physical environment is > affected by our thoughts.Definitely they are not doing it through our > senses,not through our actions.then how do they do it ?previously you > mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and > environment. > It seems to me that he said "but this will not occur **in the situation that you are describing**. Not that it does not occur. Quentin > > > > > 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the > > > solution ? > > > > As far as the local computations made by the brain are well described > > at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a role, no > > less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing (locally) > > its current brain state evolution. > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal > > >>> brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal > > >>> human brain have computational similarities...then will they have > > >>> similar response? or as they are made of different materials there > > >>> would be differences in response ? > > > > >> It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the > > >> substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the > > >> existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If > > >> the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your > > >> "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to > > >> describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers > > >> and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological > > >> brain. > > > > >> The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on > > >> the > > >> substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. > > > > >> Bruno > > > > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > > . > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-
Re: thoughts ?
On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Hi selva, > > >> On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > >>> 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses > >>> shut > >>> down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his > >>> environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > >>> him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > >> Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the > >> answer is no. > > >>> will there be different solution at different environments ? > > >> There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through > >> interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the > >> situation > >> that you are describing. > > 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't > > affect our environment..? > > You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a > person is isolated from the environment. > This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. > > > in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it > > doesn't exist at all ? > > It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the mechanist > hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental science(s). I > provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the > noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an emerging > mind invariant. > I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine that > primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically > incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist > believe the contrary. but noetic science has showed that our physical environment is affected by our thoughts.Definitely they are not doing it through our senses,not through our actions.then how do they do it ?previously you mentioned that there is no interference between our mind and environment. > > > 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the > > solution ? > > As far as the local computations made by the brain are well described > at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a role, no > less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing (locally) > its current brain state evolution. > > Bruno > > > > > > >>> 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal > >>> brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal > >>> human brain have computational similarities...then will they have > >>> similar response? or as they are made of different materials there > >>> would be differences in response ? > > >> It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the > >> substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the > >> existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If > >> the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your > >> "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to > >> describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers > >> and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological > >> brain. > > >> The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on > >> the > >> substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. > > >> Bruno > > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: thoughts ?
On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:35, selva wrote: On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi selva, On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around him, ) ,affects his solution ? Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the answer is no. will there be different solution at different environments ? There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the situation that you are describing. 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't affect our environment..? You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a person is isolated from the environment. This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something. in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it doesn't exist at all ? It exists, and is fundamental. I argue that if we accept the mechanist hypothesis, then the noetic constitutes the fundamental science(s). I provide the math from extracting both quanta and qualia from the noetic. Physics continue to exist, but is a a study of an emerging mind invariant. I remind that materialism (even weak materialism: the doctrine that primitive or primary (aristotelian) matter exists is logically incompatible with Occam and Mechanism, despite many materialist believe the contrary. 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the solution ? As far as the local computations made by the brain are well described at the level of particles interactions, gravity is playing a role, no less than electromagnetism or any other forces describing (locally) its current brain state evolution. Bruno 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal human brain have computational similarities...then will they have similar response? or as they are made of different materials there would be differences in response ? It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological brain. The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on the substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: thoughts ?
It is interesting to note that the human psyche will break if cut off from any sensory stimuli for more than about 48 hours. I don't believe this is due to some philosophical need for a mind to be connected to its environment, however, rather I would guess it is due to the design of the neurons or the programming of the brain which make the human mind dependent on input to keep its other processes going. If one made an accurate model of the human brain and ran it on the computer you should get the same result if you never fed it any input. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alfred-w-mccoy/confronting-the-cias-mind_b_212722.html This secret research produced two discoveries central to the CIA's more recent psychological paradigm. In classified experiments, famed Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb found that he could induce a state akin to drug-induced hallucinations and psychosis in just 48 hours -- without drugs, hypnosis, or electric shock. Instead, for two days student volunteers at McGill University simply sat in a comfortable cubicle deprived of sensory stimulation by goggles, gloves, and earmuffs. "It scared the hell out of us," Hebb said later, "to see how completely dependent the mind is on a close connection with the ordinary sensory environment, and how disorganizing to be cut off from that support." Jason On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM, selva wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi selva, > > > > On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > > > > > > > > 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut > > > down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his > > > environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > > > him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > > > Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the > > answer is no. > > > > > will there be different solution at different environments ? > > > > There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through > > interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the situation > > that you are describing. > 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't > affect our environment..? > in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it > doesn't exist at all ? > 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the > solution ? > > > > > 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal > > > brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal > > > human brain have computational similarities...then will they have > > > similar response? or as they are made of different materials there > > > would be differences in response ? > > > > It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the > > substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the > > existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If > > the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your > > "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to > > describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers > > and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological > > brain. > > > > The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on the > > substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. > > > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: thoughts ?
On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi selva, > > On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: > > > > > 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut > > down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his > > environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around > > him, ) ,affects his solution ? > > Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the > answer is no. > > > will there be different solution at different environments ? > > There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through > interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the situation > that you are describing. 1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't affect our environment..? in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it doesn't exist at all ? 2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the solution ? > > > 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal > > brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal > > human brain have computational similarities...then will they have > > similar response? or as they are made of different materials there > > would be differences in response ? > > It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the > substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the > existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If > the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your > "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to > describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers > and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological > brain. > > The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on the > substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: thoughts ?
Hi selva, On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote: 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around him, ) ,affects his solution ? Assuming mechanism, and some relatively high substitution level, the answer is no. will there be different solution at different environments ? There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the situation that you are describing. 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal human brain have computational similarities...then will they have similar response? or as they are made of different materials there would be differences in response ? It really depends on the mechanist assumption and the choice of the substitution level. The mechanist assumption just assumes the existence of a substitution level where you are Turing emulable. If the level is very low, the "environment" might be a part of your "generalized brain", and it is logically possible that you have to describe it at the Planck scale or below, but most neurophilosophers and physician believe that the generalized brain *is* the biological brain. The 'reversal consequence' of Digital Mechanism does not depend on the substitution level. It depends only on the existence of such a level. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: thoughts ?
-Original Message- From: selva Sent: June 17, 2011 3:10 PM To: Everything List Subject: thoughts ? hi everyone, 1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around him, ) ,affects his solution ? will there be different solution at different environments ? 2.consider an artificial brain fed with signals similar to normal brain and (for arguments sake )this artificial brain and a normal human brain have computational similarities...then will they have similar response? or as they are made of different materials there would be differences in response ? thank you all -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
